Posts made by hewhoisnickel

On the game aid for Alpha 2 (or .2?) it says that most NOs are only activated when at war, and then a couple are only available while neutral. For the “at war” ones, who does the country have to be at war with? Anyone? For example, is the UK Pacific NO, “5 IPCs when the UK controls all original Pacific territories”, only active while at war with Japan? Or is it active while at war with ANY Axis power, as they start at war with Italy and Germany?

Well, I played a game of this with 3 other people, and it was pretty awesome. My capital was Paris (I picked second), and the others (in order of picking) were DC, Istanbul and Stockholm. The early game was a great time for me, since I had the most valuable territories on the board at my doorstep, uncontested. However, controlling these territories (from Spain to Poland to Italy) situated me directly in the middle of all three enemies. The Swedes and I traded Polish and German territories again and again, the Turks conquered the Balkans and put pressure on Italy, and America landed in Spain and Britain. Things were not looking good.

I won a decisive battle against the Turks in Northern Italy, crushing almost the entirely of their western army. I pushed them back out of the Balkans, and put an army in Greece to keep them in check. This, however, didn’t last long. They had tons of cash flowing in from the rich Middle Eastern territories and the many Russian territories. It was only a matter of time until the Balkans once again became Turkish.

The northern front didn’t look so good either. I faced such large amounts of pressure from America that I had to pull back out of Berlin in order to stop them. Sweden became stronger after having been consistently the weakest since the beginning of the game. I was the weakest, limited to Southern Italy, all of France, and Holland/Belgium.

This was when things turned around (we’re quite far in now). Sweden shared a long border with the superpower Turkey, and its Atlantic provinces were weak and within reach of the American fleet in Britain. Even Turkey faced some danger, with a small American fleet making its way into a nearly empty Mediterranean. America landed in Norway with a strong force, forcing Sweden to build a defensive army at home instead of putting its money into the war with Turkey. As such, Turkey conquered Novgorod and the German/Polish provinces in just a couple turns. Sweden itself fell to America shortly after.

While all of this was happening, I had a mini-resurgence. America, knowing Turkey was a greater threat and that there was no way I threatened any of his overseas territories, ignored me completely, giving up Spain in order to have a larger army with which to attack coastal Turkish territories. I conquered Spain and Italy while America conquered Leningrad, Western Germany and Cairo in quick succession (with some luck). The game continued for a little while with the pushing back of America and France (it was starting to get boring), so we stopped and we agreed that Turkey would have won eventually.

It was, all in all, a very fun game. However, to make it more fair, I’d give different starting locations different starting units. Stockholm, for example, needs a bonus, and definitely a transport without troops taken away.

@special:

People are playing to slow ;)

Agreed.

BUMP

The problem with ignoring China is the fact that for the first 2-3 turns, Japan will only be at war with China and maybe Russia. It’s better to use the land and air unit to crush China and the Siberian forces until at war with the Allies, rather than retreating onto transports and getting into position to attack the Allies.

You mean Moscow, right? And if Japan is contained and about to fall and Italy is mediocre (even, perhaps, fairly powerful), the US and UK should be able to take down the Axis without Russia. As long as the Allies crush Japan quickly, set up a US major in Korea and start raiding Atlantic and Mediterranean Axis territories ASAP, they will stand a fighting chance, if not a great one.

He was agreeing with you, saying that what you said, and what he was quoting, was true. At least I’m 90% sure he was.

By the way, I agree with you too.

This actually sounds like a lot of fun, filled with possibilities. However, I’d probably make it so everyone says which victory city they want (everyone picks a different one) and then we write them all down on little slips of paper, put them in a hat or something, and pick them randomly.

How long would you say one of these games takes, on average?

Thanks for the responses guys…

I’m thinking of testing this in my next game of Global, with these rules:

-Chinese units may fly over and enter Allied territories on the Pacific board once the owner of the territory is at war with Japan. If the Axis control the said territory and China is at war with that Axis power, China may attack it.
-Chinese units may fly over and enter Allied territories on the Europe board once BOTH China and the owner of the territory is at war with the European Axis powers. If the Axis controls the said territory and China is at war with that Axis power, China may attack it.
-Chinese units may board Allied transports just like any Allied units can enter a transport of an ally.
-China may only build units in originally Chinese territories, with the same limitations as before.

