What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?


  • Customizer

    @Gamerman01:

    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.

    Perhaps for Global, we could go back to the original Axis victory conditions of 14 victory cities over the whole board. Would that make it too hard for the Axis? At least in that case, even if Japan got 6 or 7 cities, if Germany/Italy were struggling it still wouldn’t be an Axis victory just yet.

    @Gamerman01:

    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.

    That’s why we use Neutral Blocks. South America, Africa, Europe, Middle-East and Mongolia. So for example, Switzerland would only be affected by attacks on Sweeden, Spain, or Portugal. We put Turkey in the Middle-East block along with Afghanistan and Saudi-Arabia.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    Very rarely do you ever see the Axis strong enough to accomplish world domination.  So if you take away the VC, you’ll need to replace it with something the Axis could achieve.

    I think allowing Axis victory upon capture of 2 major capitols with San Francisco counting as a major capitol could work.

    That way if Germany can get Moscow or London, Japan can help out by taking SF.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @Karl7:

    I think allowing Axis victory upon capture of 2 major capitols with San Francisco counting as a major capitol could work.

    That’s what I’m talking about


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    Would Sydney count as a world capitol?


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @variance:

    Would Sydney count as a world capitol?

    No way.  Not a major world capital in WWII

    We’re talking Moscow, London, Washington, San Francisco

    Funny how much the original game keeps coming back to mind with G40 issues.  Axis had to take 2 Allied capitals to win in the original, IIRC

    I think this game would play better and more fun if it was the old school victory conditions from the original.  Either side has to take 2 major capitals to win (while losing no more than 1 major capital of your own?)
    I just know it’s a cheese factory that the Axis win the game if Japan gets 6 cities for a single round, when 4 are pretty much automatic and the other 2 are, well, a lot less than major world power centers.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Axis are 310-244 in the A&A.org 2013 league

    This is with bids to the Allies averaging 6-12

    It is obvious that the VC conditions are too friendly to the Axis.  I find it interesting that people on this thread are saying they are worried that changes could make it harder for the Axis to win.
    It NEEDS to be harder for the Axis to win.

    And so I add this to the list of what’s the cheesiest thing about Global 1940.

    It’s that the Axis win 56% of the games, enabled by the threat that Japan could pick up 2 Pacific cities and win the game.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    I was looking at your spread sheet of league games, particularly looking at the win percentages as Axis or Allies for the different tiers.  I would like to suggest that for the first three tiers the game seems pretty balanced for win percentages.  80/70 in the first tier for wins as Axis/Allies, followed by 60/50 and 40/30 in the other two tiers.

    There’s not a column that shows the bid amounts?


  • TripleA

    having 2 separate victory conditions for the axis is one of the best concepts in this game.

    sure, historically it does not make sense. but this offers a great gaming experience with fighting all over the board.

    it also allows for the very fun aspect of the axis losing economically(a long term game will be an allied victory) but having a shot at going all in for a victory city win on one side. i know the most fun games i have had(it does not matter if i am axis or allies) is where the axis will lose a long term game and make a big push for the victory city win and both sides know that the game is coming to an exciting conclusion.

    if you are a proponent of removing the victory conditions what would you suggest to encourage the allies to fight in both europe and pacific?


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    I think the same thing can be accomplished another way.
    I would start by taking a hard look at NO’s in the Pacific.
    See my spreadsheet of ideas for new and changed rules for a starter…  I propose an NO for Japan for Carolines, Midway, Wake, and Guam (instead of the wacky one that Larry has that Japan never gets close to getting, which includes the Solomons and that British one.  What in the world??!)


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @Degrasse:

    I was looking at your spread sheet of league games, particularly looking at the win percentages as Axis or Allies for the different tiers.  I would like to suggest that for the first three tiers the game seems pretty balanced for win percentages.  80/70 in the first tier for wins as Axis/Allies, followed by 60/50 and 40/30 in the other two tiers.

    There’s not a column that shows the bid amounts?

    No, not tracking bid amounts.  There hasn’t been much variance in the bidding, really.

    80/70 (60/50 and 40/30) is a HUGE difference, actually.  If the game was balanced these numbers would not be different.

    80/70 means tier 1 players are LOSING 50% more often with the Allies than the Axis.  They are winning 8/10 with Axis, but only 7/10 with Allies.  That is a huge difference.


