Larrymarx and allweneedislove's Global balance solution

@govz

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

@Kreuzfeld said in Why is Global better than Revised?:

@SS-GEN It is a very good game. At least 40% of the rules are relating to optional units. Most people play with most optional units, but a lot of people play the vanilla version.

:+1: :+1: :+1:

Global 42 is an official axis and allies game. Some might not be aware of it or the fact it was designed for tournament play. It’s been out for several years now. 7 full rounds at which point you count axis controlled IPCs (not counting NOs). If Axis have 125 IPCs on the board they win.

But the point of this thread is about the balance it provides. Granted, it’s almost a totally different game than G40. And many discussions have focused on the idea of balance. Interestingly, I think the turn order is the main reason. Plus it’s kind of nostalgic (when remembering the turn order of Classic/Revised):
Russia
Japan
America
China
Germany
British/UK Pacific
Italy
ANZAC
France

Japan: Starts with 14 planes as opposed to 21. Has the option to conduct a risky naval opener. It may achieve a head start for limited naval supremacy. It could also get India on round 3 if the UK player isn’t careful. However, Japan could easily fall apart due to having 7 less planes and risky opener battles.

Germany: No longer has the Italian can opener threat. This is huge and really changes the dynamics. Germany gets attacked by Russia first, and has to re-cock. German units are in N. Africa and in the Med is a destroyer n’ transport. However, Germany can’t easily go everywhere like it can in G40.

For 7 rounds, the Axis can rampage and win according to the tournament victory rules.

However, if playing according to the regular OOB rules for victory, I think this setup leans Allies but not as much as G40 leans Axis.
Is this a balanced setup as is or would the axis need a small bid, maybe 3-10 IPCs. I think a small bid would make the Global very balanced and probably more fun for both sides.

@knp7765:

Hey YG,
Something I forgot to ask about. I noticed in your video that you have already printed on the map your air and naval bases. Also, your convoy routes are much bolder and easier to see. Otherwise it looks like a standard Global 40 map. How did you get it with the air and naval bases printed on the map and the bolder convoy routes. I really like the convoy routes.

Hey KNP, this map was a colaberation between Ambilzi and myself, I used photoshop to place the base icons everywhere, but I don’t know how Ambilzi enhanced the convoy and kamikaze symbols. here is where you can find the downloadable file if you want to print your own map…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31554.0

@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.

Sorry thinking OOB. Either way my point is still their. Either way you go, while that power is going to get beat to hell the other half of the world just grows to strong. In our games Germany gets up to 60+ ipcs by round 5 or 6, and Japan is still not knocked out but they usually do in round 7.

No.  The only way an Allied power other than UK or ANZAC can gain control of them is to recapture them from the Axis.

Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.

Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?

Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.

I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)