Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris

[siparo]

We have played this scenario more than most. We played it countless timesfor over a year. We’ve played it at the GenCon tournament for the last 2 years. Perhaps my friends and I are mistaken due to playing each other so often and we’ve become trapped in the same old moves for countless games.

If you’re interested in a game via TripleA, let me know.

[ghr2]

@siparo:

We have played this scenario more than most. We played it countless timesfor over a year. We’ve played it at the GenCon tournament for the last 2 years. Perhaps my friends and I are mistaken due to playing each other so often and we’ve become trapped in the same old moves for countless games.

If you’re interested in a game via TripleA, let me know.

I am looking to play more Global on TripleA as well.

[NilOGrav]

Hi,

How does the scenario handle the “originally controlled territories”. Are they the territories from G40 or the status quo at the start of G42? Thanks for the clarification.

chrz

[Krieghund]

As always, the emblems printed on the map determine original control.

[Black_Elk]

I think it would be cool if the game Global map board had 6 possible set ups or scenarios by year, all printed as a set up chart addendum to the rulebook. Same core rules, just different territory ownership and starting unit set ups.

1940: Expert difficulty. Longest scenario, slowest build up, with the most involved rules and most deliberate gameplay pace.
Focus primarily on the Political dimension and Declarations of War between players. Designed as the “all night” or “multi-session” scenario. Realistically a scenario at this scale should be designed with the 1v1, head to head style of gameplay in mind.

1941: Moderate difficulty. A slightly accelerated version of the above, but beginning with total war conditions. Still a long scenario, with a fairly slow build up, just at a slightly faster pace than the 1940 game, on account of no DoW rules and more starting units. Focus on mobilization and early purchasing. Again designed to work well in a 1v1, head to head match.

1942: Moderate difficulty. Moderate length scenario. Fairly involved unit start, but a somewhat faster build up than the two earlier scenarios. Representing the Axis at their greatest extent, with roughly balanced starting forces. As the basic 1942 scenario proposed in this thread attempts to do. The familiar A&A game, modeled on the Classic experience. This game should be designed with a more free form team-player experience in mind, such as the 2v2 or 3v3 match.

1943: Moderate difficulty. Similar flavor to 1942, but with a different unit set up and a more accelerated pace. A many-headed-hydra sort of match, with the scenarios that follow focusing as well on the multi. I think this game might be fun if designed for the uneven-match 1v2, or 2v3 etc.

1944: Wild difficulty. Short scenario, fast set up. Focuses heavily on technology. The fast pace of this should make it ideal for quick games, either head to head or multi player.

1945: Wild difficulty. Shortest scenario, fastest set up. Focuses on the Post War balance of power. This last scenario might be conceived in such a way to allow the war to continue beyond its historical end-date, and to build a certain Cold War flavor into the game. Perhaps returning to the Political dimension, like a funhouse mirror reflection of the 1940 scenario, except here it is a “cold” DoW between the USSR and the Western Powers. This one would probably be fun as a 3 player game, Free For All, 1v1v1. Or perhaps as a head to head match, with some sort of cascading technology feature, or mechanic whereby the contest is really Allies vs Allies, and the Axis are there mainly as an hour glass in the competition. Or perhaps both ideas in mind, for the short 1v1 and the multi. This game might include strategic weapons as a resolution mechanism: the ABCs. Though maybe we don’t want to go there with A&A? People seem to have a fascination with the Atomic since the Allies achieved it, but the Bio-Chem not so much, even though that was where the Axis had the edge. Its the dark side though either way, and a hard sell. Probably best to just leave it alone and pretend the war ends on conventional terms. It would still be cool for the Soviet player to have a 1945 start date, since we could build them out to be at their zenith, war with Japan etc.

A game map like that would have substantial replay value, and a better statistical chance that 1 out of the 6 scenarios will score a hit, and be balanced by sides OOB.
:-D

Clearly the most complex and rules intensive year would be 1940, since this pre-dates Soviet and USA entry, and the Pacific war versus Japan, but all the rest could be designed with a more moderate difficulty level. Basically, as the war goes on, with each scenario you can strip things down a bit, to put the emphasis on a different style of gameplay. Keeping the same Total War situation and rules, just with a different flavor in each year. I think 6 years would be cool, since you could do the whole 1d6 analogy. And the basic 6 player ideal. I mean, you could probably print a set up chart for each year on just a couple pages at the end of the rulebook. I still pine and dream for a 3rd edition printing of 1940 Global, that might include such a concept.

[barney]

That is an EXCELLENT IDEA ! The board has so much to offer. People should never get bored with it, just play a different scenario!

My bro and I used to play Avalon hill’s Russian Campaign. It had a couple what if scenarios. One was where the “Bulge” was put on the Russians. Germans only got like two panzers and a couple infantry units. That game made me realize the Russians were the ones that beat the Germans.

