Global Team game when it comes out!

@jonahawesome

Hi,

Go to “Customization” and “House Rules” section at this forum - and search for:

Fell free to contact me, if you have any questions concerning those expansions.

I’d be curious about a minor in Egypt paired with successful Taranto. Egypt would be pretty hard to get without Germany sending considerable resources.

@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.

@Make_It_Round:

I think it is possible, however tedious, to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game, and to guess at one’s enjoyment threshold in terms of these.

It is utterly impossible to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game because each “meaningful choice” is a product of the other “meaningful choices” that were made previously. Furthermore, each “meaningful choice” is then subject to all of the possible dice outcomes, and thus multiplied by all of those possibilities and then multiplied by all of the “meaningful choices” offered by the various non-combat possibilities as they are determined by the dice outcomes. As you can see we get into these massive factorial situations where we are multiplying massive exponentials by even more massive exponentials until what is essentially infinity.

To make a comparison: In chess there are only 20 possible moves to make on the first turn. (16 pawn moves and 4 knight moves) The opponent is faced with the same. So the possible combinations for the opening 2 moves (1 each) in chess is 400. None of which are absolutely stupid. there are 8,902 possible moves by 2 each and by move 7 there are almost eleven MILLION possible positions. That’s without dice, with only 2 players, with a much much much more limited scope for unit movement, no scope for adding units and far far fewer spaces.

Now you asked about the “meaningful choices”. Some work has been done in this regard in chess and it seems that in the average game of about 30 moves (moving a single piece at at time. There are over 4.5 MILLION games outcomes in smart competitive situations. Now, multiply that by the factor of dice, multiple movement of units, game spaces, purchases and the fact that most AA games will see over 100 times that 60 units move factor and you have an utterly infinite combination of outcomes.

Which is part of the reason it is so much more entertaining than chess.

…or maybe just because we get to play with little tanks and planes.

I also prefer playing the latest rules by the book, and I enjoy creating house rules as a hobby even if they never get played.

What he is trying to say at least I believe is that the strategies will always focus around capturing VC. He prefers creative strategies where VC are unimportant and the idea is to knock out your opponent. The problem in his logic is that this is a historical game and historically there were certain cities that were essential to winning the war. Capturing Paris won the war against France, the German failure to take Stalingrad was a turning point in the Eastern campaign, so on and so forth. While I can understand his point the fact is that the victory cities are located in the strategic centers (for the most part) even if there were no VC in them those are still the territories you would want to attack and take over so it kind of makes the arguement null and void.

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.