Global 1942 with BM3?

Re: Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris

We’ve played this version four times now, and it definitely is tilted towards the Allies. The US is simply too powerful, and Japan has no chance with the US getting 65-70+ income every turn. Our thoughts:

I agree with the assessment that the USSR can knock out 1-2 territories right off the bat. This is similar to the traditional A&A, but Germany doesn’t have the forces to respond in any forceful way to retake anything. USSR is starting with 21+ infantry across the 3-territory front, and can’t get its forces there fast enough. The USSR creates strongholds in Kaliningrad and Ukraine and churns out 10-12 infantry or 6 tanks that immediately come into play. The possible solution for this is for Germany to put a minor IC closer to the front for balance.

Germany has no chance to get transports out of the North Sea due to Britain’s fighter advantage. With France’s help, you would need to get 4+ destroyers/cruisers to protect the transports if you’re trying to go to Iceland and then to Canada/US. The key is to have sub packs hunting any transports that cross, and quick. Once the US takes Gibraltar (which it should do in R1), it becomes a fighter landing factory where they can spawn across the Atlantic and then pound Italy.

The US is just too powerful. The winning path we’ve seen is for the US to make 5-6 fighters per turn and fly them to the Hawaiian islands, then eventually take Wake and Midway. From there, it’s only a matter of time. Japan simply can’t put enough forces to fight through the fighters to get Hawaii, Midway and the islands to the south. The 15 bonus just for having the US each turn is too much. If Germany/Italy can put pressure on the US (which we have seen and done), it can help, but it’s really hard. Italy needs to get income fast, which means going hard and fast after Egypt and the consolidated forces there.

Our Allied player did a very interesting thing by putting a factory in Egypt along with an air base, which made it almost impregnable. Getting Africa quickly is perhaps the least understood key to the war - it allows Italy to prevent ships from coming through the canal and lets them pressure the US. I can’t emphasize enough how important a role plays in helping take pressure off of the UK, which can…

Build up an infantry fortress in India which is impossible to take - UNLESS you build a minor IC on R1 in Malaya. Why Malaya (which is much harder to defend)? Because, under the rules, it can be upgraded to a MAJOR IC - producing 10 units per turn - so India can be overwhelmed. Japan can then turn its attention to…

ANZAC - becomes an income suck very quickly for Japan by grabbing the East Indies. Getting Japan to take out India is probably the most important thing the Axis can do. It frees Japan to focus on island defense and ANZAC. If ANZAC starts getting fighters, they become a transport-hunting force which simply can’t be countered.

Germany - Has to focus on numbers to overwhelm Russia while hoping that the UK doesn’t undertake strategic bombing raids, which Germany should do anyway to minimize the UK’s strength.

All in all, a very solid game, but it needs some tweaks so the Axis have a chance.

@AndrewAAGamer Thanks for the help.

@Kreuzfeld said in Why is Global better than Revised?:

@SS-GEN It is a very good game. At least 40% of the rules are relating to optional units. Most people play with most optional units, but a lot of people play the vanilla version.

:+1: :+1: :+1:

@Azpathfinder:

Has anyone ever tried 1940 rules/units on the 1942 map?

We have a group that enjoys to play, but 1940 is a serious time commitment that we just can’t schedule, and it seems to be taking the fun out of it (for us). When we played 1942, we could set up and play a few rounds in one night and while not always finishing, we could get a good enough sense in how the game was going to declare a victor.

We do enjoy the new pieces and rules (scrambling, tac bombers, convoys, air fields, kamakazi, shipyards) from 1940 … has anyone ever tried to use them on the older, smaller, more manageable 1942 board? any tips? any existing transfer rules? any thoughts?

Thanks everyone!

I would stay away incorporating air bases, shipyards due to number of spaces on the 1942.2 map.

Kamikazis and scrambling although fun, they will drastically change the overall strategy and dynamic of the game.

Now when it comes to mechanized infantry and tactical bombers that’s something that can be integrated with success. I haven’t done it yet but will start trying it out now that my brother and I have about 20 games under our belt and can call ourselves intermediate players. I will post results and overall outcome. In my opinion it will slightly benefit the Axis thus making it even harder for the Allies.

My group usually uses control markers for 10, especially in stacks that won’t be splitting up anytime soon (like in Moscow)

@wittmann:

I believe there is room for two U-Boat commanders.

The more the merrier! We’ll form a wolfpack and rule the North Atlantic!

It just occurred to me that it’s possible, if very unlikely, for a literal draw to occur, meaning a situation in which neither side has the ability to win according to the game’s rules.

If every capital in the game is taken by the opposing alliance, then no one has won but all sides have lost the ability to continue producing units. China doesn’t matter because their units are incapable of achieving Allied victory conditions due to ACME walls. If this occurs and all existing land units are destroyed or isolated due to loss of transports, then no side could possibly win because no side could conquer any new territory. Such a game would undoubtedly be a thing of legend.

well, if russia buys three art turn 1 and saves the rest and collects the same turn 2, that would be a turn two buy of 25+37= 62 to spend in 16 slots. which is either 9 tanks and 2 mech inf if Germany is going sea lion, or 14 art + 1 tank if Germany is going for russia. so your save idea seems to have some merit.