Anyway would be cool

[mtngoatjoe]

@barney:

My bro and I used to play Avalon hill’s Russian Campaign. It had a couple what if scenarios. One was where the “Bulge” was put on the Russians. Germans only got like two panzers and a couple infantry units. That game made me realize the Russians were the ones that beat the Germans.

I think the 27 million dead Russians would agree with you. Stalin through everything he had at the Germans (mostly men), and it cost them dearly. One of the big reasons for Torch was to keep the Russians from making peace with Germany. Stalin demanded a second front, but the Allies didn’t think they could sustain a landing in Europe before 1943, so they went to Africa and then Italy.

[Charles de Gaulle]

This version is great but after dozens of games I have been disappointed. It seems Allies have an advantage in Europe and Japan has an advantage in Pacific. Russia crushes a lot of German forces in the beginning while Italy has it pretty tough in the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, Japan is way too strong and always takes India. The only possible remedy is if the US focuses more on Japan alleviating the European Axis and the Pacific Allies. Am I missing something?

[siparo]

You’ve got it right. But this is the balance. US is forced to spend more in Pacific to stop Japan from putting too much into Asia or taking Australia or Hawaii. Lacking American involvement in Europe the Germans can put lots of pressure on Russia. While Sea Lion is effectively off the table the Axis can win if Russia and India fall.

[louprouge]

hi question if have only transport offload unit and have ememy sub in same zone can do the offload? sam question can load troop whit only transport when have enemy sud ?if offload whit only transport and ennemy can do scramble and kill my transport? if i bring transport and carrier to offload troup whit enemy sub what i do thank for answer i hope you understand my question

[siparo]

You must have a surface ship, including an aircraft carrier, with the transport to load or unload in a sea zone containing an enemy sub.

[TimmyBravo]

Ahhh… Two years absent from the wonderful world of AA , and I return to find a scenario for G42! Very pleased to see this :)
Last version I played was HBG’s G39, awesome yet frustrating at times.

I have only so much time to dive into the posts on this forum… Are there any friendly ppl here who could direct me to threads containing AAR’s of G42 along with other setups/scenarios?

Thanks in advance.

Tomorrow a friend an myself will start up a game. I can not begin to say how much I look forward to this :D

Happy gaming, folks!

[TimmyBravo]

Got another  question. Setup for territory:Germany says 1 Strat. Bombers. Is this a mistake in the plural sense or should Germany have two or more Bombers at their disposal?
Same question for territory:Japan on Fighters and Strat.Bombers.

Thanks again

[siparo]

Only 1 strategic bomber.

[nomad 1]

I have a question.
Can japan buy a minor or a mayor industrial complex in java?
Sins it is a island ?

[Panther]

@nomad:

I have a question.
Can japan buy a minor or a mayor industrial complex in java?
Sins it is a island ?

Welcome to the forum, nomad 1.

Two aspects:

@rulebook:

Major industrial
complexes can only be built on originally controlled (not
captured) territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher. Minor
industrial complexes can be built only in territories with an IPC
value of 2 or higher.

and

@rulebook:

Industrial complexes can’t be built on islands (see
“Islands,” page 8 ).

Java is an island that is originally controlled by the Dutch.

HTH :-)

[taamvan]

Hey guys,

We noticed that the UK NO in G42 has a different application.  It says “original” UK territories, but this means that Persia, Italian Somialia Land, Ethopia and E Persia? would all have to be held (on top of the original terrirtories from the G40 game) in order to collect the bonus.

Does everyone here agree that “original” refers to original at G42 setup, rather than original to the printed board?

[Panther]

@taamvan:

Hey guys,

We noticed that the UK NO in G42 has a different application.   It says “original” UK territories, but this means that Persia, Italian Somialia Land, Ethopia and E Persia? would all have to be held (on top of the original terrirtories from the G40 game) in order to collect the bonus.

Does everyone here agree that “original” refers to original at G42 setup, rather than original to the printed board?

What wording of the UK NO are you referring to?

This is how it reads in my version:
@G42:

United Kingdom 41 IPCs (UK Eur -31 IPCs, UK Pac -10)
Bonus Income:

• 5 IPCs (awarded to the Europe economy) if the UK
  controls all of its original territories in its European
  economy.
  -5 IPCs (awarded to the Pacific economy) if the United
  Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.

Also the definition of “original” according to the rulebooks has not changed.
@rulebook:

When the rules refer
to the “original controller” of a territory, they mean the
power whose emblem is printed on the territory.

HTH :-)

Edit:
Additionally I found this on the previous page of this thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34278.msg1401171#msg1401171

[taamvan]

thanks panther

[suprise attack]

Played it a few times. a fun game good to see a different set up