How Connected is the Game?

I am not sure your intention with your question but global is basically how it was meant to play. I don’t see any reason to play Euro or Pacific exclusively. As far as House Rules go, you will find tons of that on this site.

Really, we only played Europe and Pacific alone until we got used to the new ruleset.  The pacific game seems sorta broken by itself, which is why they added the 30+ IPCs for the us entering war bonus.  When you play Europe alone, it’d be weird because Germany is facing off 2 vs 3 whereas Germany is usually not getting a ton of attention during the early game in Global (except during a KGF or later in the game) where as in Europe alone, its the only target really…In Global one of the huge differences is that Japan’s DOW allows the USA to enter the war early…in Europe alone its just a wait like WW1

Global is the Cadillac edition of the AxA ruleset, it adds a ton of fun dynamics.  Really, once you go Global, you never go back.  The time to play is huge (8 hours to a concession, 12 to a true victory is brief), but the flexibility and scope are what people waited years for.

It may seem like “two different universes” but both UK and US have to have an all new mentality during the Global game because there is a very strong push-pull dynamic, there are a ton of potential moving parts as both sides.  By focusing your game as the Allies on one of the two major axis powers, you can force them to make complex, long term decisions and vice versa.  Since you have 5-6 teams to work with as the allies, you can make decisions that coordinate them across the whole world

I would say it is very connected. There are three main points of connection.

1. when Japan declears war
2. US resources
3. UK resources

1. When japan declares war will have a big effect on germany. Some plans require a J4 to allow Germany the most amount of time. Sealion will bring US into the war if successfull. You can’t pull off sealion in a J1 (you have to wait until J3, otherwise us can land bombers, fighters and possibly landunits in london).
2. US has to chose where to build and when.
3. UK will often send troops from UK pac to aid in the med in the early game, while possibly sending troops back in the middle /late game.

Hi ToB

From the axis perspective they were in truth very separate wars with little G & J co-operation. Geography and communications contributed to that but even very obvious opportunities to mutually assist and co-ordinate were ignored, albeit sometimes for good reason. J remaining at peace with R for example.

From the allied perspective the need to allocate resources between different conflict spheres required a more global view. Geography and command of the seas allowed this to happen. Allied commands did an amazing job in effecting such a high degree of co-operation despite all the problems and disagreements.

So I would say the game does a great job of representing all this in play.

Cheers
PP

@Tamer:

I know that the games are made to be played as global and as two separate ones, but in global it still seems like two different universes.  Are there any house rules, strategies, or advice that we could use to make the game seem more like one?

Ironically, there’s at least one “connection” in Global 1940 that shouldn’t be there: the factors which make it possible (and even advantageous) for Japan to invade the USSR and advance on Moscow to help its German partner.  In the real world, a Japanese assault on Moscow would have been a flat-out impossibility because of the enormous distances of harsh terrain that Japan would have had to cross, and because Japan was so heavily committed to the war in China that it barely had the troops to conduct its later campaigns in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.

I actually think that the game is not that far off in this respect. Is it advantageous for Japan to march across Siberia in Global 1940? I hardly think so: the areas are not worth much, doing so will activate Mongolia on Russia’s side, and the Germans are at Moscow’s gates long before Japan can do the same. At least, in my own (limited) experience….

Japan can capture a few territories and tie down Soviet units, however. Which reflects what it could have done in the real war if a dedicated effort would have been made. It’s just that they decided otherwise after the battle of Khalkin Gol (as for “J remaining at peace with R” - that only happened after J had found out the hard way that R was quite a bit tougher than they may have believed based on their 1904-1905 confrontation). But suppose Japan would have persisted in spite of the outcome of that battle - would those Siberian troops that were so badly needed against the Germans then really have been available in the battle of Moscow?

Did the siberian troops actually return home for the battle of Moscow?