New to Global. HELP

@tchenao

Gotcha.

Most players consider the game to be quite unbalanced in favor of the Axis. So the two sides will bid (in terms of IPCs) before the game and the lowest bid team will play the Allies. The bid can be used to place additional units before the game starts.

Sea Lion is definitely a much riskier strategy than just going straight for Moscow. Most people only go through with it if London is not well protected after the first round. A failed Sea Lion is pretty much a game ender.

In what way would taking your allies into battle even remotely slow the game?

I find Ozteas playable w/o a bid. '39 hasn’t been playtested as much. Japan usually steamrolls china so you may want to give a few guys to China. It doesn’t rally take any longer as the first few turns go pretty fast. You should read the game notes if you haven’t played it.

Thanks for your input! I ran A&A (three different versions) today and it went pretty smoothly. I’m looking forward to trying the Global 1942 setup next time I play!

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

Do what France did: surrender.
Seriously, buy Inf for UK, a factory  for Cairo if you feel brave and hit Italy hard as suggested by others. Cannot sit back and let Italy take the Med.
If Sealion works remember Russia will join the Allies and  come next, so they want to be on Germany’s borders to push through any weak spots.
We are all rooting for you: nasty Germans!

It just occurred to me that it’s possible, if very unlikely, for a literal draw to occur, meaning a situation in which neither side has the ability to win according to the game’s rules.

If every capital in the game is taken by the opposing alliance, then no one has won but all sides have lost the ability to continue producing units. China doesn’t matter because their units are incapable of achieving Allied victory conditions due to ACME walls. If this occurs and all existing land units are destroyed or isolated due to loss of transports, then no side could possibly win because no side could conquer any new territory. Such a game would undoubtedly be a thing of legend.

Epic