Global domination



  • how many people are actually playing global domination to 13/14 VCs?

    and how much would be the bid?


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    If the Axis are able to capture the 6 or 8, they can get more easily…



  • My playgroup only uses global domination rules and have consistently seen Allied victories.  With standard victory city conditions, it appears that the Axis have an easier job of trading short term priority objectives (i.e., capturing that last VC) for broader strategic positioning.  From what I’ve read, most such VC-victories occur between rounds 7-10, which only gives America, the Allied hammer, a few turns in some instances to bring their economic might to bear.

    In global domination scenarios, Germany has a difficult time taking Moscow against a competent Russian player AND able to defend their coastline against a constant stream of US transport fleets.  Typically, even if the German player has Moscow enveloped, they don’t have time to force a favorable assault on the Russian capital because the US has firmly entrenched themselves in Norway, Normdany, and/or Southern France, pumping out units on the European mainland to augment their transported troops.  Conversely, if the Japanese player expends too many resources to harass the Americans and relieve pressure from Germany, they have a difficult time achieving much success in Asia against unthreatened UK Pacific and ANZAC players.

    Consequently, we’ve recently tried to use a bid for the Axis to see if that will help balance things out.  We’ve had limited opportunities to test how it plays out, but so far there is still a marked Allied advantage in the long game.  I’ve tried to solicit opinions on this game style in the past, but since it’s ultimately a house rule and clearly not the way the game was designed, I’m not sure how many players would be willing to test out what a proper bid should be.  Still, it’s encouraging to hear that our playgroup isn’t the only one willing to endure global domination victory conditions.



  • My playgroup uses only Global Domination without Victorie Cities, and each side reciefs 120 IPC each before play begins and secretly written down, and it can put down everywhere, for instance if there are 3 troops in Libya, then you cant build there 3 troops max., that is for Axis 40 each, Allies 30 each UK,US,Rus,Anzac.So we play then untill 1 side gives up.


  • TripleA

    Global domination removes the sense of urgency from the game. It is generally a pretty even / slightly favored allies game. I would be hesitant to give the axis ipcs on hand to play with… rather I’d just toss em an infantry to smooth things over.

    It is pretty easy for the allies to isolate one half of the map and shut it down before focusing on the next target.

    Not having to worry about instantly losing takes away the advantage the axis get.


  • 2016 2015 '10

    I look forward to lots of mods and different kinds of rule-sets for the Global map…which is awesome.

    However the dual VC conditions are at the heart of what makes Global a great game.  Without the dual VCs, you lose the historical realism, and you return to the old style of KJF or KGF.  I guess it would be fun for Allies to attack rather than react for a change.  But the tension of preventing Axis from getting the VCs is, for me, the tension that makes the game fun.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    Having played the global domination before, I can tell you Japan can not win alone if allies go kgf, even if they get India, Australia, Hawaii.  Just too many ipcs on the Europe side.  When Germany falls the allies will crush even an aggrandized japan



  • what my group have seen is that the dominating strategy for the axis becomes;

    germany goes barbarossa, not going for moscow, but rather the middle east, through cauc. japan attacks russia to make them smaller, so that germany can afford to send more troops to  middle east.

    japan builds landfactories, and start pumping mechs on the mainland, going through india, when india falls, japan sorties (3 carriers, a few subs and DDs and 2-5 filled transports) to africa. taking british terrs to prevent the bonus and either going for SA, egypt or shipping landtroops to somalia an start taking terrs. (india crush might also be a good strat, so middle east can be held for longer)

    if US goes heavy towards germany, then japan will at some point start building 6-10 subs/DDs each turn. Their goal is to force US to match them, and if US doesnt, they take hawaii, and the other US islands gaining 2 NOs and killing 1 US NO, total swing of 17 ipc.

    If us still does not do anything, the convoying sanfransico will more or less cripple US economy (down to 52 ipc or so)

    Sidney is usually not taken, japans extra resources is much better spent against russia and africa.

    japan will easily collect 100 IPC in such a scenario.


  • TripleA

    I generally go pacific. I am not a Europe kind of guy. The nice thing about doing KJF is losing moscow is not game over. In fact it is not even a big deal if you can get Japan out of the game within a few rounds after.


  • Customizer

    @Karl7:

    Having played the global domination before, I can tell you Japan can not win alone if allies go kgf, even if they get India, Australia, Hawaii.  Just too many ipcs on the Europe side.  When Germany falls the allies will crush even an aggrandized japan

    Yeah, I saw the same thing. We played a game where Germany held out long enough for Japan to get the 6 VCs for a Pacific win. Just for kicks, we played it out. Germany was snuffed out in the next round or two then all Allies turned on Japan. While Japan was a huge monster and it took time for the Allies to switch everything over to the Pacific and Russia to send stuff across Asia, eventually Japan’s mighty empire was whittled down.



