Which would you play?

@shadowhawk

Actually quite smart.

Re: Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris

We’ve played this version four times now, and it definitely is tilted towards the Allies. The US is simply too powerful, and Japan has no chance with the US getting 65-70+ income every turn. Our thoughts:

I agree with the assessment that the USSR can knock out 1-2 territories right off the bat. This is similar to the traditional A&A, but Germany doesn’t have the forces to respond in any forceful way to retake anything. USSR is starting with 21+ infantry across the 3-territory front, and can’t get its forces there fast enough. The USSR creates strongholds in Kaliningrad and Ukraine and churns out 10-12 infantry or 6 tanks that immediately come into play. The possible solution for this is for Germany to put a minor IC closer to the front for balance.

Germany has no chance to get transports out of the North Sea due to Britain’s fighter advantage. With France’s help, you would need to get 4+ destroyers/cruisers to protect the transports if you’re trying to go to Iceland and then to Canada/US. The key is to have sub packs hunting any transports that cross, and quick. Once the US takes Gibraltar (which it should do in R1), it becomes a fighter landing factory where they can spawn across the Atlantic and then pound Italy.

The US is just too powerful. The winning path we’ve seen is for the US to make 5-6 fighters per turn and fly them to the Hawaiian islands, then eventually take Wake and Midway. From there, it’s only a matter of time. Japan simply can’t put enough forces to fight through the fighters to get Hawaii, Midway and the islands to the south. The 15 bonus just for having the US each turn is too much. If Germany/Italy can put pressure on the US (which we have seen and done), it can help, but it’s really hard. Italy needs to get income fast, which means going hard and fast after Egypt and the consolidated forces there.

Our Allied player did a very interesting thing by putting a factory in Egypt along with an air base, which made it almost impregnable. Getting Africa quickly is perhaps the least understood key to the war - it allows Italy to prevent ships from coming through the canal and lets them pressure the US. I can’t emphasize enough how important a role plays in helping take pressure off of the UK, which can…

Build up an infantry fortress in India which is impossible to take - UNLESS you build a minor IC on R1 in Malaya. Why Malaya (which is much harder to defend)? Because, under the rules, it can be upgraded to a MAJOR IC - producing 10 units per turn - so India can be overwhelmed. Japan can then turn its attention to…

ANZAC - becomes an income suck very quickly for Japan by grabbing the East Indies. Getting Japan to take out India is probably the most important thing the Axis can do. It frees Japan to focus on island defense and ANZAC. If ANZAC starts getting fighters, they become a transport-hunting force which simply can’t be countered.

Germany - Has to focus on numbers to overwhelm Russia while hoping that the UK doesn’t undertake strategic bombing raids, which Germany should do anyway to minimize the UK’s strength.

All in all, a very solid game, but it needs some tweaks so the Axis have a chance.

Thank you

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

When we play A&A G40 at my bunker it’s always with 6 players, and we play a fast game due to our unique turn system that has worked quite well for us.

Here’s how it works…

In a 6 player game…

1. Simultaneously the German player begins their purchase new units phase, the Russian player moves their eastern forces (18 infantry and 2 AA guns), and the Japanese player begins their purchase new units phase.

2. Simultaneously the German player ends their collect income phase, the Russian player begins their purchase new units phase, and the Japanese player begins their resolve combat phase and/or non combat movement phase.

3. Simultaneously the Russian player ends their collect income phase, the Japanese player ends their collect income phase, and the American player begins their purchase new units phase.

4. Simultaneously the American player ends their collect income phase, the Chinese player begins their purchase new units phase, and the British player (Europe) begins their purchase new units phase.

5. Simultaneously the Chinese player ends their collect income phase, the British player (Pacific) begins their purchase new units phase, and the ANZAC player moves their forces in Africa (2 infantry).

6. Simultaneously the British player (Europe & Pacific) end their collect income phase, the Italian player begins their purchase new units phase, and the ANZAC player begins their purchase new units phase.

7. Simultaneously the Italian player ends their collect income phase, the ANZAC player ends their collect income phase, and the French player conducts their entire turn.

8. Repeat…

PS: We have found that Japan is the real clock pig of all the nations. The player playing Japan should always be starting their purchase new units phase when Germany does, and they should always be ending their collect income phase when Russia does (or shortly after). This one little trick will save you at least 3 hours every game.

All the rule changes were done to benefit the allies. If you are playing OOB the allies are garbage.
~

taking calcutta is much easier. How is it even possible to defend India?

Even if you are not calcutta oriented and you are just a crazy guy who does whatever, on round 1 you can take anzac if you win a 1 infantry vs 1 infantry battle.

even if you are none of the above drop minors round 2 or 3 and wam bam shazam you have the ground forces necessary to secure all of asia.

J3 anzac is 100% as well. TO do this you have to DoW J1 take west australia. Then J2 fly 13 air units on it. Then J3 bam anzac dead, thanks for playing. (you can get the rest of your air if you feel like dropping an airbase on kwangsi instead of doing the caroline thing).

~

As far as Europe goes. Look at how empty london is. So you defend london. Say bye to Egypt, just give Italy a few rounds.

~

Round 1 hit sz 110, sz 111, sz 112. 1 sub vs 1 destroyer in sz 109. buy dd sub carrier.

You sink a bunch of naval and place sz 112. He can only hit with 6 units, 3 fighter tactical carrier and dd vs sub dd cruiser bship carrier 2 fighter. You are 1 up. Can UK defend itself? Not with Naval.

So he buys 9 infantry.  Flies his stuff in gets the canada dudes in and yet Germany still has 50-61% to defend UK. OK ignore it and go for Russia. Simple.

So what stops Italy from taking Egypt? Unless you pull India air to somaliland and then fly it to Egypt (or pull it to transjordan) you don’t stand a chance. Even if you do, you got like a 1/3 chance of holding.
~

Sure USA makes 30 when at war (25 in 2nd edition), but the only other allied power making NO money is ANZAC.

**Point is OOB can get super stupid super fast or end up being super boring super stalemate. Generally speaking yeah I J1 DOW and yeah I J3 ANZAC or I wait and take calcutta. I prefer ANZAC, easy to defend and it is easier to work to India than to push out later. At first global was super boring and I generally played three rounds (sea lion / calcutta and was done) then when I developed other strategies it was fun for the first couple games, but then I realized OOB pacific was just stupid.

OOB had few strategies and you were almost always better off just going gun ho for the quick win.**

I will also add that if you do not do some sort of all in play as the axis you will lose the game in the long run.

Might not have been the wildest game , but my best friend has not recovered and still talks about how ridiculous it is, so he is the wildest part of the story!
Won D-Day with 1Art in St Lo(my only unit), when he probably had 15-20 units left all poised to conquer a vacant Normandy.
Might ring him tonight and remind him of it:
I love Axis favoured games.

@molinar13:

Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

I tend to view it the same way. Axis and Allies does not take a lot of things into account… including scouting and supplying your armies. I always viewed these things as being incorporated into the game, sort of expected and assumed.

For example, many times neither side knew where the other’s forces were. They needed scouts and intelligence organizations to figure it out. There is no “fog of war” in a boardgame. You can see everything that everyone does.
Also armies/navies needed to be supplied. Axis and Allies does not require you to maintain a merchant fleet or a force of supply trucks. It is sort of given and expected.

Now these things do not directly relate to your die rolling, but it shows that not everything needs to be accounted for by the player… including the fixing of his odds. Dropping a (fair) die and letting it bounce and roll is entirely fair and just. It is random, and that is the purpose.

Artificially compensating for losses due to bad rolling just seems like diluted cheating to me.