What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?


  • @variance:

    I really like Global 1940.  Its a great game, but I think there are some things about it that are implausible and unhistorical to the point of cheesiness.  I thought I would start this thread just to see what everyone else thinks are the things about the game that rate highly on the cheesiness factor.

    In no particular order (since they are all ridiculous IMHO), my top 5 cheezers are:

    1. On the brink of extermination by a giant Nazi tank force, the USSR abandons the capital and the entire population marches away on a Biblical exodus to Egypt.  Somehow that saves the world from the Nazis.
    2. America prevents the Nazis from taking over the world by flying fighter aircraft from Eastern USA, to an airbase in Gibraltar, and then on to Cairo.  Equally dumb as #1 above.
    3. Japan conquers India (a country with a population of 389 million souls in 1941) using a small amphibious landing supported by millions of aircraft that fly all the way from southeast China to India and back to Yunnan or Eastern Burma.  Sounds likely.
    4. Japanese strategic bombers take off from an airbase in northeast China, flatten Moscow, and land in Western Ukraine.  I guess the Japanese had mid-air refueling in World War II.
    5. Japan declares world hegemony after conquering the island of Hawaii.  The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union accept defeat after losing their favourite vacation spot.  Hawaii is nice, but it’s not that nice really.

    So those are my favourite stupidities of the Global game.  What are yours?

    PS I almost forgot Operation Sealion. Even Hitler thought that was too dumb for real life.

    Appreciate all your 5 factors. Mine is that pilots can reach some unbelievable distance and there are 3 things they can’t get across in this world which are Sahara deserts , Himalayas and  Pripet Marshes. What?

  • '17

    @MagicQ:

    Mine is that pilots can reach some unbelievable distance and there are 3 things they can’t get across in this world which are Sahara deserts , Himalayas and  Pripet Marshes. What?

    There are no paths between any two territories that can be made shorter by flying over the Pripet Marshes. It seems like the Pripet Marshes are on the map strictly to influence land units (which is historically accurate).

    I am guessing the game designers just didn’t want to make a new type of territory passable to air but impassable to land?

  • Customizer

    I think aircraft should be able to fly over the Sahara and Himalayas. I understand that land units would be stopped but air units should be able to cross.

    Plus, have you looked at the map, specifically the Sahara area? You can see the borders of the countries. French Central Africa actually borders Algeria and Libya. Even so, I would be willing to count the Sahara as one extra space for air movement.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    I agree. But to preserve something of the original idea of them being ‘impassable’, maybe an element of danger should be added. For example, anyone who wants to fly over the Himalayas or the Sahara would not only count them as a space, but also roll a dice, and the plane would be lost on a 1.


  • @Herr:

    I agree. But to preserve something of the original idea of them being ‘impassable’, maybe an element of danger should be added. For example, anyone who wants to fly over the Himalayas or the Sahara would not only count them as a space, but also roll a dice, and the plane would be lost on a 1.

    That would be nice.


  • WW2 planes where not designed to fly over himalaya, even a modern non jet would have serius problems doing so.


  • @ErwinRommel:

    Nothing beats this fancy Mongolian rule:
    Mongolia will only turn pro axis if SOVIET attacks them.
    Somehow if Mongolia got attacked by any other allied nation Mongolia would remain neutral, they dont give a ���� about being invaded. But somehow the rest of the worlds neutrals care so much more about Mongolia than Mongolian’s themselves that they would rally around Hitler to defeat the evil Allies.
    Strange complex rule for no apparent reason.

    I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR.”  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

  • Customizer

    @ErwinRommel:

    WW2 planes where not designed to fly over himalaya, even a modern non jet would have serius problems doing so.

    C47’s flew over them and the tallest peak in the Himalayan range is Mount Everest which is only around 30, 000 feet. My grandfather was a mechanic in India during the war repairing planes that were supplying the Chinese. Google “The Hump” it was a route over the eastern range of the Himalayas which supplied Chaing Kai-Shek.

    Planes lost over the Sahara were generally due to pilot error or disorientation and  I believe a well preserved B-24 Liberator was found there not too long ago.

    The Sahara and Himalayas are impassable in the game mostly because of land units. This was done routinely via aircraft in the war in the Himalayas. If you’re playing by the book it doesn’t really matter. However in reality it was done.


  • http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump

    There existed some planes capable, but not many.

  • Sponsor

    Giving America a $10 National Objective for owning home land territories that are practically untouchable for any Axis power. However, Nazis marching under Big Ben in London don’t get a dime…. now that’s cheesy.


  • @CWO:

    I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR.”  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

    Then why doesn’t Russia just start the game controlling Mongolia and the 6 infantry?


  • @Young:

    Giving America a $10 National Objective for owning home land territories that are practically untouchable for any Axis power.

    I have no problem with this.  This reflects USA’s massive production capability, without allowing the Axis to earn 42 a turn for taking USA instead of 32

    However, Nazis marching under Big Ben in London don’t get a dime…. now that’s cheesy.

