Global 1940 is the best Axis & Allies game

[Cow]

The Europe half sucks for me, the skirmishes only occur between Italy and UK, the rest is a big stack moving toward Russia, maybe a few infantry blockers here n there to fight, but it is a one way movement for the most part which is stupid.

[Meta Baston]

@Cow:

The Europe half sucks for me, the skirmishes only occur between Italy and UK, the rest is a big stack moving toward Russia, maybe a few infantry blockers here n there to fight, but it is a one way movement for the most part which is stupid.

Nobody ever came with a stacking rule and/or some kind of enlistment track limiting infantry and tanks that can be built (taking into account relative labor force of each country)? Those two simple house rules could improve the strategic feeling and flow of the game.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@Meta:

@Cow:

The Europe half sucks for me, the skirmishes only occur between Italy and UK, the rest is a big stack moving toward Russia, maybe a few infantry blockers here n there to fight, but it is a one way movement for the most part which is stupid.

Nobody ever came with a stacking rule and/or some kind of enlistment track limiting infantry and tanks that can be built (taking into account relative labor force of each country)? Those two simple house rules could improve the strategic feeling and flow of the game.

Interesting thought!
Recruitment and stacking limits. I have tried to invent some as a houserule once myself but got stuck into balance-issues and decided it wasnt worth my time ;-).

But I guess it is doable for a smart person with time to do it (especially if getting paid for it >.<).

[Whackamatt]

“1. Time, it takes up to 6 hours to play the game, realistically, and that can be hard to crank out in an day.”
I have NO problem with the amount of time it takes.  I may only get to play the game once a year, but it’s the best weekend of that year, without fail, every year.

“2. Players, it it great to play G40 with more players (and it’s pretty sweet to have them) but trying to convince 5 guys to play one game for a whole afternoon isn’t easy.”
Find better friends.  Seriously.  I have to drive 5 hours to get my annual “War & Bourbon” weekend.  Totally worth it.

“3. Money, in G40 there is so much money poured into each economy that one power rarely can’t replace their losses. This leads to games that can go up to 20 turns! Don’t get me wrong I like the things you can do in G40 but it seems to get ridiculous. “
You’re doing something wrong if it’s taking 20 rounds.  And units cost so much, it’s pretty easy to lose a lot more than your income on any given turn.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Veqryn:

the airbases and naval bases really make it interesting

I truly believe that this simple mechanic is the greatest evolution to the Axis & Allies franchise ever devised. Air bases and Naval bases add so much depth and strategic variables that it is a huge part of what makes G40 different from other A&A games. I love the fact that bases are useless on an average size map, and one must have the extra spaces that G40 provides to even allow the room needed for units to use bases. Air and Naval bases are simple units, but they effect the game greatly by effecting so many other units… Genius.

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

@BluGerman:

I was a big player of the original axis and allies game which i played with my group of friends on several occasions and the one thing that my friends and i enjoy is scale. We used to love playing risk as kids and when my one buddy played the  original axis and allies and told us about it we jumped at it and loved it. i cannot describe to you the excitement that I got from finding out that there was an axis and allies board of this magnitude that makes my pool table the only viable playing surface. This game just looks epic every-time i start setting it up for my friends to come over and i just can stare at it for hours and make sense of all the strategies i have seen on the forums. Sure it takes half a day to fully finish a game but that is the fun of it! What else can you honestly use as an excuse for having your buddies come over and spend practically the entire weekend in your basement?.. And yeah cruisers cost a bit too much, America making 50 some ipc’s off the bat is a tad ridiculous, and Spain is somehow the size of Australia, but you know what?.. I love this game, i have loved it, and i will continue loving it because it is awesome and i can change the cost of cruisers and starting ipc’s and laugh its geographical inaccuracies because this game isn’t perfect and nobody expected it to be. But it makes me happy and thankful of my purchase everyday, and that’s why Global 1940 is awesome

––Amen, Brother!
––And you know what? I believe the next incarnation of HBG’s global map,….1936/39/40 will be even better as I believe the idea of “Evolution of Units” will be introduced. And yes, it will be an even longer, FUNNER game. I can’t wait for it.

“Tall Paul”

[BluGerman]

Evolution of units?

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

––As I haven’t questioned Doug about this yet this is only my opinion, and may be incorrect. And I certainly do NOT speak for HBG.

----“Evolution of Units” is where you start a game with older units available and throughout the game newer, more powerful versions become available as well as NEW UNIT TYPES. This is something that I have been thinking about and working towards for a while. But it looks like HBG is already doing the hard work for us (again).
Example:
U.S. player might start with
P-40 (Early War Fighter), then P-51 (Mid War Fighter) made available, etc.
F-4F “Wildcat” (Early War Naval Fighter), then F-6F “Hellcat” (Mid War Naval Fighter),
Stuart (Light Tank), then Sherman (Medium Tank), then (Heavy Tank)
“Nevada” (Pre War Battleship), then “North Carolina” (Battleship), then “Iowa” (Super Battleship).

––The above are nothing more than my thoughts,…and I hope might be included in HBG’s plan for their 1936/39/40 Global game and map they are planning to release next fall.
----I have several of the “Factory Cities” from the Risk, 2008 version that I had planned to use as Research Centers. I definately DO NOT like the way R&D is handled via the OOB standard rules. I simply wanted a more balanced version, that would allow any country who wanted more modern/powerful units, and new TYPES of units to simply buy a Reasearch Center and then at as tthe game progressed pay a fee to enable certain “technologies” to become available to them for production. I hope this is what HBG is planning for their 1936/39/40 Global game. If not,….it will be my “Home Rule” modification. I’ll talk with Doug and see if my “guess” is anywhere near what he plans.

“Tall Paul”
p.s. - Below are pics of the “Risk” cities that I plan on using for “Research Centers”.


[CWO Marc]

@Tall:

Below are pics of the “Risk” cities that I plan on using for “Research Centers”.

Yes, those are nice – I own a supply of them, and they can also serve well as major industrial complexes (with the plastic OOB ICs from earlier games serving as minor ICs).  The cities from Risk: Metal Gear Solid (see below) could similarly be used as research centres for things like advanced weapons, since they look somewhat futuristic.

[Tall Paul]

CWO Marc & Others,

––Those are pieces interesting. But I prefer my “older-looking” pieces for WW2 Research Centers. Since “Allworkandnoclay” only finished some of my factories before he went on another “world exploration” I plan on using HBG/Shapeway’s smaller Factory as a Minor Factory along with my OOB Industrial Complexes for my Major Factories. I haven’t seen the Shapeway factories in person yet,….but from the pics (below) they are so much smaller that I believe they will be perfect.

“Tall Paul”

[CWO Marc]

@Tall:

Since “Allworkandnoclay” only finished some of my factories before he went on another “world exploration” I plan on using HBG/Shapeway’s smaller Factory as a Minor Factory along with my OOB Industrial Complexes for my Major Factories.

Nice paint job!  Painting bricks on the factory chimneys must have taken a lot of squinting and an impressive degree of eye-hand coordination.

[CWO Marc]

By the way, the flags painted on the IC sides gives them a nice resemblence to these factories from “War Comes To America”, the final film in Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” series.

[BluGerman]

That sounds really awesome paul!..… I always imagined Germany starting with Panzer 3’s, then moving up to Panzer 4’s, then the panther and Tiger maybe even going to King Tiger (with Battleship stats)… If that really gets implemented I am sure there will be a lot of balancing issues to work out but I am up to the challenge :)… P.S. Have been checking out pieces you got from Allworknoclay for some time now and i can’t wait for more (especially excited to see what he does with French Inf) P.S.S. I am so nerdy I watch one of the why we fight movies to get pumped for an upcoming Axis and Allies game :p

[Tall Paul]

CWO Marc & Others,

@CWO:

@Tall:

Since “Allworkandnoclay” only finished some of my factories before he went on another “world exploration” I plan on using HBG/Shapeway’s smaller Factory as a Minor Factory along with my OOB Industrial Complexes for my Major Factories.

Nice paint job!  Painting bricks on the factory chimneys must have taken a lot of squinting and an impressive degree of eye-hand coordination.

––Yes, I’d agree that “Alllworkandnoclay” is the best A&A painter that I’ve seen, although other people may have seen better. But the problem with true professional artists is the same as with other artists in that their interests change every 6 months or so,….thus nothing new from him in quite a while.
----I must point out that the only hand-painted national ensigns on my factories were the Italian, Anzac, and British “Union Jack”. All of the others were decals from I-94 Enterprises.
----BTW,…does ANYONE know of any source for British ‘Union Jack’ decals??? I have approx. 60+ pieces that we’ll need to do still and decals would make it much faster & easier, too!

“Tall Paul”
p.s.- In case you’d care to see his “Jack” Infantry I’ll post a link to my painted pieces thread. Just scroll down to the UK-Far East Forces and click for that thread.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29550.0

[gamerman01]

I find it’s really fun to disagree with Allweneed, so here goes:

Seriously though, I agree with all your points which I did not quote.

@allweneedislove:

4. better pricing of units. reducing the cost of naval and air units has led to a greater variety of units being purchased.

This was the hallmark of AA50, not G40.

6. strategic bombing raids are a legitimate but not overpowering strategy. how complexes are damaged and repaired is excellent. there is now a bigger reward for bombing but still plenty of risk, and the defender can have a counter strategy by having interceptors.

Main point is true (due to +2 Strat bombers with 2nd edition), but AA50 included escort/interceptor rules and max damage was double the value of the territory, which was adequate.  So strat bombing raids were legitimate but not overpowering in AA50 as well.

9. national objectives add mini in game objectives that add strategy and can encourage play to areas of the map that otherwise would be ignored.

Again, AA50 pioneered this.  G40 continued it, and actually some of the national objectives suck.  Bad.  But AA50 NO’s were all pretty solid.

10. transports taken last as casualties now has more naval units being purchased and a greater variety in those purchases. earlier editions had the allies creating a super navy that was unsinkable. once this point was achieved the allies would rightfully stop building navy. the navies had a few loaded carriers defended by huge amounts of transports. now, how navies are built and deployed, involves many more decisions. there is much more naval action with many fleets being sunk.

This is kudos to AA50.  Just continued on to G40.

11. politics and declarations of war(dow). depending on which round japan issues a dow, the game plays out very differently. there are benefits, different strategies, and different tactics for each different round that japan declares war. there is great game design in each round of dow having equal opportunity for victory.

Yes, although P40 really sucked (at least until the latest revisions) on this aspect.  J1 was the no-brainer decision.  EVERY TIME.

13. global 1942 scenario. the game has a whole new set of strategies to explore with the alternate start. http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf

OK, but this could be done with any A&A game so is not unique to G40

14. most importantly the victory conditions as it drives all choices from purchases, to attacks to movements. the axis having 2 separate victory conditions adds many layers to the game.

Yes, but 6 VC’s in the Pacific when 4 of them are gimmes and 3 of the others are not that major and the Axis can win without taking a major world capital/power center and no matter how badly things are going in Europe SUCKS

all older games were won by economics and the axis had to overtake the allies(most easily achieved by taking moscow). although they had victory cities it was for a world total and to reach this total you had to being winning economically, so while it might seem that players were making a push for victory cities we were all actually just playing for an economic victory. in older editions after the either side reached their victory city conditions you could keep playing to total domination and the same side would win. the axis still have an option to go for an economic victory but it is not a necessity.

