never satisfied, are we ?
@CWO:
I understand the novelty of adding France to a large scale European map, but can someone remind me why they use USSR sculpts for so many units that they won’t build? Once liberated they used British and American equipment so they may as well have blue American pieces. Or just cut their piece count and give them to the British and American piece pools.
My guess is that it’s related to the large power / small power pairings in Global. Except for a game with two players (one Allied, one Axis), the number-of-players chart always pairs China with the US and always pairs ANZAC with the UK in games involving three or more people. The USSR and France each get tacked on to one of those pairings in 3-player games, but get tacked together in the 4-, 5- and 6-player games. The rules say that US artillery and aircraft units should be used for China, which reflects the US / China pairing. ANZAC’s equipment pieces are of Commonwealth – and sometimes specifically of British – origin, which reflects the UK / ANZAC pairing. The leftover Allied powers are the USSR and France, so they form a similar major / minor pairing and their sculpts reflect this. Also, France has sometimes (but not always) been an ally of Russia, for instance as was the case during WWI. And a few years earlier, during the Russo-Japanese War, European naval specialists watched the naval side of that war with great interest because the Russians were trained in the French naval tradition while the Japanese were trained in the British naval tradition, so the conflict was seen as kind of rough analogue to what a Franco-British naval war might theoretically look like. The British Admiralty was no doubt happy from that perspective to see Japan utterly clobber Russia at sea, even though Japan’s rise as a major naval power did have some uncomfortable implications for Britain.
I see, I never made the connection between major/minor pairings for sculpts. It makes sense, but it is funny that this pairing is loaded with naval units that will never be purchased by neither the USSR or France unless the game is already decided.
It makes sense, but it is funny that this pairing is loaded with naval units that will never be purchased by neither the USSR or France unless the game is already decided.
In a certain sense, the “naval units that will never be purchased by neither the USSR or France” element could be said to represent the historical position of both countries as frustrated naval powers. For such a huge country, Russia has surprisingly little access to the sea: its huge northern coastline is ice-bound most of the time, as is the upper part of its eastern coastline, leaving basically just the Baltic, the Black Sea and the area rougly around and south of Vladivostok. Russia’s performance in naval warfare hasn’t been very good as far as I know, with its low point being the Russo-Japanese War of 1905-1906. One particularly embarrassing action during that war was the Dogger Bank Incident, in which a trigger-happy Russian battle fleet opened fire on some British fishing boats in the North Sea (in waters roughly halfway between Britain and Denmark) because the Russians suspected that they were combat vessels of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Russia almost ended up at war with Britain because of that little debacle.
As for France, it has excellent access to both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and it also has a long naval tradition, but its problem is that its neighbor Britain – which as an island nation depends on naval trade – has historically had even more reasons than France to be a first-rate naval power, with the result that France has often ended up in second place compared to Britain. This explains in part why French naval thinkers have tended to be open to unconventional approaches to naval warfare (such as guerre de course, or the use of “equalizers” such as destroyers and submarines) in attempts to neutralize Britain’s superiority in traditional fleet combat. Unfortunately for France, Britain’s approach to dealing with this problem has often (though not always) been: let other nations be the first ones to innovate (since there’s no point in rendering your own fleet obsolete), then adopt the same technologies and overtake the other nations by using your superior industrial base to out-build the competition.
Interestingly, at the end of the war, the Red Navy was the third largest in the world (after the US and Royal Navies).
Interestingly, at the end of the war, the Red Navy was the third largest in the world (after the US and Royal Navies).
Yes, though by some estimations it was the Royal Canadian Navy that was in third place. Admittedly, part of the reason for the RCN’s high numbers was that it had a large number of small combat/escort vessels like corvettes, and another part of the reason for its place near the top of the world ranking was that much of the competition – the IJN, the Krigsmarine and the Regia Marina – had been eliminated from the game.
9: Liberate Paris with US + 4 free frech inf pop in
10: Non-com in as much UK support as possible
11: Survive Italian counter-attack on Paris
12: France can actually spend that Japanese money, building 3 units and upgrading its mIC to a major, saving rest for 10 units on the next round.
13: Survive, somehow, a German attack on Paris.
14: ?
The only thing stopping you is common sense, your own inhibitions, and more common sense.
I think we’re onto something!
But that weakens the UK a lot, in exchange for a country that can only build in faraway Canada…
Not really.
But that weakens the UK a lot, in exchange for a country that can only build in faraway Canada…
Not really.
The British lose 8 IPC’s from Canada, which is about a third of their Europe income…
Correct, but Toronto can build 12 + IPC Worth of units every turn, its like a bomber every turn in Exchange for the loss of 8 IPC
The inclusion of France is one of those game concepts that might have been interesting, but just wasn’t executed.
In order for the French to have much interest as a player nation, they need at least an opening turn where their capital isn’t already occupied by Germany. I find it curious that the German balance was designed for them to take Paris immediately on G1. I think it would have been cooler if the balance was designed for Paris to fall on G2.
I think the best shot at a more interesting France, would be a revision to the turn order sequence of some kind. For ease of use, you could preserve the same essential sequence but just change the starting point. For example…
Germany, Russia, Japan, USA/China/UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac/France > Germany
Could change to…
Italy, Anzac/France, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA/China/UK/Pac > Italy
This sequence would have showcase the new player nations (especially Anzac and France) in a more engaging way than the OOB order. Anzac could snap up an NO and start in a stronger position vs Japan. Italy could screw with the Med sure, but this would be offset more or less, by the fact that France is still in play. To take France, G would have to bring almost everything available, which gives the UK the starting fleet that it seems to need. I mean remember that line in the manual about “Giving Germany their Stukas” ?
Wouldn’t it be cooler if those Stukas were used against France on G1 instead of the UK in the channel?
Then we could just offset things with cash. Whichever nation is screwed the hardest from this turn order revision, gets a starting income bonus of comparable value. Who knows? maybe you don’t even need a bonus? The change would surely favor Allies, and they are at a definite disadvantage OOB. Italy would be more powerful and be able to destroy Allied TUV in the Med/Africa, but Germany would have a much more challenging opener, with a more formidable Royal Navy to deal with on G2.
Using such a system it’s possible to make every nation more interesting to play, since you can basically fast forward or rewind the sequence to give the game a new dynamic. In this case we rewind a bit… to an Italy and Anzac/France opener. Start date, vaguely May Day 1940
:-D
I had some HRs to randomize the turn sequence in this way for AA50, with a 1d6 roll. I tried it a couple times in Global (though for G40 I used some other 6 position sequences as well, to split the Anglo-American turn.) In some cases the player could roll a turn sequence with France ahead of Germany, which allowed for the French to have some use. It of course collapses the following round, as German TUV is too powerful to overcome, but the stall allows the French player to have at least one real turn, before they hand over their cash to the Germans or Italians. This is a simpler version of that approach, it’s not a randomized turn order sequence per se, just a shift backwards in the sequence by 2 positions. With Il Duce leading the charge.
Instead of being a useless afterthought, France would actually be pivotal to the opening round. They would have several options.
Stack Paris for defense is an obvious one.
But they might also abandon Paris and stack S. France. Maybe even build a channel or med fleet?
Or perhaps they invest in the long term Allied war effort and buy some Bases in the colonies!
It would just be a more fun game all around I think, whatever the balance by sides ends up being. Italy would be more fun. Anzac would be more fun. And France would definitely be more fun!
;)
It might even work out so that you don’t have to change anything at all in the OOB set up, keep the same turn sequence, just go with a different start position.
It, Az/Fr, Gr, Ru, US/Ch/UK:
and then back to Italy
Any thoughts?
That’s an interesting concept. Never thought about messing with the turn order. Italy going first really screws up a taranto raid and allows them to control what goes on in the med. Be awesome to see France have a turn, although it just prolongs the inevitable. More fun and different though. And yes more of the royal navy would probably survive. May have to give that a go. Or what about if Germany waited a few years to start the war until the Italians were more ready for war. Like a 1943 version with a larger Italian navy and air force. Believe that’s what Mussolini was trying to convince Hitler to do.
But that weakens the UK a lot, in exchange for a country that can only build in faraway Canada…
Not really.
The British lose 8 IPC’s from Canada, which is about a third of their Europe income…
The gain of having useful french IPCs makes up for it.
But British IPC’s can be used in Africa and London, while the French IPC’s can only be used in Canada (since no factory can be built in French Africa, and FIC will be taken by Japan). This makes British IPC’s more valuable.
The inclusion of France is one of those game concepts that might have been interesting, but just wasn’t executed. In order for the French to have much interest as a player nation, they need at least an opening turn where their capital isn’t already occupied by Germany. I find it curious that the German balance was designed for them to take Paris immediately on G1. I think it would have been cooler if the balance was designed for Paris to fall on G2.
Technically France is a full player at the start of the game – more so than China in many ways – but the OOB rules condemn France to an almost immediate downgrade to a status that is arguably even more marginal than China’s. I think one can get an insight into why this is so by reading between the lines of Larry’s introduction to the E40/2 rulebook. My interpretation of what he says there goes like this.
The concept of setting this particular game in 1940 came from Brian Hart rather than from Larry (“Why 1940? That was my first question to Brian Hart, then Avalon Hill® brand manager, as he began to tell me about this idea he had.”). Larry was initially dubious about Brian Hart’s idea (“I had doubts and lots of questions.”).
One of Larry’s concerns was that two of the major players, the US and the USSR, would have nothing to do for the first few turns unless the game scenario got into some serious violations of the actual course of events in WWII (“Historically, the sides hadn’t even been drawn up yet. When we think of the “Allies†in the context of World War II, we think of the United States and the Soviet Union as being at the top of the list. If we do a game that starts in 1940, we’ll have to start it with neither the Soviet Union nor the United States as members of the alliance, or even at war for that matter!”) Larry’s introduction to the G40/2 rulebook indicates a certain willingness to get into alternate-history scenarios (“What if . . . What if the Japanese attacked the United States in 1940 instead of on December 7th, 1941? We, as players of this game, are about to explore that possibility.”), but the E40/2 rulebook strongly suggests that Larry wanted to stick as much as possible to the basic historical outline of WWII (“From a game design point of view, I’d have to bridge some spans of history. Spring 1940 through December 7, 1941, represented a year and a half. I wanted certain historic milestones to occur in the game and they had to occur in their proper order.”).
Larry’s introduction to the E40/2 rulebook doesn’t say exactly what Brian Hart meant by “1940.” On the one hand, Larry makes references to 1940 in a general sense (“1940! What an interesting time to begin an Axis & Allies® game.”). On the other hand, he also makes references to the specific time frame of Spring 1940 ("Spring 1940 through December 7, 1941, represented a year and a half. ") This is where things get a bit murky. Was Larry’s mandate simply to set the game in 1940 or was it to set the game specifically in Spring 1940? It’s hard to say, but the impression I get is that Larry also had a mandate to include France as a player power. Larry makes it clear that he considered France to be a problem from a game design point of view (“The problem was, France was no small, token nation, and its military was first class.”). He presumably was concerned that if he gave France free reign the players might end up with a situation in which France avoids its historical mistakes and avoids being conquered by the Axis early in the war – something which would fundamentally have altered the course of WWII, which in turn is something which Larry probably wanted to avoid.
If Larry’s mandate was simply to set the game sometimein 1940, he could have made France a complete non-issue simply by choosing the second half of the year, after France had surrendered. The Summer of 1940 would probably have been a good choice because the Sealion plans and the start of the Battle of Britain were historically set in that time frame. But the fact that he didn’t set the game in the Summer (or Fall) of 1940 suggests to me that his mandate wasn’t just “set the game in 1940” but rather that it was “set the game in 1940 and include France as a player power.” If that was indeed the case, then early June 1940 (right after Dunkirk) almost automatically becomes the starting date (“I quickly decided that the game would have to start with the Battle of France.”). Setting it in late June wouldn’t have worked because France had surrendered by then, thus violating the (presumed) requirement that France be included as a player power. Setting the game in early May (before the start of the German invasion) wouldn’t have worked either because France was at full strength at that time, thus potentially violating the requirement that the game reflect the historical fact that France was knocked out of the war early. So the basic solution was to “include” France but immediately eliminate it as a relevant power. To make doubly sure that this happened, Larry used such “stacked deck” elements as a prescribed turn order which essentially turns France into a spectator at its own funeral. And he made sure not to exempt France from the rule which says “no capital = no income and no unit purchases”, even though China has such an exemption.
At any rate, I agree that it would be nice to make France more interesting to play, and to get to use more of those nice blue sculpts.
My group has played global dozens of times, and every time except one France fell in the first round. The time Paris did not fall my friend who was playing as France had an incredible first role hitting on all dice. Also the Germans did not send enough troops to destroy France. After a few rounds of combat all German forces were destroyed with a French Infantry and Fighter Plane all that remained. By the time it was Italy’s turn for whatever reason they did not attack. The British had sent fighters to help defend, and then the French bought a bunch of Infantry to defend with. The next German turn however France fell.
Here are a few lines of verse I’ve devised to show how the Global 1940 turn order of…
1. Germany
3. Japan
7. Italy
9. France
…places France in a highly disadvantaged position relative to the three Axis powers. Fans of J.R.R. Tolkien will recognize the source material immediately.
Third place for Japan’s race towards the D.E.I.
Seventh for Italians who seek lands to own
Ninth for hapless France doomed to die
First for the black sculpts near the sea zone
That can lead to Britain if the Germans try
[Edit] I’ve added some lines to cover the rest of the G40 turn order. The complete sequence now reads:
Third place for Japan’s race towards the D.E.I.
Seventh for Italians who seek lands to own
Ninth for hapless France doomed to die
First for the black sculpts near the sea zone
That can lead to Britain if the Germans try
Fourth place for U.S.A., second for Russia
Sixth place for the U.K. and fifth for China
With remaining ANZAC in the eighth thereby
One Board to rule them all!
Until someone from sales came along and said, “lets split it in two! so we can make more money!”
:-D
Honestly, when you read that intro, you get the sense that he’s kind of abdicating some of the responsibility for thing. Like ‘Hey, this seems a crazy idea, I know, but lets see how things shape up, and at the very least I’ll get you guys a bunch of sculpts out of the deal.’ heheh. Forgiven as always!
But instead of one coherent vision, you probably had this back and forth, and the desire to shape it with specific rules and then more rules and scripts to follow, to force a 1941 game into a 1940 start date hehe.
I’m a bit more extreme in my views. I think the best you’ll ever get is just a start date. The unit set up, and the round 1 attacks. Because as soon as the game starts you invariably throw out the script. Nobody cares what actually happened in 1940, once they get the dice in their hands… They want to conquer like Genghis! or Caesar!
The idea of Time, and the general timeline from that point on in the game, is so abstract. OOB there are a lot of ways in which rules try to force a timeline onto you… “You can’t do this with that nation. Can’t do that until this thing happens” etc. and other rules of the sort to make the game fit the 1941 script.
So why bother with a French player at all? Well, because I think the game needs more elements like this at the beginning, to randomize and revitalize it, while still working within the same general framework.
There are a lot of advantages to starting with Italy, Anzac, France, going before Germany, just from a gamepace perspective. In a face to face game too, where pacing can often be an issue. Starting with 3 shorter/smaller turns, instead of 3 major/long turns, would allow players to ease into the game a bit more. Get invested in it, before crying foul on the dice and other stuff, which the G1/J1 turn invariably forces hehe. Unlike moving for a huge nation such as Germany, a player taking Italy would have a more manageable opener. One where you could see more clearly the things that can be pulled off, and anticipate the standard responses of the enemy. This would likely aid in determining where the basic imbalances are, and if they need correction with a small bid or set up change, (instead of a huge one.) Alas, Italy never gets to open! (except in that tripleA pact of steel game we made hehe). Not even in AA50 when they were supposed to be showcased. Always relegated to last!
But why not first for a change? And then you get the France/Anzac boost as an added benefit, and more for the Germans to ponder and fret over, instead of the OOB model, where Germany always gets to hatch the perfect plan and steam roll.
Maybe take a page from the old style, and skip the first Italian combat turn if you feel it might favor Axis too much (the way Russia used to be restricted in some version of Classic.) Even if you had the DoW/Politics such that Italy was not yet at War, it’d still be more fun than putting all these nations at the very end of the sequence. Having them start it would be more fun, because they could make a move, instead of just reacting.
It’s not too crazy I don’t think. Same essential turn order, but the opener would be faster to play. Under such a game, what Germany gets to do, is based somewhat on what France does. Germany has more starting TUV and more economic flexibility than any power, so they’re in a good position to adapt to whatever else happens, with Italy or France.
Force them to make an even more complicated plan, one that takes into account the likely Italy/France opening. Instead of just what units to purchase hehe
But I’m drifting HR again. I will take those thoughts to the appropriate forum.
So yeah. OOB France feels pretty useless
:-D
One Board to rule them all! Until someone from sales came along and said, “lets split it in two! so we can make more money!” :-D Honestly, when you read that intro, you get the sense that he’s kind of abdicating some of the responsibility for thing. Like ‘Hey, this seems a crazy idea, I know, but lets see how things shape up, and at the very least I’ll get you guys a bunch of sculpts out of the deal.’ heheh. Forgiven as always!
In a sense the board-splitting issue is separate from the 1940 issue. A positive way to look at the board-splitting would be to imagine that the concept for G40 was, “There has already been a Europe-alone version of A&A and a Pacific-alone version of A&A, but the two boards couldn’t be placed together to form a global map for players who might want a bigger game…so this time let’s design them so that they can be played separately or togther.” Which sounds like a good idea to me. As for the 1940 issue, the way I like to think of G40 is as an expanded map-and-sculpt set that gives players lots of scope to play both an expanded OOB game and an infinite variety of house-ruled game, with nine sculpt-owning powers at their disposal that they can use in any way they want on a map that’s set earlier in WWII than any other A&A game and thus which is very flexible for alternate scenarios because it’s (arguably) easier to adjust a WWII map forward in time than backward.
I mostly agree with that; there are definitely some positive elements to the the board split. Another positive element is that it facilitates simultaneous play – it is often possible for a European player and a Pacific player to move at the same time. I suppose they could have designed the maps so as to further enhance the simultaneity, but something is better than nothing.
My main concern about the “infinite variety of house rules” is that the combined map is so enormous, with so many units and so much playtime required for a single game, that it’s very difficult to playtest new variants.
My main concern about the “infinite variety of house rules” is that the combined map is so enormous, with so many units and so much playtime required for a single game, that it’s very difficult to playtest new variants.
Yes, that’s a very good point. Any A&A game is a system consisting of multiple parts that affect each other to greater or lesser degrees; any change to any part potentially affects how the whole system works, and the only way to get a clear idea of these effects is to operate the system by playing a game. For something as big and complicated as G40/2, “playing a game” is a very time-consuming proposition – so this acts as a disincentive to testing house rule in practice.
It would be handy if the entire G40/2 system was modeled into a computer, with A.I. software taking the roles of each oth the nine powers, with a customization option that allowed you to change any variable you wanted, and with a “computer playing against itself really fast” function that allowed you to run through a complete Global game in just ten minutes to see the results of what you changed. Alas, I’m not aware of any such tool existing. :) But here’s something I’m wondering: has there ever been any discussion of “scaling down” Global 1940’s key elements to the point where the small and simple A&A 1941 map could be used as a test-bed for G40 rule variations? The maps are so different in their territory layouts and IPC values that, obviously, this testing method would have severe limitations – but perhaps it could be used to try out individual HR concepts in isolation, with the highly-simplified other elements of the game simply serving as a standard neutral backdrop from one test to the next.
