Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris

@DocFav

Just wondering what your trying to do?

If you want to see a specific setup just load it into TripleA.

@Kreuzfeld said in Why is Global better than Revised?:

@SS-GEN It is a very good game. At least 40% of the rules are relating to optional units. Most people play with most optional units, but a lot of people play the vanilla version.

:+1: :+1: :+1:

@Elsass-Lorraine:

@NotEvenJail:

Its starting to feel like this guy is just trolling us with these “essays.” I mean come on, man. Many of these statements are way too out of touch. Can’t be serious.

I would hesitate to jump so far so quickly. He/she probably is just discovering this forum and/or other sources of strategies, and their game group has probably been disconnected, if you will, from the most effective strategies that the wider A&A community takes for granted.

I will note that in his first essay (the Barbarossa one) he mentioned how G40 had recieved “little attention on this blog”, which I take to mean the main axisandallies.org website (which most definitely does have a lack of G40-related articles, last I checked) as opposed to the forums. I knew about axisandallies.org the site long before I knew about the forums, so maybe that is what happened here.

I didn’t mean to be harsh just speculating. I get it. This game is special because it has a lot more nuance than one would readily perceive.  I have no problem with the thread just made me scratch my head.

@Azpathfinder:

Has anyone ever tried 1940 rules/units on the 1942 map?

We have a group that enjoys to play, but 1940 is a serious time commitment that we just can’t schedule, and it seems to be taking the fun out of it (for us). When we played 1942, we could set up and play a few rounds in one night and while not always finishing, we could get a good enough sense in how the game was going to declare a victor.

We do enjoy the new pieces and rules (scrambling, tac bombers, convoys, air fields, kamakazi, shipyards) from 1940 … has anyone ever tried to use them on the older, smaller, more manageable 1942 board? any tips? any existing transfer rules? any thoughts?

Thanks everyone!

I would stay away incorporating air bases, shipyards due to number of spaces on the 1942.2 map.

Kamikazis and scrambling although fun, they will drastically change the overall strategy and dynamic of the game.

Now when it comes to mechanized infantry and tactical bombers that’s something that can be integrated with success. I haven’t done it yet but will start trying it out now that my brother and I have about 20 games under our belt and can call ourselves intermediate players. I will post results and overall outcome. In my opinion it will slightly benefit the Axis thus making it even harder for the Allies.

Over a year ago, there was a discussion thread somewhere on this forum (I can’t recall in what section) about GTO’s demise.  As I recall, GTO was supposedly saying that it was shutting down temporarily and that it would return sometime in the following year with a new game that it would be offering in some kind of partnership with Larry Harris rather than WotC.  The details were quite vague, and nothing seems to have come of that initiative…assuming that it was indeed an initiative that had any substance to it, rather than just speculation.

Thanks for the review.  Never hurts to be on the winning side.  So I hear…. :|

52 while not at war and then add up the NOs after. usually 70s

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)