Victory Levels

@ButterSurge hello! I am a Global War 36 player, i am interested in trying this scenario out but, id like to limitations on when things happen. One of the things i like about global war is that the axis can attack and declare war as they please, which puts a fun spin it the game in my opinion. With that being said, have you done a test game without the set time declarations?

Ps. I would submit that there is already a relative scale of forces represented in the OOB starting unit distribution, such that 1 inf in one territory (or one region of the map) doesn’t necessarily equate to 1 inf in another territory (somewhere else on the map) in terms of how many actual men that sculpt is supposed to represent.

The game is intentionally vague about this stuff, and if you try to force a one-size-fits-all analogy onto every sculpt on the board, such that 1 sculpt = X number of actual historical forces, the game immediately breaks down with a number of wild inconsistencies all over the place.

This is not just the case for infantry, but for all unit types. A fighter sculpt in Russia or Germany might represent thousands of more individual aircraft than one in China would. Likewise a starting ship in one part of the world might represent a force that is much larger than a starting ship in some other part of the world. Even Ipcs on the map are like this, where the value of one territory tile vs another, can only be really be understood/accepted as anything even remotely accurate if you evaluate it in relative terms on a more localized scale.

For the purposes of a historical gameplay narrative, 1 infantry unit on the map represents whatever it needs to, for the game to make sense. And we are basically already suspending disbelief, when we accept the OOB set up. This rule would just build on that by adding the 1 inf per VC thing into the equation, leaving the player free to imagine that the unit scales in whatever way makes the most sense for a given VC.

Egypt (i.e. the Suez canal) was Britain’s lifeline to the Asian dominions and colonies.

Perhaps combine all UK/India/Anzac economies, but if the canal is lost it must be divided into East and West. Therefore, taking Cairo for the Axis stops UK spending all combined income in the European theatre.

The interseting thing with the Supreme Excellence card is what it brings in for strategy, not so much about the numbers. If you attack and concentrate a force into one zone or territory, just to deplete an enemy on a stack of strategically interesting units, you might end up in trouble. What would happen if the defending player plays the Entrenchment or Signals Intelligence card! As you see, it will bring a second level thought to the strategy that we have never seen before. Make it more of a strategy game, and less luck, which is the opposite to what most people think at first sight. If you try these rules you will discover new insights about this second level thought in many other situations of the game play. Enjoy!

Mr. Andersson

@variance:

Its nice how its simple and it gives a victory condition for both the allies as well as the axis. It’s not “the allies win if the axis don’t”; the allies can’t “win” by just stacking Cairo and Hawaii forever. I could see the axis going for Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Nanking, Hong Kong, Manila, and then Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, with UK struggling to defend either Cairo or Calcutta (but not both) and allies race to get Paris or Rome in time. That should actually work pretty well I would think!

That’s exactly what I was thinking Vance…

My Axis strategy would be to hold Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, Rome, Leningrad, Moscow, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, and any pair of Cairo, Calcutta and/or Stalingrad for the win.

My Allied strategy would involve holding all their “untouchable” cities like Ottawa, Washington, London, San Francisco, Honolulu, and Sydney. I would then give them individual responsibilities for the UK to hold Calcutta and Cairo… for the US to take Paris and get back Manila, and for Russia to hold Moscow and Stalingrad for the win.

I like these victory conditions because it’s the same objective for both sides, and lets face it, if either side holds 12 cities after the 5th round… it’s pretty much over anyways.

Haven’t done the research on this, but I’m just throwing it out there.

What if the Axis powers together needed a total of 12 VC, instead of 8 in Europe, or 6 in Pacific? Also, Allies only need to capture 2 Capitals to win.

Thoughts?

Rule set made by me:

Any power during their turn may form an alliance with another power. It can include non aggression, ceasefire, surrender, etc. To break a non aggression or a ceasfire cost 15ipcs. You may un surrender if your ally gives 1 turn of income 2 you. The capitol though, must be free of enemy units to unsurrender yourself.

I dont like regular subrules. Isay the blinded way is better(you write down where you moved your sub on each turn) this is better because you are undetected until a destroyer moves into your same seazone or you surface for air or battle. :)