@oztea

My group did play one game of Global using the A&A 1914 contested territory concept and it did change up the game dramatically. The biggest change was the concept of you just push all in with everything you have and you either win/lose.

Way back in the day we use to play A&A with the blind set up. Two tables, axis on one side and allies the other. There would be a ref or moderator to run the game. Neither side knew what the other side was building or how they where moving. There were rules for recon missions and so forth. It did change up the game big time with the fog of war dynamic of playing blind.

What is the Alamo? Well in military terms it is the famous battle where the Texans stood their ground and fought to the death. Now, granted, the Texans won the war but the battle is considered a last stand scenario.

So, Is Moscow really the Alamo for the Allies? Do you really need to throw everything the Allies have into that battle? If they should lose the battle is the war over?
It seems to me a lot of players think, devise plans, come up with ways to throw everything the UK/USA have into the battle to tip the scales because the entire war depends on that one battle.

Remember the Alamo I say. The Texan army could of thrown all in at the Alamo. But they decided to do another plan. Fall back with their entire army and fight another day on a field of their choice. Well, we know now how that worked out for Santa Anna and his army, dying in a swamp.

I propose that the Russians should adopt the exact same battle plan.

The common group think is that the battle on the European map after the fall of Moscow is Cairo or London. That will decide the game and war. The main issue with this group think is that you now put the UK/Euro in the position that they have to defend both Cairo and London with under 40 IPC. This is a position they cannot hold.

So, you could have the USA help out with this situation but it is still under turn 10. They cannot help out the UK in enough force to tip the balance at this point in the game. So the Allies will just buy time, just like the Texan army did.

Once Germany is at the gates of Moscow you move ALL your forces out of Moscow towards the Middle East or China. Germany cannot blitz through Moscow so that will give you a turn to retreat.

The Idea is that Russia is buying time with their huge stack. They keep falling back to the Middle East. You will be tempted to make Persia your Alamo moment with them but do not bite on that. Keep falling back to Cairo. Germany has to kill off the large stack of Russians, they are the only ones standing in the way of victory.

Force Germany to attack Cairo with the entire Russian stack plus the UK and USA forces defending.

I hear some dude yelling about Germany buying a huge navy and going after London instead, valid point indeed.

But we are talking about a Allied plan that moves the game into Turn 12+. I will not go on and on about what the allies should be doing. You should have a good idea about that already.

If we are talking Turn 14+ and the Allies are still in the game obviously the Pacific map is taken care of at that point.

There are so many random things that could happen. Moments where Russia could counter attack or exploit an over sight by the Germans.

Bottom line: Do the Allies really need to make Moscow the be all/end all Alamo moment of the game?

IMHO: NO

Axis and Allies G40 is a game unto itself.

War Room is a game unto itself.

I understand the compulsion to cross pollinate the games because the main core of players who have War Room are fans of Larry and his A&A line of games.

I think the games have different motivations and mechanics that make them stand on their own. Now that is just MO. You do what you want when it comes to house rules.

The one thing that I caution against is that War Room is a new experience for all of us. No need to knee jerk react to certain aspects of War Room and say Game X does it better so I will house rule Game X’s “view” into War Room.

I think World in Flames variable ending to turns, where you have no idea when a turn will end is superior to every WWII game that I have played. Yet, I feel that is a unique feature to WiF and feel there is no need to import that aspect into lets say G40 or War Room.

For people to understand one of the unique aspects of War Room, that you can only move 9 commands. Import that into AA G40 and see how much it changes the game. Because if you import the G40 idea that on your turn you can move every unit on the board if you so desire will totally destroy War Room as a game.

One negative of G40 and War Room is that Larry never put a finite end to these “games”. Thus that ensures the Allies will always win in less the Axis go hog wild early in the game. Thus the Axis never have to actually think ahead and play a defensive game. Games like WiF, SPI ETO, and Third Reich have a finite end to the war. If the Allies have not won and the Axis have not won by Sept of 1945 the “game” ends in a draw. Larry is obviously not a fan of a draw in his games, :}

Imagine if G40 or War Room had a finite end to the game. If the Allies have not won by the end of Turn #18 the game is a draw.

One thing that always confused me/ make me scratch my head when reading the 1940 global forum is this.

How much of this is influenced by AAA and tournament board play?

I get tournament play, limited time per round, can only play 8-10 rounds. Come up with a VP system in order to determine a winner.

My experience on AAA, which is around 10-12 games, but every game my foe would basically declare after round 8-10 or so that the game is lost by me/won by him no need to continue. Any discussion would result in snarky remarks that ole PainState is living in a fantasy land and cannot come to grips with his obvious crushing loss.

Here is the issue Iam bringing up. All these battle plans for Axis and the allies to basically reduce the game down to a quick fire game of 8-10 turns, mainly for the Axis. Bold statements that if Moscow is not taken out by turn 7-8 just pick up the game. Which means in reality just disconnect from AAA never to be scene gain.

Tournament play you devise plans that are quick strike to achieve 2-3 VP and then hold on for dear life. A staple of quality Japan play in Tournament action. (AKA Calcutta crush)

So for a player like myself who plays 99.5% of his 1940 global on a table top, that can stay there for weeks. We could play 40 turns if necessary to finish a game. These battle plans and ideas for tactics seem to not fit that scenario. They are great if you know the game is 8-10 turns and then the game is over.

At the end I quess what Iam saying is that it seems that most of the “talk” on the 1940 global forum is not really directed towards how I play the game. Which usually means when I do post stuff guys come at it with a different POV which is based on AAA or tournament style play.

Just throwing this out there.

(foot note: is it possible that the Allies need a bid to win because there is a underlying assumption that a game is actually only going to be 8-10 turns long?)

@Imperious-Leader

Do what ever you like sir. It is your game and you can do anything you want. Heck, you could use checkers or chess pieces if that floats your boat.

@taamvan

Ok, so let me get this straight.

Russia has 3 options on death. Death = losing Moscow.

#1 Russia can counter attack before the gates of Moscow…which will result in death.
#2 Russia can mass as much force as possible in Moscow, including UK/USA FTR…which will result in death.
#3 Russia can exit Moscow in force with everything intact and concede Moscow…which will result in death.

Well, if given 3 choices of death would not the logical choice of death be #3?

If Russia has a stack of 25 INF, 8 ART 8 MINF, 8Tanks, 3AAA. Not including any planes flying around like chickens with their heads cut off. Does that stack not represent an obstacle for Germany? Can Germany let that stack live and just move on with their lives to crush Cairo or London and repulse any USA/UK invasions on the West and ignore it?

What if that stack moved North East of Moscow? Will the Germans follow it? At what point would Germany realize they are chasing ghosts and turn their Mech and ARM to another front? Would they even be able to?

Here is the point.

IF you choose option #1 or #2 that results not just in the destruction of Moscow but of 95+% of all the Russian units on the Board. Thus Germany no longer has to worry about having a large % of its TUV sitting on the Russian front and can redeploy them elsewhere.

Does it not make sense to preserve as much Russian TUV and keep it on the board even after the fall of Moscow? Keep Germany focused on Russia?

There are too many scenarios the Russian player could do to keep Germany/Japan occupied with this large stack after the fall of Moscow to list out.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMDWs4JPjWgoxnx7602V5AQ

Got the channel up and running this week end. Plan on up loading a lot of content over the next few months.

@sjelso:

Hi,

If Russia invades Turkey, does it get the 3 IPC bonus for occupying a Pro-Axis territory (as an invaded neutral become Pro-Axis)?

if no, then what about the next one it invades, as all neutrals become Pro-Axis?

Thank you, SJ

The Russian NO of taking Pro Axis neutral’s is limited to the countries that start the game pro-axis. IF the true neutral’s are invaded by the Allies they become pro-axis at that point BUT the Russian NO states it is only concerned with countries who start the war pro-axis or Axis held original territories.

That is why some sneaky gits want to invade Sardinia and Sicily with Russian ground troops to get the +6IPC bonus.

Uploaded some thoughts on how to handle stress.

I will keep putting out content for you guys to enjoy.

In this video I discuss an Idea of how to manage stress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOAsB6-lr4I

I was talking with some of my war room buddies last night and they are 50/50 on the idea.

The idea I threw out, for those who do not like video, is that nations with a 6 or 7 stress threshold should strive to collect a combo of 5 medals and or Civillian Goods. So, if you hit 6 stress points you go up one level on the stress wheel but then you spend your combo of 5 to reduce it back down. So in essence you get a discount of reducing 6 or 7 stress for 5 with the combo.

The downside that was talked about revolved around the idea that you are making some assumptions of the next turn. That it is really difficult to forecast how many medals you will earn and how much of your production you will “waste” on Civillian goods. Now the idea that purchasing CG is a waste, I think is still up in the air.

What do you guys think? I think it is a good idea but then again I can see the argument to just trade one for one when ever you can.

I finally got it up and running now.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMDWs4JPjWgoxnx7602V5AQ

If you want to see cap recaps, strategy sessions, tactics and meta gaming videos on War Room check it out and sub to the channel.

Just finished a 5 part series on Imperial Japan and starting up a 5 part series on UK.

Taking a look at a opening strategy for Japan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W3o2k5jV2M

The Allies can leverage the Axis into bidding more than they want for turn order by every turn they trade (USA/UK/RUS) 5 OSR for 2 OIL from Venenzuela or Suadi Arabia.

Thus the Allies every turn get 2 oil which they use to bid for turn order, they do it every turn no matter what, that will force the AXIS players to bid at least 3 oil every turn if they want to dictate turn order.

Do not overlook the power of bidding and how it effects the orders and production. The Allies need to leverage their universal access to oil over the Axis, who have no access to oil at the start of the game.

@oztea

My group did play one game of Global using the A&A 1914 contested territory concept and it did change up the game dramatically. The biggest change was the concept of you just push all in with everything you have and you either win/lose.

Way back in the day we use to play A&A with the blind set up. Two tables, axis on one side and allies the other. There would be a ref or moderator to run the game. Neither side knew what the other side was building or how they where moving. There were rules for recon missions and so forth. It did change up the game big time with the fog of war dynamic of playing blind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em1tN3NKgRI

This is the first installment of 3 videos I have for air power in War Room.

Axis and Allies G40 is a game unto itself.

War Room is a game unto itself.

I understand the compulsion to cross pollinate the games because the main core of players who have War Room are fans of Larry and his A&A line of games.

I think the games have different motivations and mechanics that make them stand on their own. Now that is just MO. You do what you want when it comes to house rules.

The one thing that I caution against is that War Room is a new experience for all of us. No need to knee jerk react to certain aspects of War Room and say Game X does it better so I will house rule Game X’s “view” into War Room.

I think World in Flames variable ending to turns, where you have no idea when a turn will end is superior to every WWII game that I have played. Yet, I feel that is a unique feature to WiF and feel there is no need to import that aspect into lets say G40 or War Room.

For people to understand one of the unique aspects of War Room, that you can only move 9 commands. Import that into AA G40 and see how much it changes the game. Because if you import the G40 idea that on your turn you can move every unit on the board if you so desire will totally destroy War Room as a game.

One negative of G40 and War Room is that Larry never put a finite end to these “games”. Thus that ensures the Allies will always win in less the Axis go hog wild early in the game. Thus the Axis never have to actually think ahead and play a defensive game. Games like WiF, SPI ETO, and Third Reich have a finite end to the war. If the Allies have not won and the Axis have not won by Sept of 1945 the “game” ends in a draw. Larry is obviously not a fan of a draw in his games, :}

Imagine if G40 or War Room had a finite end to the game. If the Allies have not won by the end of Turn #18 the game is a draw.

We got another game under our belts. This game we got to see London reduced to rubble, learned that some times it is best to bid to go last and that it take the USA a long time to get across all those oceans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4sEJo-k37o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPC_z1NXjC4

1st attempt at a game video

@oztea

One way to get around the 1 turn delay in production is not be conservative on where you build your units. Germany and Russia have factories right on the front line. They can produce there and take the risk but the reward is those units appear right on the front line.

It is a give and take. The big downside of this tactic is not only can they be strat bombed into kibble bits BUT your enemy can capture them and use them against you.

You can also build right behind the front line in multiple locations in Germany and Russia. Not as much risk but good for building up a secondary/reserve force able to jump right into the action with out having to waste commands to move them. Once again some risk involved but a solution to this issue on the German/Russian front.

The first puzzle to solve in War Room is A3. It is important for the Allies and how do the Axis respond.

Put out a video going over my thoughts on this. Need to look closer at this and find some solutions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvek-11klx4