Hey guys,
So I was chatting with another member of the forum recently, one who has contributed a lot to the game, and I was sad to hear that he had more or less moved on from the game. He was now a big fan of Global War 1936/45, which looks to be a much more complicated iteration of our treasured Global 1940.
This got me to thinking, there have been innumerable complaints about the poor balance in the game. So much so that pros don’t seem willing to play Allies without a bid, and there exists a multitude of “house rules” to try and correct for the imbalance. With this information in hand, do you think it’s time that Avalon make a new iteration of our beloved game? I know that there have been newer games, like the Zombies A&A, but I’m talking about a new conventional WWII game that is of the grand scale we see in Global 1940.
What are your thoughts? Is 1940 Global as good as it gets, or am I right to fear a hostile takeover by newer games, like Global 1936/45?
@Flying-Tigerz said in Is it time for an Avalon Remake?:
He was now a big fan of Global War 1936/45, which looks to be a much more complicated iteration of our treasured Global 1940.
While I have only played the HBG 1936 game once with a friend, and it was an earlier version, from that experience and talking with others that is also my understanding that the HGB 1936 game is far more complicated and thus takes longer to play. The feature that made Axis and Allies so popular is that it is a simple game mechanically to play and yet still allows tremendous tactical and strategic play in spite of that simplicity.
You have to be an old fart like me to remember what it was like before Axis and Allies. The war games before back then had pieces that were cardboard cutouts on hexagonal maps with rulebooks that were as thick as a magazine and it literally took HOURS to make a single play due to all of the complications and checking and rechecking the rules. And PLEASE do not get me started on trying to determine what was in one of those stacks of cardboard cutouts. Tweezers were a mandatory game tool.
Axis and Allies brought plastic units (WOW!!!), had big territory spaces, made movement easy and made combat even easier. This is why it was popular. While Larry Harris may want to bring out a new game to compete with the complexity of HGB 1936 I certainly would not want to move Global 1940 in that direction. The people who want that kind of complexity and “realism” in a game are usually not the same ones who want simplicity. So, it is two different demographics.
Personally, I think Global 1940 OOB is awesome. I do not understand the prejudice some people have against it because out of the box it is not even. So what? Who says it has to be even? I think the fact it requires a Bid, and a big one, is great because it makes it a different game every time! Do the Allies go heavy Russia? Heavy UK Europe? Heavy Pacific or some combination of all? Each game is like two games in one. The Axis trying to get a Victory City win and the Allies are doing everything they can to stop a VC win. Then if the Allies succeed in stopping the Axis from getting that VC win the game morphs into a long-term money game that both sides can win. From my experience with BM3 and PtV they both seem to drive the game into an immediate long-term money game and for me that removes a lot of the fun and tension of the VC game.
Anyway - you asked, I answered. That is my 2 cents.
Thanks for the great response, Andrew!
A lot of what you have said rings true for me too! I’ve been reticent to play 1936 simply because it looks so gosh darn complicated. I also can see how A&A has struck a perfect balance between complexity and strategy.
With all that said, I think I will give 1936 a try in the near future. The pandemic has given me more time to lounge about, so its a good time to try and learn.
Again, thanks for the great response; much appreciated.
I just need to ask,what is PtV?
Path to Victory. A new knock off of Global by Adam514 and RegularKid
