A&A Global Concerns

@all-encompassing-goose

It’ll be fun to play against yourself and then move the game so it will simply be a cool arms race to try to invade the East Coast (the only problem is the advantage for the Allies, but then to gain enough resources to win you might have win the game already, but you can just leave Stalingrad, Egypt, and Leningrad open and conquer London and set your eye on the East Coast-invading Quebec might help, as well as Ontario, but then you might accidentally win). That final battle will look amazing.

But then again, that’s why it’s considered bizarre-it’s just not an easy way of winning, unless you specifically make it so such a situation will occur.

Right. Game starts Dec 8, 1941.

@Navymule:

If there are 241 IPC’s worth of territories (before NO’s), that would mean the Allies would be earning well over 200 IPC’s a turn.  No way the Axis could recover from that deficit.  That would mean another 50-70 IPC’s worth of NO’s as well.

I wouldn’t think the Axis could recover, either, but I also wouldn’t say it’s impossible. The Allies begin the game with a 175-66 IPC advantage, but seem to lose more than half the time. Why does this happen?

The short answer is that the Axis victory conditions are easier to achieve, in part because Axis income is concentrated in Germany and Japan. This allows the two main aggressors to develop strategy, purchase units needed to implement that strategy and get them to the front rapidly. Put another way, in the hands of an experienced player, the Axis have a very efficient military-industrial complex.

On the other hand, the Allied IPC advantage, at least for the first 5-6 turns, is negated by the dispersal of those IPCs to every corner of the globe…and the Allies’ powerhouse must cross two oceans to join the fight. Until the US is fully engaged in battle, the Allied IPC advantage is virtually nonexistent.

I could talk/write at length on the economics of G40, but I’ll jump to the key question: If the goal is to improve game balance by creating a new victory condition, wherein the Allies win if the number of Axis-controlled Victory Cities falls below X and the combined IPC value of Axis-controlled territories falls below Y, what are X and Y? In other words, what is the Axis’ “point of no return?”

YG, I haven’t seen Low Roller’s document (BGG requires a person to register in order to download files), so I can’t really comment on it – but here’s an idea that you might want to consider for your own rulebook project, since it may save you a lot of work and may perhaps also be safer from a legal point of view.

I imagine that your project to rewrite the entire Global 1940 ruleset as a combined document will require you, as a first step, to create an outline of the document that you want to create – basically, a plan for the structure of the whole document, arranged in whatever way you think will be best from the point of view of clarity and ease of use.  I also imagine that, as another preparatory step, you’ll need to make an inventory of all the parts of the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that you wll want to use, with page references to those parts of the two rulebooks.  One way to make that inventory would be to plug the page references into your structured outline, to give yourself a complete plan of where in the rulebooks you’ll need to go to write each section of your projected document.  (This may not necessarily be the way you were planning to prepare the project, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume that this was going to be your methodology.)

Anyway, what occured to me is this.  Having prepared a detailed outline of the type I’ve described, and having inserted into the outline all the required page references to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks, you might not find it necessary to re-write anything at all.  The document I’ve described would serve as a kind of sophisticated index – a conceptual one, not an alphabetical one – to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that treats them in a combined way and that provides access to their content according to whatever logical structure you think would be most convenient for use by players.  The players would still have to go from your document to the rulebook page to which you referred them, of course, but the point is that you wouldn’t have to spend any time actually rewriting the two rulebooks, which would save you an awful lot of work.  Furthermore, since you’d neither copying-and-pasting the rulebooks (which would be questionable from a legal point of view) nor re-phrasing the actual content of the rulebooks (basically trying to get around potential copyright problems by putting the rulebooks into your own language), you might be on safer legal ground.  Essentially, you’d be providing people with a structured and easy-to-use way of accessing official rules, rather than either reproducing or rephrasing the rules.

@SouthsideCH:

@ColonelCarter:

That assumption is wrong. While Germany starts the scenario controlling those territories, they are still original Russian territories, similar to how the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the games are still original Chinese territories, preventing Japan from building major ICs on anything but Korea.

Then why in the set up instructions does it say put a German control marker on the territory, as well as units? Just a unit on it should be enough. Every time you take an enemy territory do you put a control marker on it? I don’t.

You can play however you want of course. But the rulebook clearly states:

@rulebook:

If you have captured the territory, place your control
marker on the territory and adjust the national production
levels.

While the emblem printed on the map indicates the original controller of the territory
the control marker indicates the the actual controller of the territory - as ColoneCarter pointed out.

There are some rules where the distinction between original and actual controller is of importance.
The 3 IPC bonus for Russia is only one example. The territories you mentioned can never become
“original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls”.
When the scenario begins Germany has already captured some original Russian territories.
If Russia takes them back, they will be original Russian territories under Russian control.

So better avoid confusion.
HTH :-)

You can buy small flying bases from games workshop for $4.50 each….
They are pretty good…kind of big on the bottom though…check them out!

You wouldn’t happen to have some drawing on that you would be willing to share?

What’s the out to out dimensions?
What’s it  standing on? is it a table that sits on anther table or is it a free standing table too?
How deep is the board set down?…etc, etc?

I’m working on some tables for the AA game group I run but we are tossing around the idea of elevating the table with a “lip” under it for trays and stuff rather than too the sides, the idea being this way the board stays as narrow as possible.

any info you would be willing to share would be cool, if you share none, that’s cool too…just seeing it is help enough.  Thanks for sharing the pics, seeing your board is really inspiring!

i don’t have a drawing.  i just laid the gameboard and pieceboxes on a piece of 6x4 board.  then took a pencil and drew their outlines.  i built up from there.

the table has no legs.  its actually sitting on another table.  its more stable that way.

the table looks wide but when you sit along side it, you can see the whole board.  i wanted to make sure i wouldnt have to stand up every time it was my turn.

i’m happy to help anytime i can.  any other questions, feel free to ask or pm me.

can you measues the amo boxes(lxwxh)and the space between the sapcers in the containers

i will, but they are the boxes from the FMG ammo box

@CWO:

I’ll measure my MB board this evening

Here are the results.  The MB board is a single folding board made of three panels.  It measure 33 " x 19 1/2 ".