Global Team game when it comes out!

@tincanofthesea thanks! I’m going test it next time I play. Whats your feedback? @GeneralHandGrenade

I would really like to here the communities take on this subject. Praises and criticisms. I realize I’m late to the ball, but here I am and I’ excited about getting into this game.
Here is my take.

This board and map are great.

I love the hugeness of it; this thing is just massive.

The geography and how that effects play was very well thought out. Africa is squashed down abut as much as possible and there is more room available in Europe as one could have reasonably made without completely distorting the world map. The point being , the map still looks like the world while still being able to provide effective space for game play- that is a tough balance to achieve.

The idea of making the Himalayas and Sahara impassible was inspired. Of course they are impassible to large armies. If the Axis want to do damage to the British Empire in Sub Saharan Africa, they need to either turn the corner at Alexandria or win the Atlantic or Indian Oceans.

The neutral spaces are very well done. More on that when I review the Neutral Countries.

But the main thing the map gets right is what it’s supposed to get right, it provides the right geometry to promote good game play. Their are major regions and regions within those regions and each set has its own keys to being manipulated for offense and defense. That makes for interesting game play.

Even better, I haven’t found any rinky dink ways of manipulating the geography in ways that don’t feel true to the intent of the game/WW2. The space in the Pacific is an obstacle. The Space of Russia is an obstacle. As they both should be. The benefit from gaining Scandinavia is big, but its not a game changer. The Far East or the Black Sea can’t be used as some unanticipated flanking move. One doesn’t want to be tied down to replaying WW2 as accurately as possible, but one doesn’t want to completely break with reality either.

Every game I play I learn new things about this board. I’ve played 4 intensive games with myself and am still feel like I am a long long ways from mastering the geography of this board. That is a good thing.

Certainly there are things I could quibble about.
The names for the Chinese Provinces could be better. In that , as someone who lives in China, I would prefer the proper current Pinyin names for them, A westerner defiantly made this game. But I understand they are trying to keep with the Pre 1949 feel for the region and using the terms the west used back then; so ok.

Having Kazakistan so far south is a bit weird.

There are times where I wish certain spaces were larger; I’m looking at you Bessarabia and SZ110. But most of my spatial problems stem from my style of game play which is still rooted in monolithic stacks of enormous proportions which worked well in the Axis and Allies of old.

Which brings me to my biggest opinion about this board. This board is infinitely superior to the previous incarnations of Axis and Allies.

This is a very good and interesting game and it starts with the map.

What are your thoughts?

I agree with a post that Mashmallow posted earlier, there is no guarantee that you are going to get that NO for a clear med, you should not even rely on that one. The Italians have so many uses, on the ground, with actual IPC earning territory’s that those planes can be used for, you need to weigh out their impact in the med versus potentially taking Egypt, steam rolling Greece, building an actually strong can-opener force in Russia, and even Protecting Rome.

The last few games that I have played, when I am the Axis, I get my Italian partner to seriously evaluate the Taranto raid force. If it is the max force possible, and the UK is totally on point, I say scrap the scramble, focus on more attainable objectives. As a German player, I sure as hell don’t want to burn the Luftwaffe on an air vs naval clean up battle G2, where I can lose guaranteed safe hits against Russian ground troops once Barbarossa commences. On the other hand, If the UK doesn’t bring the max force down, or they don’t make a move to middle east with SA and India navies / units, and Italy looks like they might have some time to maneuver for a few rounds, then scramble all the way. I have seen games were Italy won the Taranto raid, and from then on became unstoppable in the Med, which in turn leads to Germany being able to achieve their full potential, and results in an Axis victory.

Italy unfortunately has to play the game, or at least start the game, being completely on board to support the Germans in whichever direction they plan to strike. A strong Afrika campaign with Italian air power can lead to Italy generating sufficient IPCs to gain a bit more control over their destiny. A successful Italian campaign in the middle East, or as a can-opener can have the same impact. Italy with zero navy, and zero air force, means they might as well stockpile Rome and prepare to defend Europe, there will be no expeditionary force.

Yeah, I think it might be the league that you’re hearing about

Here are the current rankings, so you can take a look -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydEhlX0RfbGxmM3RMSHJQd083TV9JUGc#gid=0

@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.

The polling shows an axis favorite as of right now. 4 people voted axis strongly 8 axis slightly 8 allies slightly.

A sub bid for UK makes UK1 smoother against italy sz97. I don’t play LL games without that bid, I’ll just take axis or do something else.

Bidding is a ritual that decides who plays what, so bidding for allies makes sense.

good luck with that

Nice, lol.