What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    I really like Global 1940.  Its a great game, but I think there are some things about it that are implausible and unhistorical to the point of cheesiness.  I thought I would start this thread just to see what everyone else thinks are the things about the game that rate highly on the cheesiness factor.

    In no particular order (since they are all ridiculous IMHO), my top 5 cheezers are:

    1. On the brink of extermination by a giant Nazi tank force, the USSR abandons the capital and the entire population marches away on a Biblical exodus to Egypt.  Somehow that saves the world from the Nazis.
    2. America prevents the Nazis from taking over the world by flying fighter aircraft from Eastern USA, to an airbase in Gibraltar, and then on to Cairo.  Equally dumb as #1 above.
    3. Japan conquers India (a country with a population of 389 million souls in 1941) using a small amphibious landing supported by millions of aircraft that fly all the way from southeast China to India and back to Yunnan or Eastern Burma.  Sounds likely.
    4. Japanese strategic bombers take off from an airbase in northeast China, flatten Moscow, and land in Western Ukraine.  I guess the Japanese had mid-air refueling in World War II.
    5. Japan declares world hegemony after conquering the island of Hawaii.  The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union accept defeat after losing their favourite vacation spot.  Hawaii is nice, but it’s not that nice really.

    So those are my favourite stupidities of the Global game.  What are yours?

    PS I almost forgot Operation Sealion. Even Hitler thought that was too dumb for real life.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Techs like War Bonds. That is not a Tech.

    It was like “hey we need a bunch of filler ideas to placate peeps who want technology. You got 5 minutes to come up with whatever. Getting right on it…”



  • Lol Variance, just lol.

    You really have a funny way to express some of the points. “The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union accept defeat after losing their favourite vacation spot.”. I had to laugh heartily  :-D.

    Cheezers for me (also in no particular order):

    1). German Ju-88 flying all the way to Gibraltar from West Germany to attack the allied fleet there (I guess the Germans also had mid-air refuelling in WW2 like the Japanese ;-)).
    2). The ease with which Japan can conquer (and cross) China. And conquest is but one thing. Administering and garrisoning conquered areas with millions of angry Chinese is another.
    3). USA able to Ignore 1 map completely.
    4). The very small Royal Navy.

    Some Cheezers in the game can ofc be ‘explained’ by game balance otherwise it would be too easy for one side or the other. It is a game after all and not a simulation. I still hope for some official ruling to adress some of the excesses while at the same time not disturbing the game balance.



  • I have a major disagreement with your five points. They are not equivalent of all. Your point number 5,

    1. Japan declares world hegemony after conquering the island of Hawaii.  The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union accept defeat after losing their favourite vacation spot.  Hawaii is nice, but it’s not that nice really.

    Is by far the worst thing, cheesiest, unhistorical, unrealistic, and foolish rule axis has ever come up with. Not that your other 4 points don’t have value, but they fail to compare to number 5. The need to get rid of that ASAP. Like yesterday. I hate having to argue not to play with that rule. It is nuts!!!


  • 2019 2018

    To be fair, the VC-Rule (8 on Europe or 6 on PAC) is the main reason the axis have the advantage in this edition.

    Without that specific VC rule, I would have won most of the games that I lost in the last season.

    Actually the first two points (which both include securing/conquering Egypt) are a direct result of that VC rule. I’m not a fan of this whole “defend London+Egypt at all cost to win the game” thing too. I basically use it everytime I play Allies, cause it’s effective. But I don’t like it.

    I don’t, however, have a problem with the aircraft range. It might be historically inaccurate. But after all it’s just a game BASED on WW2. And like every game, there needs to be a compromise between reality and game balance.
    If it’s even harder to be involved in the other theater (Japan in europe and Germany/Italy in Asia), there would be no need anymore to play “global”. Sure, in the real world Japan and Germany/Italy didn’t really help each other. But in a game it would feel kinda boring if it weren’t possible.


  • 2019 2018 2017

    Quite a nice listing of oddities, gentlemen. I’d like to add the weird concept that Russia can make money by owning a place like Italian Somaliland and that the British would actually assist them in getting there. And when you’re Chinese, you just can’t leave China, except when it’s to visit Burma.


  • 2018 2017 2016

    Good point on the Russian NO, the only thing I could say tongue-in-cheek is that even though socialist movements wouldn’t take hold until post-independence for many African countries, the Soviets would have a population more receptive to their kool-aid/ideology as opposed to a traditional colonial power.