Well, I was assuming he was referring to alpha plus… must one refer to it as alpha plus for clarity even though alpha is obsolete? As alpha is completely obsolete, can’t alpha plus just be referred to as alpha?

As Italy, put everything you’ve got into taking Egypt, and more importantly, taking and keeping Gibraltar.

As Germany, either go for Sealion or go all out against Russia ASAP. G2 is my usual turn for attacking Russia when I don’t go for Sealion, and often even if I do. Russia becomes just too powerful if you leave it alone.

As UK, defend UK. If Sealion is averted, put pressure on German France and Italian Africa.

As US, crush some fascists.

As Russia, defend for your life and don’t leave any gaps.

As France… get really lucky rolls.

It’s too hard to tell as of yet, but I’m not going to use all of his changes anyways. Just most of them.

I am not arguing necessarily the historical accuracy of this victory condition, but rather how it changes the feel of the game. I would rather if the Allies felt serious consequences for throwing everything into one theatre, rather than losing to a mediocrely powerful and unopposed Japan. The changed NOs help this. Really, I think the US NOs should be changed to this, when at war:

1. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling the West Indies and Johnston Island.
2. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling 5 of the 7 following islands: Midway, Wake, Marinaras, Iwo Jima, Caroline, Solomon Islands and Guam.
3. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling the Philippines.
4. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.
5. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Mexico, Southeast Mexico, West Indies and Panama.
6. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Brazil and the Line Islands.
7. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Hawaii.

So, if America goes all out Europe, they could lose every NO to Japan. If they go all out Japan, they could lose 15 IPCs in NOs to the Axis. If they do the balancing act they were supposed to they could get 35 IPCs from NOs.

Then take out the vc change.

I’m not liking the new victory conditions for the Axis. It further takes away from the global feel of this global game. If you can win by only playing well on one side, what’s the point of having both boards out?

Though this is slightly off-topic, at least it’s relating to China.

How big of an impact on the game would allowing China to move and conquer wherever and whatever it wants would make? Of course, they’d still be limited to the mainland except for the Flying Tigers… but still. I just think this would make playing China a bit more interesting, and open up more options. I don’t really care too much about historical accuracy, by the way. I just want to know how this would affect gameplay.

Bumper cars.

If the Allies liberate one of the originally Japanese territories with a Chinese marker on them, and then either Italy or Germany take it back, is the territory liberated back to Japan or do Italy or Germany keep it?

To make this clearer, I’ll use an example.

CHI3: Shanghai is taken from Japan by China.

GER4: Germany takes Shanghai.

Is Shanghai now German or Japanese?

Bumpity bumpity bump.

I think this would be great, especially considering I’m only interesting in house rules for the new '40 games. It would also help to keep things at the top of their sub-forum. If someone has a house rule for the old AAE, it probably won’t get too much traffic and will likely be buried under the house rules for newer A&A games. However, with this, the house rule would get attention from everybody who would be interested in it, as it would likely be on the first page of the AAE sub-forum.

Thanks for the great idea!

@allweneedislove:

Change Axis victory conditions: they win if Japan takes 6 VCs OR the Euro Axis take 8 VCs

this is the best solution i have thought of so far. it also stops the usa from spending all on one theater.

It probably would work really well, but I feel it would take away from the Global feel of the game. Already, the two sides, Europe and Pacific, keep mostly to themselves, so I don’t want Axis to have separate goals too.

I think that a couple of the following changes could help considerably:

-Bring Italy into the war I1, and make declaring war upon Italy previous to this impossible

-Change Axis victory conditions: they win if Japan takes 6 VCs OR the Euro Axis take 8 VCs

-Add German tanks to Africa

-Split the US income with the boards. The NO money goes to Pacific side

-Add some subs to Italy’s navy

I personally would do 1 and 4 OR 4 and 5. And I’m not going to because the people I play with are green compared to you guys, so it’s unnecessary.