Global game comparison

Hello all. Just wondering if there are any custom setup charts for the Global 1942 scenario? I have the printout but was looking for setup charts to customize what I have. Thanks in advance.

I think you’ve got the right idea.

You might remember my “11 conclusions” thread from a few weeks back, where I explained I thought we should develop a “strategic framework”. My thought is essentially that we should push the meta-game to a final state of maturity by determining what the best Allied response is to the rapid Axis push, and use our conclusions to help support a theory of the board.

The strategy I described earlier (combining the Russians in Africa, the Canadian / U.S. push for the money islands and concentrated British support of Moscow) is the best I can come up with for an Allied response. I am interested to see if you agree or would be willing to test it in your games as well, or if you have any objections that I should consider.

I am buying the following units as part of this strategy:

Russia:
7 artillery, 4 mech on turn 1 followed by straight infantry unless special circumstances demand a fighter or some artillery. I am sending 6 mech, 2 tanks to Africa. Remember the idea is that these forces will be replaced by the British in short order.

America:
4 bombers turn 1 (for Europe) followed by fleet for the foreseeable future (carrier, loaded transports, assorted warships but very few aircraft as ANZAC will provide these).

UK Europe:
6 infantry, 1 fighter turn 1; minor IC’s in Persia and Egypt turn 2; mech infantry turn 3 followed by fighters and mechs 4+

UK Pacific:
3 infantry, 2 artillery turn 1; continue building infantry and artillery until Japan is thrown back, then switch to mechs and fighters to support the defense of Moscow.

ANZAC:
Straight fighters unless Japan is doing some crazy kill Australia first move. These fighters will land on American carriers and/or journey to Moscow.

The general strategy begins by coordinating Russian, Chinese, British and American stacks so they are all hurtling towards China and the money islands at once. Japan can annihilate one or maybe two of them, but then they’re stuck just trying to hold on to their gains. At that point Second Russia is born and the tan blob can begin to move on the Germans. America sends fleet to blockade Italy and/or provide cover for a Grecian beachhead using Egyptians and Brazilian-American forces, who have been marching across Sub-Saharan Africa this whole time.

@Argothair:

My play group is very considerate about trying to (a) identify when the game isn’t much worth playing anymore, and then (2) accurately describe the likely outcome of the game.

Right, like there are no hard-and-fast rules about “oh, you lost your capital, or you lost Cairo, or you’re making 30 IPCs less per turn, so it’s game over.” Instead we look at the board and try to see if there are battles or campaigns coming up that are likely (>10%?) to make a dramatic impact on the state of the game, especially campaigns where the underdog is going on the offensive, or where the apparent favorite is in danger of being pushed back if they lose a key attack. E.g. it matters a lot whether Germany has one stack next door to Moscow, with nothing to reinforce it if that stack is destroyed, vs. a steady stream of reinforcements and a huge stack next to Moscow. In the former case, Moscow could recover if it fends off a German battle with 80% odds to take Moscow. In the latter case, even if Moscow pulls out that 20% from the dice, they will still have 80% odds to die one turn later, so it’s not a big deal. The former position is interesting and worth playing on if we can manage to find time for a second session; the latter position is not interesting and the game should be called.

When we call a game, we don’t insist on unconditional surrender. Instead, we try to agree on what the game looks like. For example, “the Allies are way ahead, but the Axis still have a slight chance.” Or, “It’s hard to say for sure who’s winning, but it looks like the Axis have a slight edge.” Sometimes we don’t always precisely agree – one side might claim the Allies are ahead by “a little” while the other side might claim the Allies have “a significant lead,” but so far we have always at least agreed on which side has the edge, even if not by how much.

Hey!  I am in your play group and what you are saying is…. basically right.  Although have we played global together?  Don’t recall honestly

Very nice idea with the telegrams and stuff.

While reading the german ones, I’ve seen some grammar/wording errors in the german NO cards. Don’t know if someone mind them, but some corrections:

Geheimdienstbericht von der vom Chef Leiter der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD
(even though the german intelligence was called “Abwehr” I think)

Schnellbrief Telegramm

An der den Obersten Befehlshaber der deutschen Truppen

Betrifft: Betreff:

This looks like a lot of work  :lol:

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.

Here is the game setup as provided on Larry’s site:

http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf

A long time ago, back when we just had the Classic MB version of A&A, I started working on an idea to break all territories into smaller sections so it wouldn’t just be one battle and you get the whole territory.  For example, the Eastern US territory would be broken down into all the different states so if an Axis attacked it, they would have to fight state to state in order to win that territory, and maybe some of the larger states could be split into two or three sections.  I thought this seemed more realistic than just one battle and you win the entire Eastern half of the United States.
However, many problems became apparent fairly quickly.  First of all, I couldn’t always find more detailed maps of some of the territories like those in central and eastern Russia, territories in Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. 
Also, going from the World map to a single territory map you would have to change all the units.  For example;  you have 10 infantry, 2 armor and 2 fighters defending Eastern USA.  If you shrink this down to just that territory broken up into many territories,  it would have to be something like 100 infantry, 20 armors and 20 fighters spread out amongst all those territories.  Plus you would have to figure out where to put them and it wouldn’t necessarily be an even amount.  You wouldn’t have the same amount of units defending Washington or New York as you would some empty space.  The same would hold true for the attackers.  How many units would you have attacking each territory?  Plus, I didn’t have a clue as to how to break it down like this for Naval warfare.  How many actual ships does 1 battleship on the World Map represent on the smaller maps?
Finally, it occurred to me that this would make just one game of A&A take literally MONTHS to complete.  Attacking a territory would be like opening up a whole new game.  Granted, there are a number of unoccupied territories that you could simply “blitz” and not have to refer to the smaller maps, but any substantial combat would take hours to complete as your forces move to take a territory a piece at a time.  Also, this would possibly mess up some attacks and leave a territory in a “contested” state for some time.  For example;  Germany invades Eastern US.  Germany has 20 Inf, 8 tanks, 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  The US has 10 inf, 2 tanks and 2 fighters plus the AA gun.  Now, depending on how the forces get laid out on the small scale map, and also depending on luck of the dice rolls, there are any number of outcomes.  On the World Map, it would be one big battle and over, likely with Germany winning .  However, on the small  map, it’s possible that say the Germans did well in the north.  However, in the south the US forces defeated the invader and still have good forces intact.  Also, on this scale, there will likely be more US forces farther inland as reserves.  So now the territory of Eastern USA is basically half German controlled and half US controlled.  This would drag this one battle out even longer.  Now, it’s possible that the triumphant German forces in the North could possibly get whittled down to nothing as they try to work their way south.
Anyway, my point is that doing a game like this would make it take way too long and I would imagine most people would lose intereste after a while.  It’s an interesting concept but if you get too detailed the game loses its fun.

The two games that I have finished (in one go) have lasted 13 and 15 hours respectively.  I have played 4 others in an ongoing format where we would play a turn every other day.  All of these games lasted over a week.