@Krieghund thanks again. Pretty sure they are going J4 and sealion. Hold on!
Global domination
-
what my group have seen is that the dominating strategy for the axis becomes;
germany goes barbarossa, not going for moscow, but rather the middle east, through cauc. japan attacks russia to make them smaller, so that germany can afford to send more troops to middle east.
japan builds landfactories, and start pumping mechs on the mainland, going through india, when india falls, japan sorties (3 carriers, a few subs and DDs and 2-5 filled transports) to africa. taking british terrs to prevent the bonus and either going for SA, egypt or shipping landtroops to somalia an start taking terrs. (india crush might also be a good strat, so middle east can be held for longer)
if US goes heavy towards germany, then japan will at some point start building 6-10 subs/DDs each turn. Their goal is to force US to match them, and if US doesnt, they take hawaii, and the other US islands gaining 2 NOs and killing 1 US NO, total swing of 17 ipc.
If us still does not do anything, the convoying sanfransico will more or less cripple US economy (down to 52 ipc or so)
Sidney is usually not taken, japans extra resources is much better spent against russia and africa.
japan will easily collect 100 IPC in such a scenario.
-
I generally go pacific. I am not a Europe kind of guy. The nice thing about doing KJF is losing moscow is not game over. In fact it is not even a big deal if you can get Japan out of the game within a few rounds after.
-
Having played the global domination before, I can tell you Japan can not win alone if allies go kgf, even if they get India, Australia, Hawaii. Just too many ipcs on the Europe side. When Germany falls the allies will crush even an aggrandized japan
Yeah, I saw the same thing. We played a game where Germany held out long enough for Japan to get the 6 VCs for a Pacific win. Just for kicks, we played it out. Germany was snuffed out in the next round or two then all Allies turned on Japan. While Japan was a huge monster and it took time for the Allies to switch everything over to the Pacific and Russia to send stuff across Asia, eventually Japan’s mighty empire was whittled down.
-
I have been thinking about a point system in global domination for the victory cities. Trying to figure out what the goal of the axis should be (thinking 35 vic pts)
Capitals worth 3 pts
regional capitals 2 pts
other VC worth 1 ptEurope would look like this:
Berlin XXX
Rome XXX
Warsaw X 12 vic points to line (Europe)
Paris XXX
Leningrad X
Stalingrad X
Moscow XXX
Cairo X
London XXX
Ottawa X
DC XXXtotal 23 Vic pts
Pac
Tokyo XXX
Shanghai X
Hong Kong X 8 more vic pts to line (20 w/Euro)
Manila X
Calcutta XX
Sidney XX
Honolulu X
San Fran Xtotal 12 vic pts (35 total vic pts E/P)
The axis could get to the line I put in with some effort for 20 vic pts combined. I’m thinking that a win would be 25 total vic points, so they need 5 more. Axis would most likely need to drop a major capital to win.
Would the same 25 vic pts work for an allies win? They start w/24 pts, but lose them fast. Maybe 25 pts and at least one axis capital? I think they would need to liberate Paris (3 pts) to win.
Allies board could look like this:
DC XXX
Ottawa X
London XXX 14 vic pts to line
Moscow XXX
Cairo X
Rome/Paris XXX
Paris/Rome XXX
Leningrad X
Stalingrad X
Warsaw X
Berlin XXXPac
San Fran X
Honolulu X 6 more vic pts to line (20 W/Euro)
Sidney XX
Calcutta XX
Manilla X
Hong Kong X
Shanghai X
Tokyo XXXAllies would most likely need to lib Paris, and Capture Rome/Berlin or Tokyo for 25 vic pts? Maybe crush Japan to get to the VC in Asia?
-
I think I might wanna argue that shanghai is a capitol (of china) and sanfransisco is a regional capitol of pacific
-
Where can I find Global Domination rules?
-
I think I might wanna argue that shanghai is a capitol (of china) and sanfransisco is a regional capitol of pacific
I originally gave San Fran 2 pts, but thought it really only gives the allies an extra vic pt so left it at 1. Hadn’t thought about Shanghai being the capital of China, but the game doesn’t recognize China as having a capital. Making them both worth 2 pts would offset starting pts, or would it just make it easier for the US to go KJF racking up pts on that side? You could also bump Ottawa to 2 pts being the capital of Canada, but I wouldn’t make it worth 3 pts because Ottawa doesn’t follow the capital rules in the game. If you bump a couple of VC to regional status (2 pts) then you would also need to raise the number need to win.
-
BTW I agree with the others that global domination would favor the allies because of longer games. Longer games generally allow for the allies to rebound and kick in their vast nearly untouchable resources. Once the US gets rolling, and the UK reclaims its income in Africa (and/or Asia) they are a tough tandem to deal with in the 9th+ turn. If the axis can’t kill off the US/UK transports shucking units wave after wave then axis are generally doomed.
I have also had games where Germany will stop (or was stopped) at the gates of Moscow, then lay siege to the capital to strangle the rest of the Russians income. Then build/take a couple minor IC’s to keep a flow of units going to keep them in check until they can finish the job. It’s rare but if the allies have suffered a major defeat (maybe at sea) time can actually help the Germans build up to drop the Russians, and build their Atlantic wall. Once they are fighting just one front anything can happen.
I will say that we rarely play with the individual map win scenarios (have done it, but don’t like it). I know it favors the axis, but it also can put the game into some very unrealistic positions where an axis power will sacrifice itself and everything on their own side so their counterpart can win on the other. It is generally the Japanese (a very proud people) that do something like kamikaze their air force into Moscow to soften them up for the Germans, and w/o the Japanese air force they’re house of cards falls flat.
When we play we play until someone says uncle. This is why we don’t offer a bid to the allies as many do that say the the game is axis heavy on the balance scale. In a game that is basically global domination the allies would offset that balance because of the length of game. We will track the VCs to see how things are going because the VC are a good measuring stick. We may even call the game if the axis have what is needed on one board depending on possession.
Maybe in order for the axis to claim victory on one map, they need to also hold a minimum number of VC’s on the other side equal to 1/2 what is needed for win on that other side (min E-4 VCs, P-3 VCs). That way an axis power can’t sell out their side to help win the game and you would have some kind of global domination.
For a Pac win you need the 6 VC, plus 4 VCs on the Euro side (1/2 need to win that side)
For a Euro win you need the 8 VC, plus 3 VCs on the Pac side (1/2 need to win that side)
Would also say that anytime the axis get to 13 VC the game ends (no once around).
-
@WILD:
I will say that we rarely play with the individual map win scenarios (have done it, but don’t like it). I know it favors the axis, but it also can put the game into some very unrealistic positions where an axis power will sacrifice itself and everything on their own side so their counterpart can win on the other.
Let’s keep in mind though that that rule was implemented because the allies could ignore one side and go all-out on the other; it didn’t matter if Japan was making 100+ when Germany and italy were gone.
-
@WILD:
I think I might wanna argue that shanghai is a capitol (of china) and sanfransisco is a regional capitol of pacific
I originally gave San Fran 2 pts, but thought it really only gives the allies an extra vic pt so left it at 1. Hadn’t thought about Shanghai being the capital of China, but the game doesn’t recognize China as having a capital. Making them both worth 2 pts would offset starting pts, or would it just make it easier for the US to go KJF racking up pts on that side? You could also bump Ottawa to 2 pts being the capital of Canada, but I wouldn’t make it worth 3 pts because Ottawa doesn’t follow the capital rules in the game. If you bump a couple of VC to regional status (2 pts) then you would also need to raise the number need to win.
ya that goes without saying. I was just commenting on the idea that I would like the status of some of the cities to change, and bumping shanghai means china is more important
-
@WILD:
I have been thinking about a point system in global domination for the victory cities. Trying to figure out what the goal of the axis should be (thinking 35 vic pts)
Capitals worth 3 pts
regional capitals 2 pts
other VC worth 1 ptEurope would look like this:
Berlin XXX
Rome XXX
Warsaw X 12 vic points to line (Europe)
Paris XXX
Leningrad X
Stalingrad X
Moscow XXX
Cairo X
London XXX
Ottawa X
DC XXXtotal 23 Vic pts
Pac
Tokyo XXX
Shanghai X
Hong Kong X 8 more vic pts to line (20 w/Euro)
Manila X
Calcutta XX
Sidney XX
Honolulu X
San Fran Xtotal 12 vic pts (35 total vic pts E/P)
The axis could get to the line I put in with some effort for 20 vic pts combined. I’m thinking that a win would be 25 total vic points, so they need 5 more. Axis would most likely need to drop a major capital to win.
Would the same 25 vic pts work for an allies win? They start w/24 pts, but lose them fast. Maybe 25 pts and at least one axis capital? I think they would need to liberate Paris (3 pts) to win.
Allies board could look like this:
DC XXX
Ottawa X
London XXX 14 vic pts to line
Moscow XXX
Cairo X
Rome/Paris XXX
Paris/Rome XXX
Leningrad X
Stalingrad X
Warsaw X
Berlin XXXPac
San Fran X
Honolulu X 6 more vic pts to line (20 W/Euro)
Sidney XX
Calcutta XX
Manilla X
Hong Kong X
Shanghai X
Tokyo XXXAllies would most likely need to lib Paris, and Capture Rome/Berlin or Tokyo for 25 vic pts? Maybe crush Japan to get to the VC in Asia?
Really like this idea with the point system. This is one thing with my group that we find hard is getting the right victory conditions. Like the current game we have going, Japan has a might empire and has 6/8 in the Pacific, but the European theatre is a different ballgame and the Axis only control 5 of the 11.
-
Perhaps I’ve just been doing it wrong, but if anyone seriously thinks the Allies need a bid in a global domination game (the poll has Allies +10 in the lead as of the writing of this post), I’d like to hear your reasoning and how most of your games play out.
-
Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.
-
Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.
global domination is a house rule which is playing until one side controls all territories.
i find it a much less interesting game, allies just go all out on either europe or pacific. -
I think it can be more interesting. The allies get to attack and be less reactionary. It does make the allies more fun to play. Plus even if japan has to turtle Germany can get Russia and then work his way to middle east and india. It is more of a race.
-
Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.
In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes. You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured. Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.
As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.
Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned. The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance. Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns. It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.
Suggested Topics
