[G1940] Cooperative Nation Control


  • Recently, I took part in an eighteen player game of Global 1940 with no drastic house rules aside from this: most nations were controlled by more than one player.  Each major nation was assigned a top leader, which we named according to the title of the real leader of the nation.  Under this leader were two generals, each one focusing on a certain front.  The generals selected their desired purchases for their section but had to get approval from the top leader.  Troops movements, attacks, and cooperation worked likewise.  This system not only resulted in more people playing, but it also eliminated mistakes greatly, encouraged teamwork, and bred a healthy rivalry between generals working for the same nation.  Here is how we played originally (we did have to reorganize command as the war eliminated forces or shifted focus).

    Germany:
    The top leader was called the Fuhrer, mostly because he liked roleplaying as a bad guy.  The two generals under him were split between the obvious: Eastern and Western Front.  These three players worked together beautifully.  The Eastern and Western troops were always ready to sacrifice for the good of the other half, and the top leader made sure his generals never made a single mistake.

    Soviet Union:
    The Soviets chose the title Premier for their top leader.  The two generals were split on very awkward lines: one player controlled the north (Leningrad area and the Far East) and the other controlled the southern half (Moscow to the Caucasus). The Premier was a bit too oppressive over his two generals and usually tended to make their decisions for them.  This was funny at first to the other nations, but resulted in a boring, bitter game for the two Russian general players.  The lack of unity between the two Russian players and the oppressive nature of their leader resulted in the Soviets’ collapse.

    Japan:
    The Japanese players chose not to have a title for their top leader and took the game very seriously.  Instead of dividing themselves between fronts, they decided to have one national leader, one naval leader, and one army leader (airforces were attached to one or the other.)  Their teamwork was excellent and their top leader kept them from being reckless, but in the end, Japan was basically a defensive force that was too huddled in its corner of the world.  I would say Japan was a success for the coop system but a failure strategically.

    United States:
    I played on the U.S. team as General Eisenhower controlling the Americans in the European theater (I Like roleplaying, so deal with it.)  My counterpart, of course, controlled the Pacific.  Much to his dismay, I always called him “the Nimitz with no trannies [transports].”  We also had a top leader over us representing the President.  Although our actions could not save the world from the Axis, I felt that the U.S. team did a great job of showing how coop play could work.  There was a great rivalry between me and my Pacific teammate as we always tried to convince the “Pres.” to let one of us get more IPCs to spend on our side.  Our top leader did a good job of being neutral and sharing wisdom while allowing us to go with what we thought was best.

    China and France were played by one person.  With eighteen people at the table one time or another and players arguing over who is going to get a single fighter for use at their front, China and France felt like a big role for a change.

    United Kingdom:
    The UK chose the title Prime Minister for their top leader. The two generals under him were constantly getting their zones of control reorganized, but they started with one controlling Malta to India, and the other getting Gibraltar to Iceland.  The UK had the opposite problem of Russia.  Their leader was too weak and only ended up compromising disputes.  Perhaps the main reason for this was that India gets its own economy and is virtually separate from the rest of the UK’s responsibilities.

    Italy and ANZAC were played by two different players.  Like the person playing China and France, the Italian and ANZAC players were satisfied with the small roles because everbody around the table also had small roles.

    Overall, I loved this system.  It encouraged teamwork greatly, added a nice feel of reality, eliminated many stupid mistakes, and made the whole A&A experience much more social.  Of course, having so many people did make it crowded at times, but at no one time were there eighteen people seated at the table.  In between turns, only one person stayed to represent their nation while the others left to plan, eat snacks, or take some shots on the pool table on the other side of the room.

    I had a fantastic experience playing like this, and I wonder if any of you have ever tried this before.  Sometimes even just having two people work together for a nation (without splitting up zones of control) can be very fun.  If you do ever try this regional generals system, I highly recommend that you have a top leader as well.  He is the one that makes a split army capable of working together to achieve victory.


  • That sounds terrific!

  • '20 '19 '18

    This is an idea I’ve been kicking around for some time, but my hat’s off to Charles de Gaulle for making it happen first. Sounds like it worked out just as I’d hoped it would. I look forward to trying it myself.


  • This is a brilliant idea. My hat’s off to you.

    -Midnight_Reaper


  • Daaang, how’d you get 18 players?
    I can barely get 4 including me. :(

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 3
  • 11
  • 3
  • 20
  • 6
  • 3
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

268

Online

17.3k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts