What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    @knp7765:

    By the way, you said ANY 20 islands. So it would be okay for Japan to end up losing one or more of their original islands (except for Japan of course) as long as they still had a total of 20?

    Sure, any 20 islands will do.  I just picked 20 as a starting number; maybe it could be knocked down a bit to 18 or something that works.  It would be hard to defend them all, but also hard for USA to grab and hold too.  I would bet that in this scheme India becomes a lot harder to get than it typically is now because everyone focuses on defending Cairo instead (e.g. Tobruk or Taranto raids instead of sending everything Eastward).  If that’s true then USA would have to do something about the Atlantic, maybe get a second front going to relieve Russia.


  • 2017

    I like the idea of more varied paths to victory for each side. It makes balance tougher, but done right would be great.



  • @variance:

    (…) I would bet that in this scheme India becomes a lot harder to get than it typically is now because everyone focuses on defending Cairo instead (e.g. Tobruk or Taranto raids instead of sending everything Eastward).  If that’s true then USA would have to do something about the Atlantic, maybe get a second front going to relieve Russia.Â

    From my own experience I’d say you bet right: at least the threat of a second front is needed to keep Germany in check, else the allies risk loosing both Moscow and Cairo.

    To be honest I don’t see how not sending everything eastwards makes life easier for India? I’d rather say it 'll make life in Calcutta harder because Japan doesnt have to face a bigger UK-fleet and airforce. I suspect I am missing something ;-).


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    By send everything Eastward I meant sending stuff from Egypt and z98 toward India to reinforce it; not stripping India planes and fleet to reinforce Egypt.



  • ah nvm, I guess Im on the wording a bit too much 😉

    I take it we agree that not sending units from Cairo -> Calcutta makes it harder for UK to defend India and easier for Japan to get it.


  • 2019 2018

    I love the general idea.

    In terms of balance (is 20 too much or not enough?) - I’m too lazy to check it and trust in this community to figure it out g


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Good ideas for alternative Japan/Axis win conditions.  We need to chew on these awhile.
    I like the idea of making island groups more meaningful, which is why I’ve started a couple ideas for NO’s (that are much more realistic than Larry’s crazy one for japan with the Solomon’s and Wake and whatnot)

    I currently have it as 5 for Carolines, Wake, Guam, and Midway (All have strategic air bases and were very important in WWII) instead of the wacky current one (Wake, Guam, Midway, Solomons and Gilbert?  Seriously?).  When would Japan ever take these 5 islands before getting 6 VC’s?  :lol:

    At first I liked the idea of total domination of China, but -  Mega cheesy that the Allies could avert Axis global win by taking Kansu or some other obscure Chinese territory.  That’s even worse than Hawaii or Sydney…  For a second I thought well, how about all but 2-3 IPC’s worth of China, but you have the same problem.
    So I guess actually I don’t think dominating China should be a victory condition (except for requiring Hong Kong and the Capital - that still makes sense).  It’s worth so much money and makes Japan’s life so much easier if China is subdued it probably shouldn’t be a victory condition to take a ton of Chinese territory.  Great ideas, though.  Keep 'em coming


  • Customizer

    @Gamerman01:

    At first I liked the idea of total domination of China, but -  Mega cheesy that the Allies could avert Axis global win by taking Kansu or some other obscure Chinese territory.  That’s even worse than Hawaii or Sydney…  For a second I thought well, how about all but 2-3 IPC’s worth of China, but you have the same problem.
    So I guess actually I don’t think dominating China should be a victory condition (except for requiring Hong Kong and the Capital - that still makes sense).  It’s worth so much money and makes Japan’s life so much easier if China is subdued it probably shouldn’t be a victory condition to take a ton of Chinese territory.  Great ideas, though.  Keep 'em coming

    I put in a house rule NO for Japan: $5 per round if ALL Chinese territories under Axis control.
    I put in another for the Japanese held islands: $5 for control of Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Formosa, Marianas, Palau, Carolines AND Marshalls. Japan has to keep control of all of them.
    As for that weird NO with Midway, Wake, Guam, Gilberts and Solomons, I changed that one to $1 per island.
    I also removed the US NO of $10 for control of EUS, CUS and WUS and gave the US a new NO: $1 each for control of Midway, Wake, Guam, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Marshalls, Carolines, Palau, Marianas and Formosa. That way the US can still make the extra $10 but they have to fight for it, it’s not just a given. Also, they start right out with 3 of them. That is unless Japan’s DOW on the US includes taking any or all of those three islands.
    I’ve already tried these new NOs in a couple of games and they do create more island fighting.


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    @Gamerman01:

    Mega cheesy that the Allies could avert Axis global win by taking Kansu or some other obscure Chinese territory.

    Yeah I guess the 18 inf, 2AA from the far east marching over Mongolia and then to Kansu would become a standard cheeselog.  I like the islands bit though, and knp’s experience with something similar suggests there might be something to that.  Not sure which or how many islands should count but I bet there is some point that would strike a good balance.  So x number of islands would count as a VC.


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

    @variance:

    Axis must hold any 3 of the following for 1 complete round:
    1) Western USA
    2) New South Wales
    3) India
    4) all territories originally controlled by China
    (total extermination; includes Kwangtung) 5) any 20 islands on the Pacific map (“islands” include the island of Japan, Hawaii, Philippines, DEIs, New Zealand, and all the little islands; Dutch New Guinea plus New Guinea counts as 1 island).  Note: please count the islands on the map and consider which ones are usually easy or hard for Japan to get.

    These are all historically reasonable goals for Japan in WWII. Â

    I respectfully disagree that these goals were historically reasonable for Japan.  By December 1941, the war in China had been going on continuously for four years, was absorbing huge amounts of Japanese manpower, and had to a large extent bogged down for Japan.  Japan also had to maintain appreciable forces along Machuria’s borders with the USSR and Mongolia, where there had been a couple of shooting wars in the late 1930s.  These situations all reflected the strategic ambitions of the Japanese Army, which favoured a “north and west” expansion strategy for Japan, in contrast with the Japanese Navy, which wanted to expand “south and east.”

    Objectively, the Navy’s plan made more sense because that was where Japan would be able to find the resources it needed, notably the oil of the DEI.  The Navy’s plan also had the advantage (from the Navy’s point of view) that expanding south and east would require a very heavy involvement of the Navy – unlike the war in China, which by its land-based nature was an Army show.  Japan’s naval forces were available for a campaign south (towards the DEI, Malaya and New Guinea) and east (towards Hawaii and the Gilberts), but the Army was so heavily commited to the war in China that the campaigns launched by Japan in December 1941 had to be carried out with the comparatively few Army divisions that could be scraped together for the job, plus a few SNLF units.

    Japan initially had the advantage of surprise and proximity, so it was able to take the Philippines, the DEI, Malaya, the Bismarck Archipelago, Burma, Hong Kong, Wake, Guam and the Gilberts in short order.  But as the war reached New Guinea and the Solomons, Japan started becoming seriously overextended because the oceanic distances were becoming too large and because Japan simply didn’t have enough troops available to take and hold that much territory in the face of serious opposition (which is exactly what they started facing as the Americans recovered from their initial defeats and found ways to hold the line until they had built up enough strength to start driving the Japanese back across the Pacific).  Given that Japan didn’t manage to complete its conquest of Guadalcanal and New Guinea, never got past Burma, captured just two useless islands in the Aleutians, and didn’t even bother to snap up the easy prize of the Ellice Islands, it would have been quite unrealistic for Japan to imagine that it could conquer all of India or parts of Australia, let alone capture and occupy parts of the continental United States across 6,000 mile of ocean.  I think that the most ambitious conquest the Japanese might have credibly added to their actual vistories was the Hawaiian Islands – and even that one is a bit of a stretch, given Japan’s spectacular failure to set foot on Midway Island, which was minuscule in comparison to the main Hawaiian Islands and appreciably closer to Japan.


  • 2019 2018

    @CWO:

    I respectfully disagree that these goals were historically reasonable for Japan.

    Your historical knowledge is impressive. However, we are playing a game and it needs to be balanced. Historic accuracy, while being important, is not nearly as important as balance is.

    None of the Axis powers came close to what we see in this game and what we consider balanced.


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

    @MrRoboto:

    However, we are playing a game and it needs to be balanced. Historic accuracy, while being important, is not nearly as important as balance is.

    Of course.  I’m all in favour of having a balanced game, and of letting the players break out of the narrow confines of the actual events of the war.  A&A, after all, isn’t a strict simulation of WWII – it’s a boardgame, and it needs to operate under simplifying assumptions to make it playable.  I was just making the point that there’s a difference between setting certain variant objectives in a set of house rules (which is perfectly fine) and stating that these objectives were historically realistic for Japan (which isn’t necessarily the case).


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Thanks, CWO, that was terrific!


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    Of the 5 objectives I gave, which ones were most seriously on the table for Japan in the war?  How about crushing China and creating a defensive perimeter in the Pacific to protect its access to oil and stuff from the DEIs?  No way were they ever going to take over India, Australia or the Western third of the United States, but yeah it is a game.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Well, Variance, I think it should be in terms of, what should the situation with Japan be that the Axis wins the whole game no matter how badly it’s going in Europe?

    We agree that just taking Manila, Hong Kong, China’s capital, Calcutta, and either Hawaii or Sydney is not enough, but what if there was an added requirement that Japan have a certain level of income (representing territorial gains)?

    I won a game recently in cheesy manner by getting 6 VC’s with Japan and my income was only about 50.  That’s just wrong.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    A great point, rjpeters, and an easy answer.

    We play with VC’s because that’s the rule Larry made and is the official 2nd edition rules.  To play a variety of players from around the world, we need a standardized rule set so that we’re playing the same game, so the official rules win.

    After enduring the official rules for a year now, many of us are ready to make our own.  We are working together on house rule sets so that hopefully we will have a large group of players who agree to the same rules, and hopefully they will be superior to the ones we’ve been playing the last year or more.  🙂

    What would you propose?  War until one side gives up?  So basically, a world domination game where you play until one guy cries uncle?  By asking these questions, don’t assume I’m critical of that thought - I’m just asking because I want to know.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    I guess for a little perspective, VC’s were the rule in AA50, but the standard rule of 15 out of 18 cities pretty much made the VCs meaningless in that game, because you basically were playing to world domination if you were playing for all but 3 cities in the world.  Whatever it was in “Revised” was pretty hard to get, to, or in other words, if you got the VC win you were necessarily much more powerful than your opponent and would always be able to dominate the world if you kept playing anyway (If I recall correctly, that’s been a number of years, now).

    So with the G40 introduction of a Pacific Victory where you only need 6 VC’s and 4 are really a given (you could actually argue that 5 are pretty much given), we have this problem of “cheap”, unrealistic victories. 
    So like I said, I would be interested in what your proposed alternative to VCs is


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

    @variance:

    Of the 5 objectives I gave, which ones were most seriously on the table for Japan in the war?Â

    I’d rank them in two groups and in the following order, from most to least likely (which is only a very rough estimate, given that many variables would have affected Japan’s chances of success if it had tried for these objectives).

    Group 1: Achievable

    a) More islands in the Pacific.  I don’t have an opinion on the stated number of 20, but Japan could certainly have captured more islands (especially small ones in the Central Pacific) than it actually did.  I’ve already mentioned the Ellice Islands, and Johnston would be another possibility.  Note, by the way, that Johnston Atoll was astride the direct air route between the continental US and Australia, so its position had potential strategic implications if Japan had managed to capture it, given that the US basically used Australia as a staging area for its campaign in the Southwest Pacific.  The capture of Midway would also have been quite within Japan’s capabilities if Spruance and Fletcher hadn’t ruined things for them.  Midway was regarded as a strategic “keyhole” giving the US access to the Central Pacific, and after the Doolittle Raid the Japanese were eager to plug it.  Midway might also have been handy in supporting an invasion of Hawaii…but maybe not in a major way, since I don’t think it had an anchorage.

    b) Parts of India – specifically Ceylon, which Japan raided in 1942, and about whose security the Royal Navy had serious doubts.  The RN established a secret naval base in Addu Atoll for precisely that reason.  But India as a whole was simply too big and too populous for Japan to conquer; it contributed about 2 million troops to the Allied war effort.

    By the way, as a variant on a) and b), one intriguing hypothetical Japanese objective about which Britain was worried was Vichy-occupied Madagascar, in the Indian Ocean.  Britain (and the Free French, I think) invaded Madagascar in 1942 to preclude such a possibility.

    Group 2: Not achievable

    c) Australia.  I think that, at best, the Japanese might have captured Darwin, which was the nearest part of Australia to New Guinea and which had an isolated position on the other side of the country from the most populated part of Australia.  Japan actually air-raided Darwin at one point.  But capturing Darwin would have been of dubious practical value.  And capturing NSW would have been, I  think, quite out of the question: too far away, too big, and too well defended.

    d) China.  Capturing a few more parts of it is credible, but capturing all of it isn’t.  James Dunnigan addresses this topic in the section called “The War (A Big One) In China” in his book Victory at Sea.  China was a disunited, non-industrial country, yet Japan only managed to capture parts of it during the four years (1937-1941) when China had its undivided attention.  It didn’t get much further during the 1942-1944 period.  And when Japan, out of desperation, eventually started committing elements of its powerful Manchuria-based Kwantung Army to the war in the Pacific, Japan’s position in China was seriously weakened.  The Russians and the Mongolians, as I recall, made rapid progress there when they eventually attacked in August 1945.

    e) The US West Coast.  Even if a hypothetical Japanese invasion and occupation of this region had been completely unopposed by the Americans on their own home turf (which is utterly unimaginable), the logistical requirements to support a Japanese occupation army across 6,000 miles of ocean – a trip of about one month by fast ocean liner – would have been impossible to meet.  The Anglo-Americans had a tough enough time supporting their own forces in Normany and (later) in western Europe in the weeks and months after D-Day, even though all that separated Britain from Normandy was the English Channel.  And the Japanese themselves found it very difficult (and ultimately impossible in the long term) to supply their relatively close troops on Guadalcanal, despite the best efforts of the Tokyo Express.


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    I wonder what percentage of games end when one side gives up, essentially because of economic reasons.  How many games actually run all the way until the victory conditions are met?  Maybe it would make sense to have some income level be a victory condition and harden up the “play til someone quits” thing.  So have an economic victory condition for the axis, combined with a certain number of victory cities (or other objectives like islands or whatever), so that they don’t just blow up and “win” before the allies get rolling.  Like maybe if Germany has 7 cities and japan has 5, AND their combined income is at some high level?

    Would it also make sense to have a “stalemate” outcome?  I’ve had some games where I gave up because it seemed like the both sides were just going to stack Egypt or z6 or whatever forever.  Those games might eventually be resolved in 30+ rounds but who wants to do that, especially in a face to face game?


  • 2018 2017 2016

    Minor thing, but shouldn’t the French have a token presence in FIC? The game doesn’t simulate Vichy France, so having an infantry sitting there would at least prevent Japan from walking in unopposed from Siam (they should put up some effort). Or the French player can slowly march it to India or Yunnan if he pleases.



  • I think the Axis victory conditions need to be more like the Allies’. So maybe simply “axis must control 5 allied capitols as well as at least 1 axis capitol for a complete round of play”. That may sound like it would take too long, but remember, the allies have to completely wipe out their enemy to win. Killing everyone but U.S. or everyone but U.S.S.R. wouldn’t be that hard. And conceding is always an option.

    Another way to do it would be make it 3 of these 4: washington, london, calcutta, moscow.

    Yet another, “axis must control washington, london, and moscow as well as at least 1 axis capitol for a complete round of play”. That might seem weird at first because none are on the pacific map, but to me this seems like the best option. First of all, if japan is strong enough, it is reasonable to take moscow and/or washington with them. Secondly, even if germany/italy end up taking all the capitols, this will only be possible if japan is played well enough to stay rich, destroy india, and sap resources from U.S.

    Oh yeah, by the way I think the 6VC win for Japan is the cheesiest thing in G40.



  • I have always thought the game should be slanted toward the Allies a bit more, and include an Axis victory condition that changes as the game drags on.
    Basically, you would have to weather the storm for longer than the Axis really did to win.

    This is just spitballing but lets say it looks something like this:

    Axis wins on turn 5 if they control at least 12 victory cities at the end of a turn
    Axis wins on turn 10 if they control at least 10 victory cities at the end of their turn
    Axis wins on turn 15 if they control at least 7 victory cities at the end of their turn
    Axis wins on turn 20 if they control at least 4 victory cities at the end of their turn

    Remember, this is with a US probably making like 25 IPCs more, really putting the pressure on the axis to preform
    The Allies may have a similar chart, or perhaps a chart that deals in IPCs

    Allies win on turn 5 if the axis collects less than 50 IPCs collectively
    Allies win on turn 10 if the axis collects less than 70 IPCs collectively
    Allies win on turn 15 if the axis collects less than 90 IPCs collectively
    Allies win on turn 20 if the axis collects less than 110 IPCs collectively



  • Someone has probably said this, but the idea that If china takes over all of their territories, and are make a boatload of money, there is an invisible force-field that stops them from ever attacking Korea, any Japanese held Russian territories, or most British territories is ludicrous… Like really?! Come on, I know there as a civil war but that doesnt mean that invisible force-fields just stop them… Whatever, rant over…

    Thanks,


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @Freddy:

    Someone has probably said this, but the idea that If china takes over all of their territories, and are make a boatload of money, there is an invisible force-field that stops them from ever attacking Korea, any Japanese held Russian territories, or most British territories is ludicrous… Like really?! Come on, I know there as a civil war but that doesnt mean that invisible force-fields just stop them… Whatever, rant over…

    Thanks,

    Good point Freddy -
    Something to consider though -
    Isn’t it just as cheesy that China would be building that many infantry and be able to coordinate the entire fighting force in unity, and also be able to place about 9 infantry in any territory in China that they want each turn?
    When Russia can’t place one single infantry on the board anywhere east of Moscow and does not even have the capability of building an IC east of Moscow  🙂



  • Variance

    No way were they ever going to take over India, Australia or the Western third of the United States, but yeah it is a game.

    I beg to differ. And there is no way to know for sure, but from what historical reference I have, I do understand the massive resources the Japanese spent in an offensive war against the US Navy. As I understand it, once the US conducted the Doolittle raid, which was inconsequential at best, and almost impossible to pull off again, the Japanese over reacted and attempted to create a defensive perimeter in the Pacific. If they fought more defensively in the Pacific and focused on India, it very well could have fallen. The question of course is how much damage would have been caused in the Pacific. Not much in my humble opinion.

    We know that attempting to build there defensive perimeter to far out, cost them ever taking India or anything else. That is the beauty of the game. Starting at a point of historical accuracy, then be allowed to do something different.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 120
  • 11
  • 4
  • 35
  • 4
  • 54
  • 2
  • 16
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

41
Online

13.6k
Users

33.9k
Topics

1.3m
Posts