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

    @allweneedislove:

    if you are a proponent of removing the victory conditions what would you suggest to encourage the allies to fight in both europe and pacific?

    That’s an interesting thought.  In a way, the general idea of finding a way to encourage the Allies to fight both in Europe and the Pacific would be a bit like the Combined Arms unit-pairing rules, in which a mix of unit types activates enhanced unit abilities.  The Allies would need some kind of multiplier effect (either military or economic) as an incentive to fight in both theatres.  I don’t know how it could be done, but it’s an intriguing concept for a house rule.

    Historically, once the US, the UK, the USSR, Germany and Japan were all at war, the basic strategy of the Allies was supposed to be “Hitler first”.  The Allies did, in one sense, stick to that strategy, but the plan got diluted to some extent by the sheer size and diversity of America’s production of war materials.  US industry cranked out vast quantities of land-based weapons and aircraft (which could be used in both theatres), but it also cranked out vast numbers of warships, which arguably were far more useful for fighting the primarily oceanic war in the Pacific than the primarily land-based war in Europe.  The European war did require sea power, but this was primarily in the form of transport ships, escort vessels, a few shore-bombardment vessels, and lots of landing craft / amphibious assault ships.  The top-of-the line combat vessels – the fleet carriers and the fast battleships – were arguably “in excess of requirements” in Europe but were vitally important in the Pacific, so the US could commit them against Japan without greatly hindering the overall “Hitler first” strategy.  This is also true for the US submarine forces: there wasn’t much work for them to do in the Atlantic or in the Mediterranean, but they could (and did) wreak economic havoc on Japan by attacking its vital (and surprisingly ill-defended) convoy routes.


  • Customizer

    It’s been stated elsewhere and generally defeated by opinion, but changes in naval prices to match the cost of land units would enable a better simulation of the PTO and the Italian and British navies.

    A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

    Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

    The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.

    Aircraft become more valuable and more in line with thier historical roles.

    I don’t propose that naval structure be  changed in future editions. But I do think a house rule or variant would make for a very entertaining game.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Actually, I am developing a house rule game of G40 for the league now, and it includes some lower naval costs (although slight), like transports down to 6

    You can see my work in progress here:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2

    Let me know what you think - it’s intended to be a group effort to improve the game.
    This thread kind of pushed me over the threshhold for doing this


  • Customizer

    More in line with OP are the entry rules for nations not at war. I understand the historical setting but the player is taking on the role of a national leader in an alternative setting. I don’t see why Russia or the US couldn’t declare war on thier first turn if they wanted to.  The US supplied the allies from start as well as sanctioned Japan for its war with China.  Roosevelt was eager to go to war so if we’re playing a game of “what-if?” Why not allow the powers not at war early entry?


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Oh yeah, I forgot about that too.
    Great addition to the thread - the DOW rules are indeed cheesy at times


  • 2019 2018

    @Gamerman01:

    Let me know what you think - it’s intended to be a group effort to improve the game.
    This thread kind of pushed me over the threshhold for doing this

    My first thought: The cruiser will still be the weakest naval unit. Reduce the cost to 10.

    And so far these changes seem to favor the Axis even more. All Anzac units+territories become British, okay cool, that’s a buff. But reducing the income of the australian territories and the major industry in india weakens UK PAC a lot. That, in addition to that weird China rule, will make life in pacific even harder. How is China supposed to even remotely defend itself now? Recapturing Yunnan for the Burma road becomes even more difficult.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Thanks for the feedback

    The China rule is intended to slow the ridiculously rapid comeback that China can make when Japan fails to subdue her.
    Remember that UK Pacific is going to have more income that may be spent, all in India if desired (I’m thinking a major is too much, but a single minor is not enough.  I don’t want to put a minor in Malaya, obviously, so am thinking about West India)

    I am taking a couple tacs away from Japan, which helps China.  I could take out another fighter or two if need be.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @MrRoboto:

    My first thought: The cruiser will still be the weakest naval unit. Reduce the cost to 10.

    I agree with reducing naval costs.  I already had reduced cruiser cost to 11.

    The cruiser is NOT the weakest naval unit.  Perhaps you meant least bang for the buck.  I hesitate to reduce it to 10, but agree with reducing it to 11 for sure


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Variance, I don’t want to hijack your thread.  I would also like to see more players weigh in with what they think is the cheesiest thing about Global 1940 and don’t want to clog things up here with my project.

    To comment on my house ruled game that I am starting to develop, please visit the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in the League section - thanks.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @MrRoboto:

    That, in addition to that weird China rule, will make life in pacific even harder. How is China supposed to even remotely defend itself now?

    You have a point.  But it’s very easily solveable.  We can take away an infantry or 2 from Japan.

    Japan has 8 ground units in Kiangsi and Kwangsi.
    Russia has 7 ground units in 3 territories along the Russian front.
    Again, I think there is some slight imbalance between the E40 and P40 games, with P40 having more units.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    I don’t think the China rule placement restriction is weird.  In AA50 you couldn’t place ANY units in a territory that already had 2-3 Chinese infantry in it.  This rule of placing no more than 2 infantry in a territory at once is very attractive, I think.

    Remember the rule book points out that China is in civil war.  So they should not be able to coordinate attacks and build up so easily.  I’m not even sure I’m in favor of the “flying tigers”.  That’s some serious cheese right there, isn’t it?

    According to Wikipedia, the flying tigers were active from 12/20/41 to 7/14/42.  So they shouldn’t even exist at start up.  Furthermore, if there is a Chinese fighter representing the “flying tigers” they shouldn’t be able to support ground attacks of Chinese infantry.  A quick review in wikipedia reveals that the tigers were extremely successful in their campaign against Japanese aircraft.  How often does the Chinese fighter in G40 destroy a Japanese plane?  Almost never.  The flying tigers helped defend and shoot down bombers that were doing SBR’s.  So it makes more sense that the flying tigers would enter the game in round 2 or 3 or something and sit in India, defending against SBR’s as an interceptor.  So instead of a fighter piece, perhaps the Allies should have a piece similar to kamikazes that can be used against Japanese air attacks in China and South Asia and that would represent the flying tigers.

    Yes, I like this idea a lot, because it is not only much more historically accurate and less cheesy, but it gives the Allies something comparable to the kamikazes.


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    too bad China can’t have AA guns


  • Customizer

    Gamerman, you have some pretty good ideas. My variant is pretty drastic in many ways and will have a really niche following if at all.

    @ Varience, good topic! Don’t mean to de-rail your thread. Sorry.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @variance:

    too bad China can’t have AA guns

    Actually I’m thinking the chits (2?) for flying tigers will work like surprise AA guns that would hit Japanese aircraft.

    And it’s not too hard for the UK or USSR to get AA guns into China…


  • 2019 2018

    @Gamerman01:

    Remember that UK Pacific is going to have more income

    Yes UK Pac will have more Income. But in your rule UK Pac has less income than UK-Pac + Anzac at the moment, since you’re reducing the value of the Australian territories. And on top of that, the allies won’t get the 5 bonus income from the Anzac NO (Guinea+Solomon+New Britain)

    Overall, that’s a reduce in Allied IPC in the pacific.

    Japan couldn’t care less, if it has 2 less tacs against China. It has such a huge amount of aircraft. These vast Aircraft numbers are only needed in the war against the US+Anzac navy. For supporting the ground troops in China, only a few planes would suffice.

    China will not be able to stack in Szechwan as easily to recapture Yunnan for the Burma road. In fact, since you’re forcing China to spread out with the max-2-infantry-rule, Japan will easily be able to thin out the Chinese infantry even faster. It’s never good for the defender to spread forces.

    I still don’t agree with your cruiser assessment.

    18 cruisers = 11 battleships in cost.
    18 cruiser = 18hp, 54 power.
    11 battleships = 22hp, 44 power.

    So that’s 25% less damage than cruisers, while having ~22% more hp. While the cruisers may do more dmg in the first round, the battleships will do WAY more damage in the following rounds, since you can tip them. Battleships are obviously stronger.

    8 cruisers = 11 destroyers in cost.
    8 cruisers = 8 hp, 24 power
    11 destroyers = 11 hp, 22 power

    Now that’s even more obvious. Destroyers have 37.5% more hp while having only 8.3% less power. Additionally they can more easily be used as blockers, cannon fodder and anti-submarine, while cruisers only have bombard (rarely used, and even more rarely needed).

    No one who gets his math straight will be buying cruisers, even with a reduced cost of 11.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 27
  • 1
  • 30
  • 4
  • 4
  • 8
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

35
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts