@Sgt-Mclusky Unlike previous renditions of A+A I find that AA40 has so many options and paths to victory that were still playing it and seeing new strategies in my group. Granted I was late to the party with this version so I don’t have years of experience, but we do play an awful lot, and almost never see the same game twice.
Why is Global better than Revised?
@DoManMacgee Thanks; both of these posts were super-helpful for me.
I would think 1942.2 is a much better and corrected version of Revised and the comparison is much better. The sea zones and areas are brilliantly laid out and the LH-Gencon set up is quite balanced. I think the bid if any would be an extra sub for Germany. The game itself has some of the extra units ( cruisers), new rules ( AA guns and sub changes) Tanks are fixed as well. Everyone should own a copy.
@Imperious-Leader With respect, that’s off-topic. There are lots of other threads about 1942.2; this one is about Revised vs. Global. Please keep the 1942.2 discussion off of this thread.
Never having played revised, although I have played classic and 42.2 so I can infer a lot about revised. I would say that G40 has a longer, more complex game with more depth. It’s the depth which makes Global better in my view. I can certainly see how World in Flames and Global War players see going to A&A as a backward step. The downside is that it takes longer to play.
- non automatic capital ship repair
- not having the AA Gun capturable
- arguably airbase & naval base movement bonuses
- arguably the inclusion of mechanised infantry
- note I didn’t say tac bombers
- note I didn’t say built in AA at facilities
Hope this is helpful.
Thank you, @simon33. Can you try to specify what you mean by depth? What is depth? What makes a game deep?
Well in G40 there are many paths to Axis victory, and many conceivable ways that the allies may attempt to block said paths. In the earlier games, well Classic victory in Europe was almost inconceivable, it really devolved so quickly into a monolithic thrust to Moscow to win. It’s still true that neutering Moscow as quickly as possible is a major thrust of G40, it is often better to weaken it first, particularly in BM.
Anyway, not sure I can add that much more to this without going into “how to play G40”.
I always loved revised. In my opinion, it is the best axis game at that scale. I do like the fact that TTs has a die in defence. I have played houndreds of games of revised.
Global scratches a different itch. It is at a completely different scale. I always used to call it “Axis in flames”, since its scale is right between the classical axis and allies and a popular game called “World in flames” (by australian design group).
@Argothair, if you want to check out the most common global scale “war-game”, you should check out World in flames. It is on the smaller side of global war games, but it is extremely well made, and streamlined. It has the best system for fleet-combat i have seen in any system. In this game, you have a named counter for every ship of cruiser-size or larger. US has 196 named ships of the type surface combat ships (Light cruiser, Cruiser, Battle ship, CV and CVL).
Looked at this game you mentioned and a ton of good stuff but 88 pages of rules and so many little tactical results with a ton of modifiers and changes way to much for my group. I’ll finish reading the rules and see if there’s any one thing or two I can use in my game.
Thanks for posting
@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.