  • I have been thinking about a point system in global domination for the victory cities. Trying to figure out what the goal of the axis should be (thinking 35 vic pts)

    Capitals worth  3 pts
    regional capitals 2 pts
    other VC worth  1 pt

    Europe would look like this:

    Berlin        XXX
    Rome        XXX
    Warsaw      X                12 vic points to line (Europe)
    Paris          XXX
    Leningrad  X
    Stalingrad  X
    Moscow      XXX
    Cairo          X
    London      XXX
    Ottawa      X
    DC            XXX

    total          23 Vic pts

    Pac

    Tokyo        XXX
    Shanghai    X
    Hong Kong  X                  8 more vic pts to line (20 w/Euro)
    Manila        X
    Calcutta    XX
    Sidney      XX
    Honolulu    X
    San Fran    X

    total          12 vic pts    (35 total vic pts E/P)

    The axis could get to the line I put in with some effort for 20 vic pts combined. I’m thinking that a win would be 25 total vic points, so they need 5 more. Axis would most likely need to drop a major capital to win.

    Would the same 25 vic pts work for an allies win? They start w/24 pts, but lose them fast. Maybe 25 pts and at least one axis capital? I think they would need to liberate Paris (3 pts) to win.

    Allies board could look like this:

    DC                XXX
    Ottawa          X
    London          XXX        14 vic pts to line
    Moscow        XXX
    Cairo            X
    Rome/Paris  XXX
    Paris/Rome    XXX
    Leningrad      X 
    Stalingrad    X
    Warsaw        X
    Berlin          XXX

    Pac
    San Fran    X
    Honolulu    X              6 more vic pts to line (20 W/Euro)
    Sidney        XX
    Calcutta      XX
    Manilla        X
    Hong Kong  X
    Shanghai    X
    Tokyo        XXX

    Allies would most likely need to lib Paris, and Capture Rome/Berlin or Tokyo for 25 vic pts? Maybe crush Japan to get to the VC in Asia?



  • I think I might wanna argue that shanghai is a capitol (of china) and sanfransisco is a regional capitol of pacific



  • Where can I find Global Domination rules?



  • @Kreuzfeld:

    I think I might wanna argue that shanghai is a capitol (of china) and sanfransisco is a regional capitol of pacific

    I originally gave San Fran 2 pts, but thought it really only gives the allies an extra vic pt so left it at 1. Hadn’t thought about Shanghai being the capital of China, but the game doesn’t recognize China as having a capital. Making them both worth 2 pts would offset starting pts, or would it just make it easier for the US to go KJF racking up pts on that side? You could also bump Ottawa to 2 pts being the capital of Canada, but I wouldn’t make it worth 3 pts because Ottawa doesn’t follow the capital rules in the game. If you bump a couple of VC to regional status (2 pts) then you would also need to raise the number need to win.



  • BTW I agree with the others that global domination would favor the allies because of longer games. Longer games generally allow for the allies to rebound and kick in their vast nearly untouchable resources. Once the US gets rolling, and the UK reclaims its income in Africa (and/or Asia) they are a tough tandem to deal with in the 9th+ turn. If the axis can’t kill off the US/UK transports shucking units wave after wave then axis are generally doomed.

    I have also had games where Germany will stop (or was stopped) at the gates of Moscow, then lay siege to the capital to strangle the rest of the Russians income. Then build/take a couple minor IC’s to keep a flow of units going to keep them in check until they can finish the job. It’s rare but if the allies have suffered a major defeat (maybe at sea) time can actually help the Germans build up to drop the Russians, and build their Atlantic wall. Once they are fighting just one front anything can happen.

    I will say that we rarely play with the individual map win scenarios (have done it, but don’t like it). I know it favors the axis, but it also can put the game into some very unrealistic positions where an axis power will sacrifice itself and everything on their own side so their counterpart can win on the other. It is generally the Japanese (a very proud people) that do something like kamikaze their air force into Moscow to soften them up for the Germans, and w/o the Japanese air force they’re house of cards falls flat.

    When we play we play until someone says uncle. This is why we don’t offer a bid to the allies as many do that say the the game is axis heavy on the balance scale. In a game that is basically global domination the allies would offset that balance because of the length of game. We will track the VCs to see how things are going because the VC are a good measuring stick. We may even call the game if the axis have what is needed on one board depending on possession.

    Maybe in order for the axis to claim victory on one map, they need to also hold a minimum number of VC’s on the other side equal to 1/2 what is needed for win on that other side (min E-4 VCs, P-3 VCs). That way an axis power can’t sell out their side to help win the game and you would have some kind of global domination.

    For a Pac win you need the 6 VC, plus 4 VCs on the Euro side (1/2 need to win that side)

    For a Euro win you need the 8 VC, plus 3 VCs on the Pac side (1/2 need to win that side)

    Would also say that anytime the axis get to 13 VC the game ends (no once around).



  • @WILD:

    I will say that we rarely play with the individual map win scenarios (have done it, but don’t like it). I know it favors the axis, but it also can put the game into some very unrealistic positions where an axis power will sacrifice itself and everything on their own side so their counterpart can win on the other.

    Let’s keep in mind though that that rule was implemented because the allies could ignore one side and go all-out on the other; it didn’t matter if Japan was making 100+ when Germany and italy were gone.



  • @WILD:

    @Kreuzfeld:

    I think I might wanna argue that shanghai is a capitol (of china) and sanfransisco is a regional capitol of pacific

    I originally gave San Fran 2 pts, but thought it really only gives the allies an extra vic pt so left it at 1. Hadn’t thought about Shanghai being the capital of China, but the game doesn’t recognize China as having a capital. Making them both worth 2 pts would offset starting pts, or would it just make it easier for the US to go KJF racking up pts on that side? You could also bump Ottawa to 2 pts being the capital of Canada, but I wouldn’t make it worth 3 pts because Ottawa doesn’t follow the capital rules in the game. If you bump a couple of VC to regional status (2 pts) then you would also need to raise the number need to win.

    ya that goes without saying. I was just commenting on the idea that I would like the status of some of the cities to change, and bumping shanghai means china is more important



  • @WILD:

    I have been thinking about a point system in global domination for the victory cities. Trying to figure out what the goal of the axis should be (thinking 35 vic pts)

    Capitals worth   3 pts
    regional capitals 2 pts
    other VC worth   1 pt

    Europe would look like this:

    Berlin         XXX
    Rome         XXX
    Warsaw      X                 12 vic points to line (Europe)
    Paris          XXX
    Leningrad   X
    Stalingrad   X
    Moscow      XXX
    Cairo          X
    London       XXX
    Ottawa       X
    DC             XXX

    total          23 Vic pts

    Pac

    Tokyo        XXX
    Shanghai    X
    Hong Kong  X                  8 more vic pts to line (20 w/Euro)
    Manila        X
    Calcutta     XX
    Sidney       XX
    Honolulu    X
    San Fran    X

    total          12 vic pts    (35 total vic pts E/P)

    The axis could get to the line I put in with some effort for 20 vic pts combined. I’m thinking that a win would be 25 total vic points, so they need 5 more. Axis would most likely need to drop a major capital to win.

    Would the same 25 vic pts work for an allies win? They start w/24 pts, but lose them fast. Maybe 25 pts and at least one axis capital? I think they would need to liberate Paris (3 pts) to win.

    Allies board could look like this:

    DC                XXX
    Ottawa          X
    London          XXX        14 vic pts to line
    Moscow         XXX
    Cairo             X
    Rome/Paris   XXX
    Paris/Rome     XXX
    Leningrad      X 
    Stalingrad     X
    Warsaw        X
    Berlin           XXX

    Pac
    San Fran     X
    Honolulu     X               6 more vic pts to line (20 W/Euro)
    Sidney        XX
    Calcutta      XX
    Manilla        X
    Hong Kong   X
    Shanghai     X
    Tokyo         XXX

    Allies would most likely need to lib Paris, and Capture Rome/Berlin or Tokyo for 25 vic pts? Maybe crush Japan to get to the VC in Asia?

    Really like this idea with the point system. This is one thing with my group that we find hard is getting the right victory conditions. Like the current game we have going, Japan has a might empire and has 6/8 in the Pacific, but the European theatre is a different ballgame and the Axis only control 5 of the 11.



  • Perhaps I’ve just been doing it wrong, but if anyone seriously thinks the Allies need a bid in a global domination game (the poll has Allies +10 in the lead as of the writing of this post), I’d like to hear your reasoning and how most of your games play out.



  • Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.


  • TripleA

    @vonLettowVorbeck1914:

    Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

    global domination is a house rule which is playing until one side controls all territories.
    i find it a much less interesting game, allies just go all out on either europe or pacific.


  • TripleA

    I think it can be more interesting. The allies get to attack and be less reactionary. It does make the allies more fun to play. Plus even if japan has to turtle Germany can get Russia and then work his way to middle east and india. It is more of a race.



  • @vonLettowVorbeck1914:

    Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

    In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes.  You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured.  Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.

    As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.

    Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned.  The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance.  Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns.  It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 2
  • 28
  • 18
  • 7
  • 34
  • 2
  • 33
I Will Never Grow Up Games

37
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts