Do the Global Game Rules come with Europe?

@barnee

You’re absolutely correct.

While in playing games against myself which are lower stakes I sometimes try it, when it comes to actual, serious games against other players I stay well away from it.

It’s mostly if you just want to spice the game up and you don’t care about winning or losing.

That being said the technology does give you great advantages depending in the power and technology.

Super Subs+Improved Shipyards almost guarantees US or Japanese (depending on who got both of them) dominance in the Pacific.

Of course getting those two technologies is not easy, but it’s not impossible.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33119.0

@Gargantua:

@Paksos:

Never played 2nd ed. What’s the difference in the Mongolia rule?

I’m up for 2nd ed though if you are game, Gargantua……

Let’s Rock.

I need to “practice” my axis strategies.

So do I  :-D

Here is the game setup as provided on Larry’s site:

http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf

The Russian NO deals with originally pro-Axis territories, so true neutrals that switch do not count.

Japan sitting off of Hawaii is fine; there is a sea zone between SZ 26 and SZ 10.

@17Mark71:

Yes I know the rest of them surrendered, but if the Germans haven’t invaded France yet then Dunkirk hasn’t happened yet……right?

look, dunkirk is some 10 or 20 kilometers from belgium. no real distance, though. ;)

and: IT IS JUST A GAME! :D (a really good one!)

I like most that the game is not as statical as the older world-versions. You have quite a lot of possibilities now.

Furthermore convoys, harbors and airports are nice supplements.

I’ve been lurking on the boards for a good while now and been trying to figure out different strategies that would make the game fun. I’ve only played a half game and against myself at that. I’m still in the middle of that game and I’ve noticed the following thoughts:

It seems like Germany almost always has to build a CV, a TT, and likely a sub. I feels like if one doesn’t then the Taranto attack will occur and Italy will be in a bad position.

As a tangent: What comprises this Taranto attack and what does it attack exactly? I see that 4-5 air and sea units are available to attack the Italy navy, but is the intention to simply kill both italy navies or just the western one? Likely I think it means smiting the Italy BB because that really hurts Italy in Africa.

Otherwise, the above attack really hurts Italy to the point where it has a hard time competing effectively. I realize this is intended but it almost forces the G1 player to always invest in a sea and destroy the British navy if they want Italy to grow quickly. An effective sea force is necessary to even add the treat of Sealion as Germany can toss down 10 AP the next turn and smash England G3. If Germany ignores sea units then England can do other things like do the Taranto attack and build units in South Africa. All things bad for Italy.

The thing only reason I could see to ignore the above is if one plans a G2 attack on Russia and use plane to wipe out France while moving units east enmasse. (I would suggest killing the British APs though). It does seem like Germany’s first turn feel scripted but maybe I’m not thinking outside of the box.
–----

Regarding the 18 USSR units in eastern Russia. It seems to me that its best choice is to pull back near Yakut and hold position there. If one stacks the units in Siberia or the one to west of Siberia then it can be trapped by a move north with the Manchurian army (which ironically is even stronger in Alpha). A counter attack by those 18 units is going to get them wiped out and and if no matter where that stack goes unless it retreated back on the first turn then it’s likely dead (if that’s what Japan wants to spend it’s resources on)

Mind this is Global and I don’t see much benefit for Japan attack any earlier than J2 or J3.

I like the game quite a bit otherwise though will be interested to see if there will be a need for a Alpha setup for AAE40 too.