One thing that always confused me/ make me scratch my head when reading the 1940 global forum is this.
How much of this is influenced by AAA and tournament board play?
I get tournament play, limited time per round, can only play 8-10 rounds. Come up with a VP system in order to determine a winner.
My experience on AAA, which is around 10-12 games, but every game my foe would basically declare after round 8-10 or so that the game is lost by me/won by him no need to continue. Any discussion would result in snarky remarks that ole PainState is living in a fantasy land and cannot come to grips with his obvious crushing loss.
Here is the issue Iam bringing up. All these battle plans for Axis and the allies to basically reduce the game down to a quick fire game of 8-10 turns, mainly for the Axis. Bold statements that if Moscow is not taken out by turn 7-8 just pick up the game. Which means in reality just disconnect from AAA never to be scene gain.
Tournament play you devise plans that are quick strike to achieve 2-3 VP and then hold on for dear life. A staple of quality Japan play in Tournament action. (AKA Calcutta crush)
So for a player like myself who plays 99.5% of his 1940 global on a table top, that can stay there for weeks. We could play 40 turns if necessary to finish a game. These battle plans and ideas for tactics seem to not fit that scenario. They are great if you know the game is 8-10 turns and then the game is over.
At the end I quess what Iam saying is that it seems that most of the “talk” on the 1940 global forum is not really directed towards how I play the game. Which usually means when I do post stuff guys come at it with a different POV which is based on AAA or tournament style play.
Just throwing this out there.
(foot note: is it possible that the Allies need a bid to win because there is a underlying assumption that a game is actually only going to be 8-10 turns long?)
