The epic size of this game alone makes it great! Unfortunately when the first editons came out I missed them. When second editon came out I bought one first edition Pac 40 when they dropped in price. I then bought two Europe and one Pacific second edition copies.
I have the 1999 and 2001 editions I had always wanted to combine the two and make a sort of “Frankenstein” version of Global. LOL!
Anyways, every edition of A&A has things that make it great but G40 is truely the ultimate version.
I then bought two Europe and one Pacific second edition copies. I have the 1999 and 2001 editions I had always wanted to combine the two and make a sort of “Frankenstein” version of Global. LOL!
Many years ago, I was looking up A&A variants on the Internet and I found a graphic for some kind of connector map that supposedly allowed the original Europe and Pacific games to be linked. I say “supposedly” because the map was rather bizarre and it didn’t look as if it would do the job properly. I think it basically just provided possible transition points to get from one map to the next rather than an actual bridge to link them side-by-side.
Anyway, I agree that Global 1940 is the top A&A game. In addition to the reasons already given:
It provides the largest number of player countries of any A&A game, all with their own distinct infantry sculpts, including the first and only appearance thus far of France.
It provides unit types (tac bombers and mec infantry) found in no other A&A game.
The 2nd edition of Global 1940 is the record-holder for equipment sculpt design diversity, notably in the case of ANZAC and Italy getting their own distinct designs for every unit and all countries getting proper AAA guns.
The board is the largest A&A map ever published.
The Europe and Pacific maps line up with each other when you set them side by side in the intended way, and they wrap around conceptually (though not physically, due to scale differences) when you go off the left and right edges of the combined board.
I mentioned that the 2nd edition beats the 1st in terms of sculpts, but as far as the maps go I prefer the one from the 1st edition. The 2nd edition map has an income-tracking chart across the top which, in my opinion, spoils its good looks, and in the 2nd edition of Pacific the Canadian roundels which were present in the 1st edition have been deleted. On the other hand, the 2nd edition rulebooks are an improvement, since both the Europe and Pacific rulebooks now include the Global rules and the unit identification chart (rather than just being in the Europe rulebook, which was the case in the 1st edition).
chocolatepancake, emptysuite, toblerone77, and cwomarc thanks for the great reasons that i missed.
i have edited my original post to include the ones i missed.
4. better pricing of units. reducing the cost of naval and air units has led to a greater variety of units being purchased.
I still believe that some naval units still need to be cheaper in order to be cost effective(rarely a good reason to buy bbs/cruisers).
i agree that both need to be fixed, i am going to create a thread similar to this one with all the things i think could be improved upon. but in general the pricing of the units is pretty good.
8. facilities add a lot of strategy. the cost to benefit is great. having facilities helps drive action to otherwise less valuable territories.
Some people still don’t like the movement bonuses.
why do they not like the facilities?
i think it adds plenty of additional strategy.
9. national objectives add mini in game objectives that add strategy and can encourage play to areas of the map that otherwise would be ignored.
I see only 2(maybe 3) areas that would of been ignored if it was not for objectives.
there are many NO’s that are poor and i will post on another thread what i think can be improved. but in general the NO’s are fun.
all of the below objectives effect how me and my opponents play.
� 5 IPCs if an Axis power controls Caucasus. Theme: Control of vital Soviet oil production.
� 5 IPCs if at least 1 German land unit is in Axis-controlled Egypt. Theme: Gateway to the Middle East oilfields (high
propaganda value).
� 5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neither pro-Allies nor Allies-controlled.
Theme: Access to iron ore and other strategic resources.
� 2 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia. Theme: Access to strategic oil
reserves.
� 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and
there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet
Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
� 3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls. Theme:
Propaganda value and spread of communism.
� 5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes. Theme: Strategic resource centers.
� 5 IPCs if the United States controls Philippines. Theme: Center of American influence in Asia.
� 6 IPCs if the Burma Road is totally open. Allied powers must control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan for
this to occur. China is also permitted to purchase artillery (represented by U.S. pieces) if the Burma Road is open.
Theme: Chinese military supply line corridor.
� 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls all of its original territories in its European economy (see page 34). Theme:
Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.
� 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya. Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered
vital national objective.
� 5 IPCs if there are no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean sea (sea zones 92 through 99). Theme:
Propaganda and strategic advantage.
� 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least 3 of the following territories: Gibraltar, Southern France, Greece, and Egypt.
Theme: Stated national objectives�Greater Roman Empire.
39
� 5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and
Alexandria. Theme: Stated North African military objectives.
� 2 IPCs per territory if Italy controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia. Theme: Access to strategic oil reserves.
� 5 IPCs if an Allied power controls Malaya and ANZAC controls all of its original territories. Theme: Malaya
considered strategic cornerstone to Far East British Empire.
� 5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the
Solomon Islands. Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.
I was referring specifically to potentially IGNORED areas.
Best version in my mind and then theres always something like Oztea’s 41 version I think you could do a 39 version if you wanted to
It also makes a good social club
I agree that BBs and Cruisers (CA or CL? Which one do you use for Cruisers?) are rarely purchased, but look at how they were in the real war. Very few countries built battleships during the war, most people just used the ones they already had because they realized that they were way too expensive. Carriers, DDs and Subs were way more cost effective. Karl Donitz of the German Navy claimed that with the money spent on Bismarck and Tirpitz, Germany could have bought 1,000 U-Boats! That would have been a sure German victory since the behemoths did effectively nothing (except sink HMS Hood, of course) and the few subs they had were very successful. I agree it would be more fun with more battleships, but it’s not something I have a problem with because it’s historically accurate to only have a few on the board.
One thing I love about the fleets in this game is how their presence affects people even if you never use the ships in combat. It becomes a huge chess match, involving many turns of building up and setting up your fleets, and if both sides are doing it well, it often takes a long time to have a confrontation because they are so even, nobody wants to risk it. It makes the climactic battle much more exciting!
Something I love about this game is the representation of the American economy. The rest of the AA variants (old Pac excluded), US makes a bit more than Germany! Global finally reflects the impact we had on the war.
You are right. In so many games they are soon overtaken economically by both Germany and Japan, which is silly.
I do wish the pre war income was less and the at war bonus was larger though.
@wittmann:
You are right. In so many games they are soon overtaken economically by both Germany and Japan, which is silly.
Particularly in 1914. An income of 20? For most of the game?
Hey guys,
I love G40 as much as the next guy, but I do have a couple of problems with it…
1. Time, it takes up to 6 hours to play the game, realistically, and that can be hard to crank out in an day.
2. Players, it it great to play G40 with more players (and it’s pretty sweet to have them) but trying to convince 5 guys to play one game for a whole afternoon isn’t easy.
3. Money, in G40 there is so much money poured into each economy that one power rarely can’t replace their losses. This leads to games that can go up to 20 turns! Don’t get me wrong I like the things you can do in G40 but it seems to get ridiculous.
I do like Global, and I think it is th best game, but in terms of playing, I like the shorter ones, but just my 2 cents…
Thanks,
“Time, it takes up to 6 hours to play the game,”
You play fast.
I was a big player of the original axis and allies game which i played with my group of friends on several occasions and the one thing that my friends and i enjoy is scale. We used to love playing risk as kids and when my one buddy played the original axis and allies and told us about it we jumped at it and loved it. i cannot describe to you the excitement that I got from finding out that there was an axis and allies board of this magnitude that makes my pool table the only viable playing surface. This game just looks epic every-time i start setting it up for my friends to come over and i just can stare at it for hours and make sense of all the strategies i have seen on the forums. Sure it takes half a day to fully finish a game but that is the fun of it! What else can you honestly use as an excuse for having your buddies come over and spend practically the entire weekend in your basement?.. And yeah cruisers cost a bit too much, America making 50 some ipc’s off the bat is a tad ridiculous, and Spain is somehow the size of Australia, but you know what?.. I love this game, i have loved it, and i will continue loving it because it is awesome and i can change the cost of cruisers and starting ipc’s and laugh its geographical inaccuracies because this game isn’t perfect and nobody expected it to be. But it makes me happy and thankful of my purchase everyday, and that’s why Global 1940 is awesome
Totally AGREE!
I was a big player of the original axis and allies game which i played with my group of friends on several occasions and the one thing that my friends and i enjoy is scale. We used to love playing risk as kids and when my one buddy played the original axis and allies and told us about it we jumped at it and loved it. i cannot describe to you the excitement that I got from finding out that there was an axis and allies board of this magnitude that makes my pool table the only viable playing surface. This game just looks epic every-time i start setting it up for my friends to come over and i just can stare at it for hours and make sense of all the strategies i have seen on the forums. Sure it takes half a day to fully finish a game but that is the fun of it! What else can you honestly use as an excuse for having your buddies come over and spend practically the entire weekend in your basement?.. And yeah cruisers cost a bit too much, America making 50 some ipc’s off the bat is a tad ridiculous, and Spain is somehow the size of Australia, but you know what?.. I love this game, i have loved it, and i will continue loving it because it is awesome and i can change the cost of cruisers and starting ipc’s and laugh its geographical inaccuracies because this game isn’t perfect and nobody expected it to be. But it makes me happy and thankful of my purchase everyday, and that’s why Global 1940 is awesome
Makes me want to play with you :)
@wittmann:
You are right. In so many games they are soon overtaken economically by both Germany and Japan, which is silly.
Particularly in 1914. An income of 20? For most of the game?
i was thinking more of 1942 and 1940.
I am not as concerned in 1914, as I thought the US did not invest as much in WW1 as they did in WW2 and the Allies definitely have the advantage in this game.
I have also only played it once as I got fed up with the early rule changes. I am waiting until I see the rules and set up before I play again. The game disillusioned me.
i love the pacific side
the airbases and naval bases really make it interesting
The Europe half sucks for me, the skirmishes only occur between Italy and UK, the rest is a big stack moving toward Russia, maybe a few infantry blockers here n there to fight, but it is a one way movement for the most part which is stupid.
@Cow:
The Europe half sucks for me, the skirmishes only occur between Italy and UK, the rest is a big stack moving toward Russia, maybe a few infantry blockers here n there to fight, but it is a one way movement for the most part which is stupid.
Nobody ever came with a stacking rule and/or some kind of enlistment track limiting infantry and tanks that can be built (taking into account relative labor force of each country)? Those two simple house rules could improve the strategic feeling and flow of the game.
