Global Team game when it comes out!

We use the houserule, that Axis has to win or is to strong on turn 10, then they win and otherwise they lose.

@corporal:

  I have the Global 1939 from Historical Boardgaming….was wondering if anyone has come up with a '39 setup for Global 1940

Go to House rule forum and look at the AARHE rules files, its a sticky.

Looking at it briefly, I have no idea how you get a winning team. Tis not obvious…

I attacked Russia G1 today, the axis lost, but I wouldn’t blame the German strategy for it. I would do it again for sure. Sorry for the lame report, but it’s past my bed time.

A long time ago, back when we just had the Classic MB version of A&A, I started working on an idea to break all territories into smaller sections so it wouldn’t just be one battle and you get the whole territory.  For example, the Eastern US territory would be broken down into all the different states so if an Axis attacked it, they would have to fight state to state in order to win that territory, and maybe some of the larger states could be split into two or three sections.  I thought this seemed more realistic than just one battle and you win the entire Eastern half of the United States.
However, many problems became apparent fairly quickly.  First of all, I couldn’t always find more detailed maps of some of the territories like those in central and eastern Russia, territories in Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. 
Also, going from the World map to a single territory map you would have to change all the units.  For example;  you have 10 infantry, 2 armor and 2 fighters defending Eastern USA.  If you shrink this down to just that territory broken up into many territories,  it would have to be something like 100 infantry, 20 armors and 20 fighters spread out amongst all those territories.  Plus you would have to figure out where to put them and it wouldn’t necessarily be an even amount.  You wouldn’t have the same amount of units defending Washington or New York as you would some empty space.  The same would hold true for the attackers.  How many units would you have attacking each territory?  Plus, I didn’t have a clue as to how to break it down like this for Naval warfare.  How many actual ships does 1 battleship on the World Map represent on the smaller maps?
Finally, it occurred to me that this would make just one game of A&A take literally MONTHS to complete.  Attacking a territory would be like opening up a whole new game.  Granted, there are a number of unoccupied territories that you could simply “blitz” and not have to refer to the smaller maps, but any substantial combat would take hours to complete as your forces move to take a territory a piece at a time.  Also, this would possibly mess up some attacks and leave a territory in a “contested” state for some time.  For example;  Germany invades Eastern US.  Germany has 20 Inf, 8 tanks, 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  The US has 10 inf, 2 tanks and 2 fighters plus the AA gun.  Now, depending on how the forces get laid out on the small scale map, and also depending on luck of the dice rolls, there are any number of outcomes.  On the World Map, it would be one big battle and over, likely with Germany winning .  However, on the small  map, it’s possible that say the Germans did well in the north.  However, in the south the US forces defeated the invader and still have good forces intact.  Also, on this scale, there will likely be more US forces farther inland as reserves.  So now the territory of Eastern USA is basically half German controlled and half US controlled.  This would drag this one battle out even longer.  Now, it’s possible that the triumphant German forces in the North could possibly get whittled down to nothing as they try to work their way south.
Anyway, my point is that doing a game like this would make it take way too long and I would imagine most people would lose intereste after a while.  It’s an interesting concept but if you get too detailed the game loses its fun.

The other thread hasn’t been sticky’d yet.  Here it is.

Alpha + 3 Charts

@Ruanek:

@Idi:

Try the Cone of Silence

As said in your other thread, most people seem to prefer actually talking to each other over making the game a little shorter.

Yeah, it’s also a social thing.
And thinking about the situation is part of the fun (well, it is for me)

Some turns take more thinking than others (for example when there are many moves that need to be in sync)
So: get a chess clock, that way at least both parties have about the same time

You misunderstand my post - there are only ever four powers, with the neutrals acting just like OOB, but with different alignments.

It really should be:

1939- June 1941 Four Power game (Allies[UK & F], Axis[G & I], USSR, Japan)

Becomes three power game after June 1941 (i.e. USSR joins the Allies)

Becomes two power game after December 1941 (Japan joins the Axis)

It’s reasonable to assume that the USA only ever joins the Allies, and that (before June 1940) Italy only ever joins the Axis.  The position of China is tricky, since we don’t want to exclude the possibility of an Allied/Japanese alliance, but where does that leave China - a neutral that the other powers (i.e. not Japan) can send aid to without it being a DOW on Japan?