Community Links for Global 1940 Related files

@DizzKneeLand33

Yea, different ways to play. Triplea live makes for quicker decisions. Forum is fun too. You have enough time to make your optimal move.

Idk, I’d look for people that prefer your /their play style if playing online.

Personally : ) I like to play later in the game. I think of it as a different challenge.

Could also try different Victory conditions by how many RDs it takes to win or lose.

For example, wrestling. Minor, Major or Draw. each is worth more than the other well except for draw lol

@ PainState Sorry Dizz : )

Our group has played with India and UK as seperate parts of the Commonwealth (Global 39 has the FEC {Far East Command} and the uk seperate}).  The allies have to work together and nt compete against each other.  The ANZAC player already has to share the DEI with India if either of them are going to have any real income to work with.  India and UK can work together as seperate players.

AS for the thread, build destroyers in Canada to hunt subs to work on your NO (no German Uboats in the Atlantic).  Also, bomg Germany in West Germany, Paris, Normandy…where ever you can hit them.  You may not be able to ivade effectively by yourself but you can harrass the German player enough that he has to pay attention to the Uk as well as smash the Soviets.  Landings in Norway and fortifying it takes away from Germany and opens another route to aid the Soviets.  Securing the Northern flank can help Leningrad or if need be retake it for the Soviets.  Zhukov44 was right.  Don’t lose Cairo.  Trops build in South Africa of tanks and mechs can help hold Cairo and even destroy the North African Italian army.  A IC build in Cairo, once secured will help limmit Italy and secure a route for US troops the attack the soft underside of Europe (usually not that well defended by the axis).  One last thing is hold Gibraltor if possible.  Building and air base there and sending some fighters can make US entry into the med so much easier.  It also  allows allied ships into the med to keep the Italians from their Med naval NO if the British med navy didn’t fare so well.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@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.

52 while not at war and then add up the NOs after. usually 70s

Yeah, I read that thread and decided to implement it. It’s working so far. I like having a quick reaction force from Germany to intervene in Africa if need be. I don’t have very strong forces in the former french territories and I’m about to rectify that situation. My opponent is obsessed with regaining the UK right now (has already failed twice) and sees Africa as a sideshow. I see it as a potential door to the “soft underbelly” of the Axis and am a bit disgruntled with my lack of defences in the region.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.

This gives Japan a huge incentive to invade Russia the round that Germany invades in order to deny the Russians that NO, and in so doing changes the outcome of our AAP 40 games where Japan has no need to worry about Russia.  So, while this rule is outrageous it could also aid the Allies by forcing Japan to change the current script of a J3/4 taking of India.