Global 42 Quicker, faster

@krieghund said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

@andrewaagamer said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

Two ways to look at this:

Reason A is dominant and supersedes and cancels any other Reason. (Which leads to your ruling) Reason A is limited to the Soviet/Japan conflict and does not override Reason B which leads to my statement.

The first way is correct, as indicated by the phrase, “In all other respects and for all other purposes”.

Ahhh, I didn’t put enough emphasis on “In all other respects and for all other purposes”. That makes more sense to me now.

The tipping point for me is if Reason A is dominant than if any other Allied Power rather than Russia, (US, UK, ANZAC or France), attacks Mongolia, Mongolia WOULD NOT turn Pro-Axis. This goes against every other instance regarding Neutrality in the rules. A standard is if a Neutral is attacked it becomes Pro to the opposing factions.

Yes, that’s true, but Mongolia is an exceptional case. Its ties to the USSR against Japan are so strong that an attack upon it by another Allied power would not change its stance to pro-Axis, and it would remain strict neutral. The same is true if an Allied power attacks another strict neutral.

Wow - that’s cool. THANKS for explaining that!!!

@Krieghund thanks again. Pretty sure they are going J4 and sealion. Hold on!

@Maddog77:

After looking at the game table (board) I can understand why this idea is intriguing. But after thinking a bit, Russia & GB can very easily keep any the black sea ship free with their air force. At least if I was Russia, I would sink anything built there. Also would love Germany to spend that kind of $$ ion an IC & navy instead of tanks, art & inf……still, it might be fun to give it a go sometime.

I once built an airbase in Romania in a Tech game where I had rockets and paratroopers. If you had that, I guess you could protect a TT with scrambled fighters and hit Caucusus from the Ukraine.

sorry 'bout that.  try it now. I fixed it

@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.

Well if I was given 4 and a half months, I`m sure I could have delivered just as well. :P

Awesome!  Thank you.  :-)

@MarkVIIIMarc:

The “Global” rules are in the back of the Europe rule book if that was the question.

My scanner may still work.  If I scan the last few pages and upload them to flickr think I would get sued?

Thanks for the info. No, please don’t do anything that would get you sued! I can wait… Thanks all for the info though, I’m like a kid in a candy shop waiting for these to arrive.