Questions:
1. Is this solution on top of the Alpha set up changes for pacific?
2. Are Global victory conditions unchanged? You still need 14, unless either of the theater specific thresholds are reached?
Thanks
Questions:
1. Is this solution on top of the Alpha set up changes for pacific?
2. Are Global victory conditions unchanged? You still need 14, unless either of the theater specific thresholds are reached?
Thanks
I posted the after action report elsewhere, however, in our one global game to date, we played with the Alpha set up.
The group consensus was that the advantage is clearly with the Allies. I think the Pacific theater is fine, but the European theater needs some work to make it a bit more even.
That was just one game, but those were our impressions.
This is an after action report for a Global 40 Game we played last Saturday.
We started around 1pm and had to end around 8.
We had 7 players, 4 allies and 3 axis, and although experienced levels were different between the players, all of us have at least played some form of AA within the last year. We setup with the latest Larry Harris “Alpha” setup and rules for Global, as of Sept 10.
Germany opened with an attack on the British fleet in the North Atlantic, sinking most of the ships around Britain and the French Cruiser and Destroyer in the Med. They took losses of a few subs and 1 or 2 planes. They also moved into pro-Axis Finland. As expected, Germany attacked France and took Paris. Germany built a minor IC in Romania and a few Subs.
The Russian player bought a mixed buy and maneuvered his forces away from the Germany front and towards his main 3 cities, while consolidating Siberian troops together near the Manchurian border.
In the Pacific, Japan maneuvered into a position near the Philippines to attack Borneo, Celebes, etc and built more transports, but did not attack UK or USA. Japan did heavily attack China, the beginning of the three turn campaign against China that would take more than half the Chinese territories.
The UK and ANZAC occupied two Dutch islands. UK Europe decided against attacking the Italian fleet, because the Germany player had positioned about 6 airplanes to counter-attack in the Mediterranean and the French ships were no longer there for cover. Instead the UK player finished off a German Battleship and Cruiser off Scotland, and consolidated forces near Gibraltar. They built a transport and ground units for S. Africa.
Italy attacked southern France, took Gibraltar and Jordan. Italy built a transport to replace the one they would lose near Gibraltar.
US did a 50/50 build East/West, a build strategy it continued for all subsequent turns. It evacuated the Philippines and consolidated on the West Coast.
The next two turns (#2 and #3) saw the following happen:
On Turn 2, Germany dropped 3 TT’s in the Black Sea and upgraded the IC to major. (A carrier would follow on turn 3 for protection). From Turn three on, Germany started dropping 6 units per turn into Caucuses with ground units also being built in Romania.
The Russians kept clearing caucuses and were pulling back as Germany pushed the entire border below the baltic.
Egypt was evacuated by the UK, and occupied by Italy, but UK successfully retook Jordan and Gibraltar and was reinforcing the Red Sea with ships from S. Africa and India. Italy’s advance was stalled.
UK Europe did minor landings in Normandy and Norway which were rebuffed, and traded Gibraltar with the Italians, while doing mixed builds in South Africa and Britain. Britain counter attacked from Burma into Yunnan to reopen the road for China. China had a large stack in the interior, but was reeling from steady Japanese pressure.
Japan attacked the USA/UK/ANZAC in turn 3.
Russia attacked Japan in turn 3, taking Manchuria and Korea which had been abandoned by Japan the turn eariler.
Turn 4 was our final turn, after 6 hours of game play.
During this turn some interesting things happened:
Germany maneuvered into a position where, had there been a turn 5, Stalingrad would have likely fallen.
They had more units in the south than the Russians at that point.
However, the German advance was in question due to increasing pressure to the West.
UK retook Egypt, and Italy’s counter attack (barely) failed. With the US at Gibraltar sinking most of the Italian’s remaining fleet and Italian ground forces decimated, Rome was in peril. Britain landed in Normandy again, this time reinforced by Americans.
Japan’s offensive took off. Yunnan was wiped of British troops with favorable dice as Malaysia and all of the DEI was in Japanese hands. UK Pacific was down to 3 territories and 6 IPC’s. Calcutta would be in jeopardy in coming turns, if Japan could deliver enough ground troops. Japan was were now earning about 69 IPC’s. 9 of those IPC’s were from Russia. A Japanese counter attack retook Korea, invaded the Far East above Manchuria and pushed into the interior through central China. Few units were involved, but they were eating into Russian IPC’s. Russia still held Manchuria, but was now surrounded there.
Anzac had ample ground forces, but only a small fleet. However, they did move into the Caroline Islands with a transport and couple of infantry on turn 4, setting up a possible US staging area. They had taken part of the DEI early on, but were kicked out with the Japanese offensive.
An American fleet in the Pacific had formed around Wake. With the Aussie base in Caroline Islands, a Japanese response of some type would soon be required.