    The London NO was seemingly taken away to make Sealion less attractive.
    This is like the war bonds technology that IL was speaking of.  A quick fix without much thought put into it.  Kind of like a lot of things with G40 since OOB, actually.  :-P  :x

    Great thread.  Reminds me why I’m playing less and less of this game  :-P

    I agree with those who hate the 6 VC rule with Japan, and the fact that taking SYDNEY or HAWAII effectively wins the entire war for the Axis.  Losing this game as the Allies to a 6 VC Japan totally sucks, especially if you’re doing well in Europe.  The Axis can win without taking a single major world capital due to this half-baked idea.  That is just wrong.

    I’ll add one that’s missing so far:
    The stupid true neutrals rule.  That is some serious cheese.  Yeah, the Swiss are gonna go pro-Axis because the USA invaded Venezuela.  I don’t think so.

    For perspective, in the original game, you could violate neutrality by paying 3 IPC’s during your combat move and take over the country, which had no IPC value and you couldn’t build an IC there.
    Also, in the original game you had the optional? Axis economic victory rule, which made a lot more sense than the 6 Pacific VC rule, because you had to be earning like 84 IPC’s or so worldwide.  You had to control a LOT if you didn’t take 2 Allied capitals (Moscow, London, Washington).  But now in G40 we have regressed  :cry: as Japan can win by taking only 2 non-automatic minor world capitals (2 of Calcutta, Honolulu, and Sydney).

    Rant over


  • @Gamerman01:

    @CWO:

    I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as "a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR."  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

    Then why doesn’t Russia just start the game controlling Mongolia and the 6 infantry?

    Mongolia was technically an independent country.  Politically it was a Soviet client state, but officially it was independent and neutral.

  • Customizer

    @Gamerman01:

    I agree with those who hate the 6 VC rule with Japan, and the fact that taking SYDNEY or HAWAII effectively wins the entire war for the Axis.  Losing this game as the Allies to a 6 VC Japan totally sucks, especially if you’re doing well in Europe.  The Axis can win without taking a single major world capital due to this half-baked idea.  That is just wrong.

    Perhaps for Global, we could go back to the original Axis victory conditions of 14 victory cities over the whole board. Would that make it too hard for the Axis? At least in that case, even if Japan got 6 or 7 cities, if Germany/Italy were struggling it still wouldn’t be an Axis victory just yet.

    @Gamerman01:

    I’ll add one that’s missing so far:
    The stupid true neutrals rule.  That is some serious cheese.  Yeah, the Swiss are gonna go pro-Axis because the USA invaded Venezuela.  I don’t think so.

    That’s why we use Neutral Blocks. South America, Africa, Europe, Middle-East and Mongolia. So for example, Switzerland would only be affected by attacks on Sweeden, Spain, or Portugal. We put Turkey in the Middle-East block along with Afghanistan and Saudi-Arabia.

  • '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    Very rarely do you ever see the Axis strong enough to accomplish world domination.  So if you take away the VC, you’ll need to replace it with something the Axis could achieve.

    I think allowing Axis victory upon capture of 2 major capitols with San Francisco counting as a major capitol could work.

    That way if Germany can get Moscow or London, Japan can help out by taking SF.


  • @Karl7:

    I think allowing Axis victory upon capture of 2 major capitols with San Francisco counting as a major capitol could work.

    That’s what I’m talking about

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    Would Sydney count as a world capitol?


  • @variance:

    Would Sydney count as a world capitol?

    No way.  Not a major world capital in WWII

    We’re talking Moscow, London, Washington, San Francisco

    Funny how much the original game keeps coming back to mind with G40 issues.  Axis had to take 2 Allied capitals to win in the original, IIRC

    I think this game would play better and more fun if it was the old school victory conditions from the original.  Either side has to take 2 major capitals to win (while losing no more than 1 major capital of your own?)
    I just know it’s a cheese factory that the Axis win the game if Japan gets 6 cities for a single round, when 4 are pretty much automatic and the other 2 are, well, a lot less than major world power centers.


  • Axis are 310-244 in the A&A.org 2013 league

    This is with bids to the Allies averaging 6-12

    It is obvious that the VC conditions are too friendly to the Axis.  I find it interesting that people on this thread are saying they are worried that changes could make it harder for the Axis to win.
    It NEEDS to be harder for the Axis to win.

    And so I add this to the list of what’s the cheesiest thing about Global 1940.

    It’s that the Axis win 56% of the games, enabled by the threat that Japan could pick up 2 Pacific cities and win the game.

  • '21 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I was looking at your spread sheet of league games, particularly looking at the win percentages as Axis or Allies for the different tiers.  I would like to suggest that for the first three tiers the game seems pretty balanced for win percentages.  80/70 in the first tier for wins as Axis/Allies, followed by 60/50 and 40/30 in the other two tiers.

    There’s not a column that shows the bid amounts?

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts