The mines are what kills that game for me.

They are far too imposing, even if you want to move through an area, let alone invade.

We always vow to make a house rule or introduce a mine sweeper of some sort, but then just decided against playing it altogether and grab a 40 board.

I understand what the game is trying to do, but if it’s a slog to more on land, it can’t be more of a slog to move at sea.

Based on early reviews, I requested extra pieces through customer service and got them the same time the game showed up.

I like the game, but as is it’s such a slog that we almost never keep up interest. It may be more fun with multiple players, but as a two player we tend to walk away as things tighten up.

A big issue for me is mines. It becomes such a deterrent to Naval movement that it drags on the game.

One day I’ll look into the house rules, etc to make it more playable, but when there’s a window of time for A&A, in this house we’d rather either breeze through a '42 or commit to a '40.

This is a great idea.

Not necessarily zombies, but think of an infection like 28 Days or WWZ.

Pick a host country and turn all to ‘infected’. There’s no buying or economy, every move is combat. As they advance, in adjacent territories all defending infantry casualties turn into infected infantry units (not tanks or planes).

Any planes or ships that reach another territory spread infection unless destroyed in the air or in the sea prior to landing. Think of it as people fleeing the horror, but carrying the infection as well. Once a plane or ship touches down, it’s replaced with an infected infantry unit.

The whole time, other countries conduct business as usual. Does Germany attack Moscow to bolster it’s economy while Russia is dealing with the outbreak or does it send the Luftwaffe to patrol and intercept infected? Do Allies work together or board off their borders?

Maybe infected attack numbers are higher than 1 since there would only be infantry and there would be an element to terror in defending them. Maybe each unit is doubled every turn it’s not destroyed as the civilian population becomes infected as well.

I’ve always had the most fun with Germany by hitting Russia on G1 or going full Sealion. I even skipped France once and blitzed the UK. Softened Paris with ground troops and left the conquest for Italy while using full Luftwaffe against England. Ultimately lost that because Russia was neglected too long while I built Festung Europa.

If Japan pressed Russia and Italy did a better job in the Med, I would have won.

@aftertaste:

ausf,

I see what you’re going for, a table that has a fog of war sort of deal right? It’s possible but not at this sort of level on the game that I am talking about, it is essentially just an A&A G40 2nd Ed board that everyone can see as if playing IRL. The whole point is for people to play board games with people online as if they are all in the same room. There are ways to create a sort of Fog of War in the editor tools but it might take a while and would be fiddly.

It would be entirely possible for each side to have their own table completely and the only contact with the enemy would be by Skype or something similar, where only your pieces are on your board but this would rely heavily on an honour system as there would be no way to see the other sides table. If you trust your opponent it could work. For example on your previous move a recon plane spotted three transports in the English Channel so on your combat move you may say something like; ‘I’m going to move a submarine into sea zone 110’ hoping for an easy kill. But your opponent could just move a trio of destroyers in that you know they bought but have no idea of their location and then say; ‘I’m scrambling two fighters from England’.

I’m sure it would be possible to do it how you describe:
‘Ideally, it would be the software that would show you only what you know and would keep an accurate tally of the board.’

But that isn’t really possible as far as I am aware on the software that YG is asking about…

I think the Steam sim will work for my space needs. I didn’t mean that I could use it for my hidden enemy idea, it was just a wish.

I have a buddy who is a software engineer and board gamer and passed the idea by him. He thought it would be relatively simple to pull off, but he just moved from the East Coast to West (works for Google) so face time, etc. would be limited to hash it out.

I play mostly with my son and we also play Bismarck, Midway and other games that rely on your opponent’s honesty, but Global is such a huge commitment in time a little troop shifting may be too tempting to resist. We’re loose with allowing some minor changes if you forgot to non-combat something somewhere to move an Anzac ship or something similar as long as it isn’t in reaction to the next move.

@aftertaste:

ausf,

It sounds like this may be just what you’re looking for.

Also, I like the last thing you mentioned, about not being able to see the enemies pieces on the board as having two separate tables is obviously not a problem, not that dissimilar to the old classic Battleship, but I was wondering how that would work, say, in 1940 Global 2nd Ed. Would you have a new turn sequence where just before Combat Movement there is a Recon Move/Mission/Thing? And would that require a specific unit conducting the recon, like using a fighter/tactical bomber?

Ideally, it would be the software that would show you only what you know and would keep an accurate tally of the board.

We were thinking about playing it out on maps with a plexi cover and grease pencils, where a third party would control the board itself, which the players never see. Problem is, it wouldn’t be a fun role to proctor the game, so a software version would be better.

In terms of recon, I would use it as a non combat move for either aircraft or mech infantry. You keep that piece out of battle and move temporarily in then out of the adjacent territory where an accounting of the forces will be divulged (if your force survives the equivalent of an AA roll). Of course the enemy will know what you know and since your intel will be old by your next turn, it’ll be sketchy at best.

I built a table to use in my finished attic. I thought it would be great to use during the winter months when we’d have the incentive and time to relax over a game.

The only problem was it had to go in a corner, which limited access two sides of the board. I didn’t think it would be an issue until we actually tried it and it was too uncomfortable to use. I didn’t realize how much room you needed larger than the board itself, even with just two players. I thought keeping pieces and rolling battles on a smaller table nearby would be fine, but in the end it sucked too.

My advice is incorporate plenty of space to roam, store pieces and roll da dice.

All of our Global games are now on the dining room table with the leaf installed, usually when my wife is out of town.

I’ve been keeping an eye on this thread since I had the same question.

My house is over 100 years old, the rooms are smallish and space is a premium. A few years back, we set up a table in the finished walk up attic, but you can only access it from one side, so it’s not comfortable to play on.

We use the dining room table for Global, but it can’t be commandeered for too long since it’s where we eat (kitchen is not an eat-in). My wife puts up with a lot, but after a few days of having meals mixed with a huge map covered with pieces, she understandably gets tired of it.

We end up playing more Pacific or Europe or '42 games during the cold months when eating out of the deck is not an option.

Having it kept on a screen to play an hour or two when possible would be a good solution.

Actually, I’d love to have A&A played out where I couldn’t see the opponent’s side of the map unless I attacked or reconnoitered, and then only adjacent areas.

Wow. I’ve read through the entire thread and applaud your approach to this.

I sculpt masters (figures) and have in the past shared works in progress with my customer base, but it usually ends in someone’s disappointment since production cycles and delays always mess with proposed release dates.

I commend you for sticking with the questions and feedback, it speaks volumes to the length you’ll go to make this game a success.

We occasionally play the old Avalon Hill bookshelf games, but always go back to A&A (usually 40, but we’ll sneak in a '42 0r '41 when time is tight). My son and I bought 1914 as soon as it was released and all it did was wet our whistle for a better game. No matter how often we try it, we just think how much better it could be.

It’s looks like we’ve found the solution, I can assure you we’ll be grabbing a copy of The Great War when it’s ready.

Personally I wouldn’t change the rules at all, nor would I play 41 instead.

It sounds counterintuitive, but the smaller games like 41 are frustrating because mistakes are compounded by lack of resources. You get much more leeway in battles in 40 than you do in 41.

I’d just jump in, let them play a power and maybe make suggestions if they ask, but let them make mistakes and no matter what, try to keep the insider talk between you and your friend to a minimum. In other words, don’t keep laying out stories or strategies, let them learn without making them feeling like they’re intruding or novices.

My wife plays a whole bunch of different games with us, but not any war stuff, except Risk.

Give them a primer of the game function, then just have a blast, no matter who wins. The only real way for them to enjoy or learn the game is to play and the only way to learn about bombers, cruisers, etc is to let it happen. They get bombed, they’ll see the worth. If they buy cruisers and they get destroyed, they’ll pick up on that better than if you say it.

Believe or not, a fresh set of brains in the mix might exploit something you’ve never seen. My son always pulls out some obscure move that kills a plan, whether he knows it or not.