Afterthoughts:
Japan player felt number of fighters was impressive but also frustrating, complains of lack of infantry and/or transports at the start of the game. Still Japan finished turn 4 with income near 70 IPC’s.
The German player discovered that despite extremely aggressive strategy against Russia, and daring Black Sea fleet strategy, it was difficult to take even one Russian city, much less all three.
USA seemed to have tons of IPC, for better or for worse, and when it arrived in force, was a dominant power. Frequent landings in Europe are likely from turn 5 on with USA help.
Italy blossomed without losing its fleet turn 1, taking at least one National Objective each turn, sometimes two. But when confronted with UK/USA attacks, Italy’s fortunes were rapidly reversed.
New rules: tactical bombers, IPC rules, and land/sea bases seemed ok.
House rules: because we heard complaints of the USA/Norway large-factory strategy, we ruled that players could not build factories in captured territories. Large-factories, when captured, would be reduced to small-factories, but usable to the occupying power. Small-factories would be destroyed.
Overall game seemed biased towards Allies. A lot could have still happened. However, it seemed unlikely the the Axis would get to even 12 VC’s. They were already being rolled back in Africa and Italy was threatened.
Axis has won all my global games so far.
Russia simply can not hold in my gaming group, No player has even tried Sea Lion.
Russia is usually dead before turn 8
Oztea,
Please elaborate. What is Germany doing such that Russia dies by turn 8, but you are still holding strong in France, Norway, and the Med. Thanks.
Definitely. This is an outstanding platform and a big step forward. Yes, there are issues in terms of balance or time to play, but nothing that cannot be addressed with some tweaking or house rules as needed. I love the new board and some of the new combined arms features!
@13thguardsriflediv:
We played a game of Global this weekend. We made it a rule that new factories could only be built on originally controlled territories. Captured major factories become minor. Captured minor factories were removed. US has enough IPC’s that it should have to transport. Besides, Sherman Tanks rolling out of Oslo? How realistic is that?
Otherwise, I agree with IL. US factory in Norway is high probability lights out.
DId you also apply it to the Chinese territories that have Chinese roundels printed on them but start under Japanese rule?
13th Guard,
Yes, those were considered original Japanese territories since they were held at the beginning of the Game.
We played a game of Global this weekend. We made it a rule that new factories could only be built on originally controlled territories. Captured major factories become minor. Captured minor factories were removed. US has enough IPC’s that it should have to transport. Besides, Sherman Tanks rolling out of Oslo? How realistic is that?
Otherwise, I agree with IL. US factory in Norway is high probability lights out.
So… is Eire an Island for scramble purposes?
If so, I could see some interesting possibilities… :-D
For our first game, our group is trying to accommodate 8 players. Tentatively we have:
US Pacific Command
US Atlantic Command
UK Europe/Africa plus France
UK Pacific plus ANZAC
Russia
Germany
Italy
Japan
China control TBD
Not ideal in some respects, but we wanted to get as many players with some actual teeth in as we could.
Agreed. Absolutely, the fun factor is the most important thing. I definitely prefer an enjoyable, close game where every player has a chance to come out on the winning side to a historical re-enactment masquerading as a game.
My only concern is making sure the UK player gets to have some fun too. So far, UK Pacific fleet gets crushed by Japan round 1. UK Atlantic fleet gets sunk by Germany round 1. By round three or four India falls to Japan. Meanwhile the Italians have Egypt and are romping through the middle of Africa because all UK can do is stack London and hope to, but probably not, survive Sea Lion.
Not much to smile about or enjoy if I am playing UK….
What about German paratroops eliminating the need for transports? :?
Excellent point. Just need to be within 3 spaces of an airbase, correct?
Certainly the idea of pulling off Sea Lion has a sort of romantic flair. However, it is also something that bothers me from a realism and balance perspective.
In terms of realism, my understanding is that in 1940 British home fleet (not to mention the entire navy) assets were at something like a 10 to 1 advantage over the entire Germany surface fleet. As for U-Boats, while they were a crucial economic weapon, they were of limited value against large surface formations. The whole idea that Germany can sink most of the British navy round 1 seems rather absurd. Then there is the RAF. German planners felt that Sea Lion had no chance unless air superiority could be achieved over the channel. That was not something they had, nor were they ever able to achieve it despite some effort. It would have required sustained effort to have had even a chance. Definitely not round 1 and done. Finally, they did not have the means to transport and keep in supply the number of troops and equipment necessary for an amphibious invasion. They had no landing craft, for example, and would need to rely on river barges.
For all of these reasons, and others, Sea Lion was shelved to the relief of the generals, who thought they could easily lose badly.
As to balance, only time and a number of games will tell. However, it seems Britain already has its hands full in the Pacific and Africa in this game. A credible (or should I say INcredible) threat of successful German invasion that forces them into an all infantry to London build seems an unreasonable hindrance to the Allied effort. I can see making the British fleet under-represented to keep them off Germany for a while as a game mechanic. However, 1 British and 1 French infantry in UK does not seem at all realistic or balanced. I agree with the suggestion that adding a few (either nation) would probably be a good solution.
Uncle Joe, or others using this strategy….
What specifically are you doing with China with this approach? Are you hitting Hunan each turn until you are wiped out? Or are you doing something else? I am wondering about not attacking Hunan turn 1, massing all existing units plus builds to Shensi, and then counter attacking from there. It seems that it is just too easy/cheap for Japan taking out China if they try to counter attack the first turn.
Regarding New Zealand, is the following correct?:
1) It is considered an Island for game purposes.
2) Therefore, it can scramble Fighters/Tac Bombers.
3) Therefore, you cannot build an IC on New Zealand.
Thanks for the clarification.
How does that work? Please describe in some detail if possible.
Off hand, it sounds like it would be very difficult to keep track of…
In reading the various posts on what the UK and Anzac can or cannot due in respect to Dutch territories BEFORE being at war with Japan, I found myself a bit confused.
Here is what I think I know:
1) UK/Anzac CAN land troops and take over.
2) UK/Anzac CAN NOT land planes only
3) Once UK/Anzac have taken a Dutch territory with land units, then they could land planes.
Is all of this correct?
Thank you
It is pretty well established that WWII itself totally changed the nature of naval warfare. Battleships and Cruisers (as then understood) were fleet mainstays prior to the war but then largely abandoned for Carriers and Destroyers after the war. There are cruisers today, but, as I understand it, in many respects the line between a cruiser and destroyer is pretty fuzzy now. So, the availability of Cruisers and Battleships for purchase and the existance of a number of them at start on the board, on the one hand, and the rarity with which they are actually bought on the other hand is very accurate for a game with a WWII theme. The point is not that they are a good buy more than on an occasional basis, IMHO. Rather, the point is that they existed and complete the arsenal of basic ship types for WWII (BB, CV, CA, DD, SS). They gave a little more oomph to an amphibeous landing, and a little more effectiveness in point defending against aircraft than a destroyer, but at a higher cost without the anti sub features and of course without the heavy armor of a Battleship. The lighter armor meant they were faster than battleships, but that “benefit” did not seem to pan out real well when put to the test in fleet operations as they could be blown apart before closing range (HMS Hood vs The Bismark comes to mind). 3-3-12 with a shore shot seems about right to me.
LH 1/1/10
I’d like to take this opportunity to give a special shout out to my new right hand man Krieghund (plucked out from the ranks of this site and others). As you all know, Krieghund has been busy as a bee addressing your questions and concerns. I’m sure you join with me in thanking him for all his hard work.
Yes, much appreciated.
@johnnymarr:
LH 1/1/10
I deeply regret the errors that occurred in A&A Pacific 1940. I think these issues will be worked out, however. Let’s give the good folks at Wizards a chance to get back from this holiday break and straighten things out.
[
Fair enough.
[quote author=johnnymarr link=topic=16245.msg542005#msg542005 date=1262401526]
LH 1/1/10
I feel confident that once the bugs have been worked out this 1940 series will end up being the best Axis & Allies games ever published by Avalon Hill or any publisher out there.
Totally agree. Played for the first time (non-solo) today. Really good game with a lot of nuances that I had not appreciated at first glance. I started out sure that Japan had the advantage. Now, I am not so positive, even though I played Japan and won. I believe the global game will be even better.
First, I want to say that while I share some disappointment over some of the components etc, there is a lot to like about this game. The victory conditions, airbase/naval base concepts, tac bombers, new SBR rules, even the mech infantry add something imho. The China rules (though still imperfect) are a great leap forward (pun intended) from AA50. Above all, I love the new board. More territories with more possibilities, and already huge. Once the global game is out, the board will be awesome; not perfect, but better than anything we have had to date.
There seems to be an overwhelming (though not universal) consensus that Japan has too easy a time in this version as presented out of the box.
In this thread I would love to hear constructive suggestions for simple adjustments that might make the game more balanced without throwing it out of whack too far the other direction.
This is NOT a thread to argue about whether the game is balanced, or to bash the game. It is a collection point for suggestions for SIMPLE modifications that might tip the scales just enough to make it a fair fight.
For example, Funcioneta suggested in another thread to nullify the rule that Chinese units cannot leave China.
Another possibility would be to change the turn order. This could mean anything from China before Japan to starting with the Allies all the way around.
A third idea would require Japan to keep at least 1 unit in each Chinese territory as a garrison or lose that territory to China.
Any other suggestions? Any thoughts on any of these ideas?
Let’s keep it constructive, please…
Thanks