Not exactly true.  The original had “economic win” for Axis which was like 84 IPC’s.  But achieving this level would not necessarily mean the Axis would always win if the game continued - it provided an alternate way for the Axis to win without necessarily being able to take over the world.  And that was one of the oldest versions of the game.
Again, I prefer a game where you are vying for the ability to dominate the world, compared to this G40 rule that no matter how badly Germany and Italy collapse and no matter how quickly, if Japan can sneak in and take Hawaii or Sydney after taking India and hold for just one round, the Axis are victorious.  That’s complete crap.

Out of time - have not read the rest of the OP yet

[gamerman01]

If I took the time, I could come up with a pretty good sized list of reasons that I do NOT prefer G40

#1 It takes way too much effort and time to play.  (To play WELL, I might add)

#2 None of the unit ranges were changed from the original game even though the map size is VASTLY different.
Bombers still 6, fighters still 4, boats still 2, infantry still 1
Bases and mech infantry partly help compensate for this, but still.  Room for improvement.

#3 Back to back moves by USA/China/UK and near back to back by Italy/Germany
Impossible to stop can openers

#4 Ahistorical starting setup
I thought this was G40.  So why are there so many units that are clearly there at startup to represent forces that did not exist until 1941 or even 1942?

#5 Game released horribly incomplete
MASSIVE rule changes and placement changes made along the way.  For example, unlimited scrambling from an airbase but only from islands.  Japan is an island, UK is not.

#6 Imbalance between Pacific and Europe
Not as bad after tweaks were made, but powers in the Pacific still have disproportionate number of units compared to Europe.

Out of time -
Anyone, please feel free to add to my last of “cons” - I would love to read them.

Oh, biggest con of all:

I do not look forward to making A&A moves (playing A&A online) like I did with AA50.  It often feels more like work than play now.  Partly due to my play style, no doubt, but still.  That’s not good.
Oh, and this despite the fact that I almost always win.  If it’s not that fun even when you’re winning, that tells me something.  :-P

[gamerman01]

Aw, come on, no responses yet?
How disappointing

Surely even Allweneedislove has a thing or two he actually doesn’t like about the best Axis & Allies game as compared to others.

Anyway, yes, I am actually losing interest in G40 now.  A little too big.  It’s too busy.  Sweet spot is somewhere between AA50 and G40, I think.

#7 Takes too long between an individual’s powers turns.
In previous versions of A&A, it doesn’t take as long to come around to your turn again, when you can follow up on what you set up the turn before.  (i.e. Russia2 to Russia3, USA4 to USA5)  I think this game often loses the flow, with too many powers involved.

Bigger isn’t always better.

[Tall Paul]

Gamerman01,

––To be honest,…I thought a response would be redundant. All of us are human, well MOST of us anyway :-D . So there might be just as many “opinions” as there are people to hold them. ALL are equally good and/or right FOR THEM. Thank goodness we are blessed with enough VARIETY in the different games of A&A that are available!
----I, personally, LOVE the grandness of global-40 and can’t wait to play HBG’s global-39 which I just ordered. For me, the ULTIMATE will be HBG’s 1936/39/40 Global game coming out next year.
I spoke with Doug and he confirmed that the long time span covered in this game had the Evolution of Units included and should be the “Ultimate Next Step” in A&A gaming.
––It goes without saying that it would be a longer game, so if that isn’t your interest, OK. There are still many other versions of A&A to love. As for me,…I can’t wait to have a GRAND GAME with 5+ people for a long game! WOW!
----Ultimately,…to each his own (preference).

“Tall Paul”

[gamerman01]

:-)
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Paul

[MistuhJay]

@Gamerman01:

Anyway, yes, I am actually losing interest in G40 now.  A little too big.  It’s too busy.  Sweet spot is somewhere between AA50 and G40.

Bigger isn’t always better.

Hear, hear. I have yet to enjoy a f2f game of G40. China and ANZAC are the bane of my existence as I wait for my turn to come around again. Playing 10 hours to get through 6 rounds is disappointing.

Now a game whose complexity falls between AA50 and G40? THERE’s something I could get behind.