One table, two games

I’ve suggested doing almost exactly the same thing with my group (usually 4 of us, so it would be two 1-on-1 games). Not necessarily around one table, but with linked victory conditions (that is, victory on one board ending the game for both sides). Haven’t tried it yet, though. We tend to spread our games over multiple weeks and a missing player (not uncommon) would really mess that up.

Great idea for a change of pace. Note that in my opinion the Allies get a boost in Europe played alone and Axis get a boost in Pacific played alone.

Neat idea. I wonder if this could be made to work with 4 players total, as a way to reduce down time for players, by staggering the turns.  i.e. player 1 plays German and Japan, player 2 plays USA and USA, player 3 plays UK and UK and player 4 plays Russia, China and ANZAC.

One thing this would definitely accomplish is splitting the US and UK incomes. I know even in Global UK London and UK Pacific are kept separate, but in this case one wouldn’t be wondering about the other or able to affect the other (Example: India sending tanks up to support Moscow).
The US would be forced to have a split income. It’s been a while since I played either Pacific 40 or Europe 40 alone so I wonder if the US would be as much of a force on either board.
One question:  If the US or UK gets a tech breakthrough on one game, would they share that on the other game?

I think that this would be a good way to set up a “jam” style session where you perhaps invited a large number of new/experienced players and then assigned them (or randomized) them into seating orders, without limiting yourself to even just 2 games, could have multiple 40s or even a ww1, 42, etc table to have your own mini origins

Pros
Shorter, endable games
Less down time and waiting
ability to mingle and move around when it is not your turn
easier for hosts to manage
sq ft space is at a premium, this could be on smaller tables
could play a large variety of axa/supremacy style games at one event

Cons
need tons of players (we play global with 3-7, but to break it up, you’d need at least 6 to justify)
everyone is not focused on the same activity so it can lose focus
many players like the Global game because it is so majestic/overloaded with stuff
if you wanted a more compact game, could just play classic versions, theatre versions, or 42 edition

What city are you guys based out of?  Any plans for origins/gen cons (here, Kansas City).

Here’s a thought about a possible other option.

The conventional way to play Global 1940 is as a single game.  Your “one table, two games” model keeps Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 as completely separate games, other than for the fact that they’re being played concurrently on the same table.  Here’s a potential other option that blends the two models: Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 are played as separate games on the same table, but only up to the point where a victory is achieved in one of the two separate games.  When that happens, the players (and powers) who lost are eliminated, the separate games become a Global game, and the players (and powers) who won on one side of the board can team up with their political allies on the other side of the board to wage war on the surviving opponent forces.

This system would create the rather interesting situation that, in some cases, the same power would be played by two different players on the winning side once the game becomes Global – for instance, an Allied victory would result in a UK Europe player and a UK Pacific player both playing in the same game.  Conversely, you could have a situation in which a particular power loses on one side of the board but continues to play on the other side of the board.  In principle, these oddities would only affect the only two countries which are player powers in both games, the US and the UK, even though some other powers have a map presence on both sides.

Side note:
When playing Pacific, player 1 is Japan, player 2 US, and player 3 is UK and ANZAC undoubtedly.
But who should get China? Player 2 or player 3?