    The China thing is frustrating at times. If Japan could sacrifice its entire war effort for a victory in Europe, why not let the Generalissimo and Mao march their men to Moscow or Calcutta for the impending invasions?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    The Russian NO is abused.  I abuse it.

    The China thing is I suppose understandable given the civil war.

    The thing I don’t like are some of the land valuations.

    Okinawa – a rock heap is worth 1 IPC but Sicily is worth nothing?

    Ireland is 0?

    Come on guys!



  • Yes the IPC income for land territories is head scratching.
    I guess Okinowa was of symbolic importance to Japan? No idea why that’s worth 1.
    They’d make things alot easier by multiplying everything by 10. It woulder offer alot more flexibility with land values, unit costs, NO incomes, etc…



  • Nothing beats this fancy Mongolian rule:

    Mongolia will only turn pro axis if SOVIET attacks them.

    Somehow if Mongolia got attacked by any other allied nation Mongolia would remain neutral, they dont give a shit about being invaded. But somehow the rest of the worlds neutrals care so much more about Mongolia than Mongolian’s themselves that they would rally around Hitler to defeat the evil Allies.

    Strange complex rule for no apparent reason.


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    yes that Mongolia rule is weird.


  • Customizer

    The China rule has always bugged me as well. I understand that you don’t want to see a stack of Chinese troops marching on Berlin or even sitting in Moscow, but on several occasions we would have China doing well and having a large stack of infantry with some artillery in Manchuria, with a relatively small garrison in Korea, yet the Chinese are not allowed to go into Korea. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
    The restriction even applies to the Chinese Flying Tigers fighter. I remember one game where the Chinese had taken back the coastal territories and their fighter was sitting in Shanghai. Japan had 3 or 4 unprotected transports sitting in SZ 19 with no other allied ships or planes within range. That fighter should have been able to fly out and get them, but because of the Chinese borders rule, it just had to sit there in Shanghai with those transports sitting there and mocking me.



  • @variance:

    I really like Global 1940.  Its a great game, but I think there are some things about it that are implausible and unhistorical to the point of cheesiness.  I thought I would start this thread just to see what everyone else thinks are the things about the game that rate highly on the cheesiness factor.

    In no particular order (since they are all ridiculous IMHO), my top 5 cheezers are:

    1. On the brink of extermination by a giant Nazi tank force, the USSR abandons the capital and the entire population marches away on a Biblical exodus to Egypt.  Somehow that saves the world from the Nazis.
    2. America prevents the Nazis from taking over the world by flying fighter aircraft from Eastern USA, to an airbase in Gibraltar, and then on to Cairo.  Equally dumb as #1 above.
    3. Japan conquers India (a country with a population of 389 million souls in 1941) using a small amphibious landing supported by millions of aircraft that fly all the way from southeast China to India and back to Yunnan or Eastern Burma.  Sounds likely.
    4. Japanese strategic bombers take off from an airbase in northeast China, flatten Moscow, and land in Western Ukraine.  I guess the Japanese had mid-air refueling in World War II.
    5. Japan declares world hegemony after conquering the island of Hawaii.  The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union accept defeat after losing their favourite vacation spot.  Hawaii is nice, but it’s not that nice really.

    So those are my favourite stupidities of the Global game.  What are yours?

    PS I almost forgot Operation Sealion. Even Hitler thought that was too dumb for real life.

    Appreciate all your 5 factors. Mine is that pilots can reach some unbelievable distance and there are 3 things they can’t get across in this world which are Sahara deserts , Himalayas and  Pripet Marshes. What?


  • 2017

    @MagicQ:

    Mine is that pilots can reach some unbelievable distance and there are 3 things they can’t get across in this world which are Sahara deserts , Himalayas and  Pripet Marshes. What?

    There are no paths between any two territories that can be made shorter by flying over the Pripet Marshes. It seems like the Pripet Marshes are on the map strictly to influence land units (which is historically accurate).

    I am guessing the game designers just didn’t want to make a new type of territory passable to air but impassable to land?


  • Customizer

    I think aircraft should be able to fly over the Sahara and Himalayas. I understand that land units would be stopped but air units should be able to cross.

    Plus, have you looked at the map, specifically the Sahara area? You can see the borders of the countries. French Central Africa actually borders Algeria and Libya. Even so, I would be willing to count the Sahara as one extra space for air movement.


