@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes.  You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured.  Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.

As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.

Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned.  The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance.  Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns.  It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.

Perhaps I’ve just been doing it wrong, but if anyone seriously thinks the Allies need a bid in a global domination game (the poll has Allies +10 in the lead as of the writing of this post), I’d like to hear your reasoning and how most of your games play out.

My playgroup only uses global domination rules and have consistently seen Allied victories.  With standard victory city conditions, it appears that the Axis have an easier job of trading short term priority objectives (i.e., capturing that last VC) for broader strategic positioning.  From what I’ve read, most such VC-victories occur between rounds 7-10, which only gives America, the Allied hammer, a few turns in some instances to bring their economic might to bear.

In global domination scenarios, Germany has a difficult time taking Moscow against a competent Russian player AND able to defend their coastline against a constant stream of US transport fleets.  Typically, even if the German player has Moscow enveloped, they don’t have time to force a favorable assault on the Russian capital because the US has firmly entrenched themselves in Norway, Normdany, and/or Southern France, pumping out units on the European mainland to augment their transported troops.  Conversely, if the Japanese player expends too many resources to harass the Americans and relieve pressure from Germany, they have a difficult time achieving much success in Asia against unthreatened UK Pacific and ANZAC players.

Consequently, we’ve recently tried to use a bid for the Axis to see if that will help balance things out.  We’ve had limited opportunities to test how it plays out, but so far there is still a marked Allied advantage in the long game.  I’ve tried to solicit opinions on this game style in the past, but since it’s ultimately a house rule and clearly not the way the game was designed, I’m not sure how many players would be willing to test out what a proper bid should be.  Still, it’s encouraging to hear that our playgroup isn’t the only one willing to endure global domination victory conditions.

So Vance and osu88, I take it that your games that ignore VC victory conditions also typically end in an Allied victory?  I guess would bids be the way to try to balance this out?

I’ve followed this forum for a long time and have found it’s a great resources for the A&A community.  I’m hoping with my first post I can solicit some opinions on a disconnect my play group seems to have with the general consensus on which side is favored in A&A Global.  If this thread should be moved to the House Rules forum, then I would welcome one of the moderators to do so.

It seems that most topics I’ve read hint at a pro-Axis advantage under standard victory conditions.  My friends and I, however, always play with total victory conditions.  That is, we ignore VC totals and play until one side capitulates, whether that occurs in round 6 or round 16.

One thing we’ve noticed is that the Allied economic advantage tends to create a significant advantage and Axis victories are quite rare–usually the function of some fluky dice or a relatively inexperienced player’s mistakes.

Admittedly, we can usually only get together once every other month or so for a weekend and have difficulties squeezing in more than 2 games, so we’re looking at a small sample size since Larry finalized the latest Alpha set-up.  I would like to know what the community thinks concerning this topic and hopefully get some feedback from other gamers who play with similar rules.

Is the inherent Allied economic advantage too difficult to overcome?  If so, do you use a bidding system?  Are we perhaps too unimaginative in our Axis strategies?

Thanks for the help.