@barnee lol at that comment. This scenario actually happened in one of my games; my brother played Germany but wasn’t able to take France in G1. He promptly surrendered and Hitler was put to death.

@Axisarmpit Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. A DoW is done at the beginning of the turn, which means that you’d have to stop and fight the destroyer the UK had placed to block you from entering SZ39.

From the rulebook (emphasis my own): “Declaring War If there are no restrictions currently keeping you from being at war with a power on the other side (see ‘The Political Situation‘), you may declare war on that power. War must be declared on your turn at the beginning of the Combat Move phase, before any combat movements are made, unless otherwise specified in the political rules”.

Thanks @trulpen! The guides you’ve posted have really helped me improve my game; your efforts are much appreciated!

@trulpen Thank you for the detailed response! Pretty amazing guides to be made when you were a “noob”; they are well thought out!

While I have you here, if you failed to strafe Yugoslavia, you’re “sneaky Italy-2 DoW” seems like a great backup. Why do you recommend 10 infantry be purchased in G2 instead of mech and tanks? G2 purchase of infantry will always be a spot behind the Germans (unless they get held up by something). Wouldn’t mechanize infantry and tanks be more valuable for that push to Russia?

Thanks again!

Hey, everyone,

I have a question about @trulpen’s G2 DoW. He mentions that, for G2, the “stack in the Baltic” can be further strengthened (noncombat move) by 2-3 tanks and 6 infantry by transport.

At the end of G1, we would have 3 transports in SZ112. Where is @trulpen getting the infantry and tanks to stack? These 3 transports could grab 6 infantry from Finland (but this seems a bit of a waste, as they are already near the front), but otherwise there are no units nearby. Moreover, the transports only carry up to 6 units, so where are we getting these additional 2-3 tanks from?

The details of the strategy are copied below, with the subject of interest in bold:

"trulpen’s Save the Bismarck and push for a G2 DOW on Russia [OOB G40 2nd]

I’ve been looking for a way for Germany to save its battleship and at the same time aim for a G2 DOW against Russia. I believe there is a significant strategical gain with a G2 DOW instead of G3, but Germany needs the muscles to show. This is what I’ve (with help of critical input from @barnee, @simon33, @taamvan, @aequitas-et-veritas and @Argothair regarding a crazy idea of a G1 ab in Holland) come up with:

Purchase (30 IPC)

Sz112: 2 tr, 1 ac - 30

Combat moves

1 sub sz103, 1 sub sz108, 1 fig Holland, 2 fig, 3 tac W Ger, 2 sb Ger -> sz110 -> W Ger

1 sub sz118, 1 sub sz124, 1 bs sz113, 1 fig Norway, 1 tac Ger -> strafe sz111 -> sz112

4 inf, 2 art, 3 tank Holland, 3 tank S Ger, 3 inf, 1 art, 4 mech W Ger -> France -> W Ger

6 inf, 2 art S Ger, 1 inf Romania, 1 fig Slovakia, 1 tac Poland -> strafe Yugoslavia -> Romania, 1 fig Tobruk, 1 tac S Italy

Non-combat moves

1 sub sz117 -> sz124

1 cr, 1 tr sz114 -> sz112

2 inf Denmark -> W Ger

3 inf Norway -> Finland +4 inf

1-2 aa W Ger -> Ger

1 inf Romania -> Bulgaria +4 inf

2 inf Slovakia -> Poland

1 tank Poland -> Slovakia

11 inf, 3 art, 3 aaa Ger -> Poland

Analysis

Now a stack in the Baltic can be strengthened by 2-3 tanks and 6 inf by transport, making a Russian counter-attack there in R2 highly dubious even if maximized. At the same time entering Bessarabia with the small contingent from Romania should be fitting, immediately putting pressure on two fronts.

To follow up the pressure on Leningrad, the G2-buy can be 1 des in sz 113, 10 land units (like 6 inf and 4 art) in Ger and 2 sb in W Ger.

Germany wants to get the bombing of Russian factories going asap. In G2 Germany can bomb the Ukrainian mIC with 1 sb (and also in G3, unless Italy did it as well). In G3 the (hopefully 3-4) sb’s can support the attack on Leningrad (if not abandoned) while setting up for bombing Moscow from either the Baltic, E Poland or Bessarabia, whichever is the safest place to be stationed. More bombers should follow.

Also the German Navy has three objectives in G2. The first is to hunt down any remaining British Navy from sz 111, the second to wipe out the Russian cruiser in the Baltic Sea (whether blocking in sz 114 or staying in sz 115) and the third is to plant a sub in sz 125. Not certain all three are attainable, in which case the priority order is as mentioned.

The 1-2 aa’s from W Ger might be needed back home when the defense is rather weak, especially in G3. They are simply better for defense than attack and 3 aa’s on the eastern front should suffice, with one going north and two south."

TIA!

All those options you’ve listed would present huge obstacles to me as an Axis player. I would probably be most frustrated by the option 5 (4 AAA guns in India), as I think that basically guarantees Calcultta will not be taken. Option 4 is also pretty enticing, as you’d be able to take back much of the DEI if Japan moved towards India.

I think options 1 and 3, while potentially lucrative, may not pay out as much over the long term. Likewise, option 2 and 6 could be of huge value, but it really depends on what Germany is planning on doing. If Germany opts to just go full on Barbarossa, then the purchases don’t add much value.

I don’t think I’ve helped with making a decision, but I think you curated a great set of options. If you can, see how your opponent tends to play and buy accordingly.

Good luck!

@barnee Thanks for the reply. The cruiser could be dealt with by German or Italian planes, and then the transports (and rest of the navy?) could move into SZ 114 to offload in the noncombat move.

Thanks for the reply, Cornwallis!

That’s exactly my thoughts. I’m going up against a couple guys who are objectively my superiors in the game. They want to play Axis and have stated that they can thrash us unequivocally, even in a world domination scenario.

I’m just not sure that’s entirely true, though. I would agree if we played with the traditional victory city conditions, but I think world domination for the Axis is much more ambiguous (though definitely possible).

This is a great question, and I went back to the rules for my own edification:

“while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not move any units into or through China or end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japan-controlled territories. While not at war with Germany or Italy, the United States may end the movement of its sea units on the Europe map only in sea zones that are adjacent to U.S. territories, with one exception: U.S. warships (not transports) may also conduct long-range patrols into sea zone 102”.

You can glean the answer from the wording. In Asia, no units can be moved into China. The restriction specifies that it is “all” units. However, for both sea zone 102 and the need to be adjacent to US territories, the restriction clearly only affects “sea units”. As there is no specified rule limiting aircraft in sea zone 102, the carriers can remain loaded as per GHG’s “UK Calling” strategy.

Please also remember that no US units can land on other neutral (or soon to be Allied) territory:

“The United States: The United States begins the game neutral, and as such isn’t initially part of the Allies. Being at war with no one and having a strict isolationist policy, the United States has especially tight restrictions. It may not move land or air units into neutral territories. It may not move units into territories or onto ships belonging to another power or use another power’s naval bases, nor may another power move land or air units into its territories or onto its ships or use its naval bases”.

This doesn’t impede aircraft from being in 102, however.

This is a great question, and I went back to the rules for my own edification:

“while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not move any units into or through China or end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japan-controlled territories. While not at war with Germany or Italy, the United States may end the movement of its sea units on the Europe map only in sea zones that are adjacent to U.S. territories, with one exception: U.S. warships (not transports) may also conduct long-range patrols into sea zone 102”.

You can glean the answer from the wording. In Asia, no units can be moved into China. The restriction specifies that it is “all” units. However, for both sea zone 102 and the need to be adjacent to US territories, the restriction clearly only affects “sea units”. As there is no specified rule limiting aircraft in sea zone 102, the carriers can remain loaded as per GHG’s “UK Calling” strategy.

Please also remember that no US units can land on other neutral (or soon to be Allied) territory:

“The United States: The United States begins the game neutral, and as such isn’t initially part of the Allies. Being at war with no one and having a strict isolationist policy, the United States has especially tight restrictions. It may not move land or air units into neutral territories. It may not move units into territories or onto ships belonging to another power or use another power’s naval bases, nor may another power move land or air units into its territories or onto its ships or use its naval bases”.

This doesn’t impede aircraft from being in 102, however.

@Midnight_Reaper TIL!

The amount of non-A&A military knowledge people have on this forum always astounds me. Thanks for the great comment.

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.

Thanks for the great deck of cards, @Young-Grasshopper!

The design is wicked, and I hope you’re getting compensated for all the hard work!

I’m going to buy a set today, and we’ll see how long it takes for them to arrive. Fingers crossed it’s not too long!

Thanks for the reply, Cornwallis!

That’s exactly my thoughts. I’m going up against a couple guys who are objectively my superiors in the game. They want to play Axis and have stated that they can thrash us unequivocally, even in a world domination scenario.

I’m just not sure that’s entirely true, though. I would agree if we played with the traditional victory city conditions, but I think world domination for the Axis is much more ambiguous (though definitely possible).

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?

Hey guys,

So the common advice regarding the OOB setup is that the Axis have a huge advantage over the Allies, and this has mostly been my experience. However, does this rule hold up when we require that the Axis get complete domination, and not just a win via victory cities.

If this rule change does swing victory in favour of the Allies, how would you wager the Allies should play? I know it’s near impossible to strategize for the Allies, as their actions tend to mostly be reactionary. However, I’d love to hear of any general strategies, tactics, or advice one would have if you were playing the game as the Allies in this way. I personally think that, if the Axis can’t win through victory cities, then it becomes increasingly difficult for them to win (production value is just so much higher for the Allies, even if nations like UK Pacific and Russia are lost).

What is the community’s thoughts? I will be playing against someone who is much better than me at the game (in person), and he has reiterated that he can smash the Allies in world domination as the Axis. Do you agree?

@trulpen I agree with you 100%. I think the destroyer and sub are a better purchase, but I worry that the UK will be able to adequately flee with the remnant of their navy. As you rightly mentioned, even if you could hunt them down, it might not be worthwhile for the German navy to go on that goose chase. I think this is a major risk of leaving that battleship alive, but war is about risks :)

@trulpen Thank you for the detailed response! Pretty amazing guides to be made when you were a “noob”; they are well thought out!

While I have you here, if you failed to strafe Yugoslavia, you’re “sneaky Italy-2 DoW” seems like a great backup. Why do you recommend 10 infantry be purchased in G2 instead of mech and tanks? G2 purchase of infantry will always be a spot behind the Germans (unless they get held up by something). Wouldn’t mechanize infantry and tanks be more valuable for that push to Russia?

Thanks again!

@aequitas-et-veritas I sure do!

Link: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/19929/germany-playbook-overall-strategy-guide/198

It’s on page 8 of the stickied German playbook. @trulpen has a few other strategies there as well.