  • 2019 2018 2017

    I agree. But to preserve something of the original idea of them being ‘impassable’, maybe an element of danger should be added. For example, anyone who wants to fly over the Himalayas or the Sahara would not only count them as a space, but also roll a dice, and the plane would be lost on a 1.



  • @Herr:

    I agree. But to preserve something of the original idea of them being ‘impassable’, maybe an element of danger should be added. For example, anyone who wants to fly over the Himalayas or the Sahara would not only count them as a space, but also roll a dice, and the plane would be lost on a 1.

    That would be nice.



  • WW2 planes where not designed to fly over himalaya, even a modern non jet would have serius problems doing so.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @ErwinRommel:

    Nothing beats this fancy Mongolian rule:
    Mongolia will only turn pro axis if SOVIET attacks them.
    Somehow if Mongolia got attacked by any other allied nation Mongolia would remain neutral, they dont give a ���� about being invaded. But somehow the rest of the worlds neutrals care so much more about Mongolia than Mongolian’s themselves that they would rally around Hitler to defeat the evil Allies.
    Strange complex rule for no apparent reason.

    I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR.”  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.


  • Customizer

    @ErwinRommel:

    WW2 planes where not designed to fly over himalaya, even a modern non jet would have serius problems doing so.

    C47’s flew over them and the tallest peak in the Himalayan range is Mount Everest which is only around 30, 000 feet. My grandfather was a mechanic in India during the war repairing planes that were supplying the Chinese. Google “The Hump” it was a route over the eastern range of the Himalayas which supplied Chaing Kai-Shek.

    Planes lost over the Sahara were generally due to pilot error or disorientation and  I believe a well preserved B-24 Liberator was found there not too long ago.

    The Sahara and Himalayas are impassable in the game mostly because of land units. This was done routinely via aircraft in the war in the Himalayas. If you’re playing by the book it doesn’t really matter. However in reality it was done.



  • http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump

    There existed some planes capable, but not many.



  • Giving America a $10 National Objective for owning home land territories that are practically untouchable for any Axis power. However, Nazis marching under Big Ben in London don’t get a dime…. now that’s cheesy.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @CWO:

    I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR.”  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

    Then why doesn’t Russia just start the game controlling Mongolia and the 6 infantry?


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @Young:

    Giving America a $10 National Objective for owning home land territories that are practically untouchable for any Axis power.

    I have no problem with this.  This reflects USA’s massive production capability, without allowing the Axis to earn 42 a turn for taking USA instead of 32

    However, Nazis marching under Big Ben in London don’t get a dime…. now that’s cheesy.

    The London NO was seemingly taken away to make Sealion less attractive.
    This is like the war bonds technology that IL was speaking of.  A quick fix without much thought put into it.  Kind of like a lot of things with G40 since OOB, actually.  😛  :x

    Great thread.  Reminds me why I’m playing less and less of this game  😛

    I agree with those who hate the 6 VC rule with Japan, and the fact that taking SYDNEY or HAWAII effectively wins the entire war for the Axis.  Losing this game as the Allies to a 6 VC Japan totally sucks, especially if you’re doing well in Europe.  The Axis can win without taking a single major world capital due to this half-baked idea.  That is just wrong.

    I’ll add one that’s missing so far:
    The stupid true neutrals rule.  That is some serious cheese.  Yeah, the Swiss are gonna go pro-Axis because the USA invaded Venezuela.  I don’t think so.

    For perspective, in the original game, you could violate neutrality by paying 3 IPC’s during your combat move and take over the country, which had no IPC value and you couldn’t build an IC there.
    Also, in the original game you had the optional? Axis economic victory rule, which made a lot more sense than the 6 Pacific VC rule, because you had to be earning like 84 IPC’s or so worldwide.  You had to control a LOT if you didn’t take 2 Allied capitals (Moscow, London, Washington).  But now in G40 we have regressed  😢 as Japan can win by taking only 2 non-automatic minor world capitals (2 of Calcutta, Honolulu, and Sydney).

    Rant over


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Gamerman01:

    @CWO:

    I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as "a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR."  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

    Then why doesn’t Russia just start the game controlling Mongolia and the 6 infantry?

    Mongolia was technically an independent country.  Politically it was a Soviet client state, but officially it was independent and neutral.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 27
  • 3
  • 14
  • 4
  • 35
  • 9
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

48
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts