Germany, Italy, and France will be restricted to influencing the Europe board only.
Japan, China, and ANZAC are restricted to influencing the Pacific board only.
Only the Big Three–US, UK & USSR–will have the ability to make significant military contributions in either theatre of war, or both theatres at once.
This means that their ability to respond to threats will be much more effective than the other powers (especially when one considers that the scale of the board, and thus the inconvenience of unit movement, is roughly 2x AA50).
I call this “Swing Power”, and I think it’ll be a decisive feature of Global '40 play, meaning that Axis victories will be few and far between, simply due to their inability to quickly and effectively respond to emergent threats.
I don’t think the USSR, with 18 infantry on the Pacific board, will pose much threat to Japan, especially if it’s 2 inf per territory, which would make at least a quarter of them go to the German front rather than the Japanese front.
The US and UK are the swing powers.
Also, there will be ANZAC units in Africa
Germany, Italy, and France will be restricted to influencing the Europe board only.
Japan, China, and ANZAC are restricted to influencing the Pacific board only.
Who is putting these restrictions on them?
@Brain:
Germany, Italy, and France will be restricted to influencing the Europe board only.
Japan, China, and ANZAC are restricted to influencing the Pacific board only.
Who is putting these restrictions on them?
The map.
And the initial set-up.
I don’t think the two ANZAC infantry in Egypt will have much in the way of ‘Swing Power’ in Europe, for instance. ANZAC’s whole purpose is to guard against Japan on the Pacific map.
@Brain:
Who is putting these restrictions on them?
The map.
And the initial set-up.
I don’t think the two ANZAC infantry in Egypt will have much in the way of ‘Swing Power’ in Europe, for instance. ANZAC’s whole purpose is to guard against Japan on the Pacific map.
That could be, but what is going to stop Japan from invading Russia?
@Brain:
@Brain:
Who is putting these restrictions on them?
The map.
And the initial set-up.
I don’t think the two ANZAC infantry in Egypt will have much in the way of ‘Swing Power’ in Europe, for instance. ANZAC’s whole purpose is to guard against Japan on the Pacific map.That could be, but what is going to stop Japan from invading Russia?
A horde of Red men in worthless territories. And a bunch of Allies with real offensive abilities if left unchecked
It’ll be pretty interesting to see how the Soviet presence will change the Pacific. I doubt all eighteen infantry will be left, but I would think most players would leave a substantial force to counter the Japanese, at least ten units, most centered at Amur.
The dynamics are all coming together, folks.
Remember the UK’s economy is fully split between the Europe and Pacific boards. India may be able to influence North Africa, but it will likely be too hard pressed in the Pacific to have that luxury. The British Isles are way too far from the Pacific to matter in that theater. Canada might be able to use Panama to get into the Pacific, but that will still take forever and the UK pieces will be on the wrong end of the Pacific board to matter, since they won’t have the advantage of concentration with the already existing Pacific UK pieces. South Africa, drawing from the Europe pool, may be able to send a bit here and there to help out India by sea, perhaps. But its probably a long way up from there.
So the UK’s swing power will probably be fairly limited.
The United States… well, that will be 80 IPCs or so of pure “swing power” as you say. The only counter to that is that the major IPC on each end can only handle 10 units at a time. Still, its one fairly concentrated geographic area. It doesn’t have production on all corners of the earth like other powers may be able to gain. And with China and France, along with the prohibition on island factories, its harder than ever for the US to get overseas factories.
It’ll be pretty interesting to see how the Soviet presence will change the Pacific. I doubt all eighteen infantry will be left, but I would think most players would leave a substantial force to counter the Japanese, at least ten units, most centered at Amur.
Japan has too much airpower and trannies to allow a Amur stack, even if the whole 18 infs start there. Amur, Siberia and SFE will be forbidden territory for USSR from the beginning. Maybe some people will let 1 inf at Amur to annoy, but you can guess that defensive soviet line will be bury and sak, and it’s possible than ever Yakutia if many jap planes are near. The good old Manchuria IC (mayor or minor) will be deadly
Larry can say what he wants, but the lack of a non-agression treaty means that Japan and USSR are at war from round 1, because even the menace of a attack will affect the siberian forces. And probably Japan will attack USSR round 1 or 2 as much in most of games, unless that a jap attack means that USSR is also at war with West Axis
Unless a jap attack on soviets means that USSR is at war with all the axis, in rounds 1-3 Japan will have only 2 enemies: China and USSR. So it will be a very valid option attack USSR because there will not be much more to do, and this attack will not disrupt jap navies. I predict we’ll have again a fantasy scenario, at least regarding to Siberia, and there are 9 soviet IPCs on Siberia this time, hardly a area with few value
Other stuff is the size of soviet PAcific navy (if any). If there is at least a dd, it could have a value, blocking trannies or shore bombards or sub. Even a sub can be interesting
Finally, it’s a pity that you cannot buy minor ICs at 1 IPC teritories. USSR could buy one at, say, Yak, and so hold the front. In later game, soviets could think buy a IC at SFE to deploy a fleet there. And I wonder if there is going to be a NB at Vladivostok (Amur), It really deserves it
It’ll be pretty interesting to see how the Soviet presence will change the Pacific. I doubt all eighteen infantry will be left, but I would think most players would leave a substantial force to counter the Japanese, at least ten units, most centered at Amur.
Japan has too much airpower and trannies to allow a Amur stack, even if the whole 18 infs start there. Amur, Siberia and SFE will be forbidden territory for USSR from the beginning. Maybe some people will let 1 inf at Amur to annoy, but you can guess that defensive soviet line will be bury and sak, and it’s possible than ever Yakutia if many jap planes are near. The good old Manchuria IC (mayor or minor) will be deadly
Larry can say what he wants, but the lack of a non-agression treaty means that Japan and USSR are at war from round 1, because even the menace of a attack will affect the siberian forces. And probably Japan will attack USSR round 1 or 2 as much in most of games, unless that a jap attack means that USSR is also at war with West Axis
Unless a jap attack on soviets means that USSR is at war with all the axis, in rounds 1-3 Japan will have only 2 enemies: China and USSR. So it will be a very valid option attack USSR because there will not be much more to do, and this attack will not disrupt jap navies. I predict we’ll have again a fantasy scenario, at least regarding to Siberia, and there are 9 soviet IPCs on Siberia this time, hardly a area with few value
Other stuff is the size of soviet PAcific navy (if any). If there is at least a dd, it could have a value, blocking trannies or shore bombards or sub. Even a sub can be interesting
Finally, it’s a pity that you cannot buy minor ICs at 1 IPC teritories. USSR could buy one at, say, Yak, and so hold the front. In later game, soviets could think buy a IC at SFE to deploy a fleet there. And I wonder if there is going to be a NB at Vladivostok (Amur), It really deserves it
If Japan doesn’t do a J1 attack, the UK can capture 2 DEI islands, and ANZAC can transport units to New Guinea to achieve its objective next turn. Meanwhile, while Japan tries to invade Russia which has 18 inf, UK, ANZAC, and USA are getting stronger.
If Japan doesn’t do a J1 attack, the UK can capture 2 DEI islands, and ANZAC can transport units to New Guinea to achieve its objective next turn. Meanwhile, while Japan tries to invade Russia which has 18 inf, UK, ANZAC, and USA are getting stronger.
But probably a jap attack on UK, ANZAC or USA will mean that USA will enter at war with West Axis as well (as in real life), and I doubt that Axis want that in round 1
All depends on the diplomatic system. If it’s well done, J1 attack on any power that is not China will not be a option for Global
Do we know what the Russian set up will be? I mean, isn’t 18 inf just speculation? To balance things, I’d imagine there wouldn’t be many Russian infantry waiting to attack Korea.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive. Pound your head against a wall of infantry, all for territories worth 1 IPC a piece that offer no strategic advantage for fighting off your other foes? No thanks. My transports will still head to the mainland or Hawaii.
Do we know what the Russian set up will be? I mean, isn’t 18 inf just speculation? To balance things, I’d imagine there wouldn’t be many Russian infantry waiting to attack Korea.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive. Pound your head against a wall of infantry, all for territories worth 1 IPC a piece that offer no strategic advantage for fighting off your other foes? No thanks. My transports will still head to the mainland or Hawaii.
Larry said ther’ll be 18 inf, so I’m guessing 2 in each territory.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
Let’s say you take Moscow. Then what? In order for the Axis to win, they need 14 out of 19VC’s. If they don’t capture washington, san francisco, london, or ottawa, they have to capture calcutta, honolulu, or sydney, which won’t happen if Japan is losing the pacific. Japan will lose Chinese territories and DEI’s while focusing on 1 ipc territories. I remember larry mentioning how he did an air strike against russia as Japan and failed.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
If KGF is equivalent to Ignore Japan, then this strat will fail. If Japan captures all of Asia and Australia and Hawaii(since the US ignores Japan),Japan will have 68 ipcs just in territories. It will have achieved DEI NO, solomon is/new guin NO, India NO, Australia NO, and Hawaii NO. This would give it 93 ipcs, which would make it stronger than USA’s 80
Funcioneta, I was under the impression that the Soviet-Japan Nonaggression treaty was in effect for Global, unless broken, like how the process for declarations of war work. At least, thats what I perceived based on what I’ve seen and read, can you show where you heard differently?
You make it seem that immediately after rounds 1 - 3, most Japanese players will attack north, as if within that time the Allies in the south and west are vanquished, the ‘fantasy’ scenario most seem abhor, probably won’t happen for awhile in terms of actual game play. Besides, was it really that much of a fantasy, I remember reading about over two thousand Japanese-Soviet border clashes between the Manchurian-Soviet border over the period of 1939 - 1945. Plus, the Go North movement within the IJA was pretty strong, even during the Navy’s eventual implementation of Southern Advance.
Another thing, whilst the Soviet forces in East Asia seem paltry, it forces Japan to guard Manchuria, and not chain those divisions to crush China. Bringing the Soviets into the war also means that China can actually be liberated by Soviet forces from the west, if their war Germany allows an opportunity to do so.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
Let’s say you take Moscow. Then what? In order for the Axis to win, they need 14 out of 19VC’s. If they don’t capture washington, san francisco, london, or ottawa, they have to capture calcutta, honolulu, or sydney, which won’t happen if Japan is losing the pacific. Japan will lose Chinese territories and DEI’s while focusing on 1 ipc territories. I remember larry mentioning how he did an air strike against russia as Japan and failed.
Perhaps. Lets hope you’re right. When the game comes out, I will be going all in on this strategy to see if it still works.
Now, I don’t remember the turn order. Does Japan go before Russia? If so, you can hit those 2 Inf border areas right off the bat. If Russia goes first, there will be time for Russia to consolidate some of them creating a stronger defense.
If Japan goes first, all you have to do is taking out those infantry, then sending a tank force through Siberia to Moscow. If the US is focusing on the Pacific, there will be hell to pay in Europe, since Germany and Italy will be all over the place.
