Community Links for Global 1940 Related files

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?

@Ichabod:

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

Actually I have played differently with no bid and I started to put more pressure in Pacific first and it seems to work out better, because lot of times seems like the Japan player starts panicking and do not know what to do or gets offcourse in their plans… The only time I have struggled is against you Icha :)

Thanks for info. Will plan on coming next year.

Risk taught us when we were young that Irkutsk and Yakutsk are like the North and South Dakota of Soviet Russia.  Have you not visited the region of Kamchatka before–by traveling on a bold line via Alaska?  We all know that bold lines can support gigantic armies.

after leningrad falls, you need to transports, so that whilst you are holding in ukraine, you are REINFORCING the eastern front from Leningrad everyturn.

And on a good day, if the allies aren’t paying attention, sometimes from within the baltic, you get to sack England, and they don’t even see it coming.

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.

@Plasticdeathbydice:

$6.00 bucks an hour?!?!  At the rate my buddies drink - it is costing me $6.00 every ten minutes!

Exactly.  Over time the game does not add a significant cost to your gaming experience.  If you sick to AA50 you still have to buy that booze.

$6/hr is relatively high - ask me what it works out to this time next year.  Also I didn’t account for the games of Pacific alone I’ve already played.  This will be down to pennies an hour in no time.

@Koningstiger:

I do believe it’s worth it, but at the same time, I find A&A50 the better game (ease and relative quickness of play)

To each their own.  Some people might prefer AA42 to AA50 for the same reason, but probably not many because AA50 is only a little bit bigger and more elaborate than AA42.  Global is way bigger than AA50.  I personally think they’re all excellent.

One thing really cool about Global is that Germany (at this point seemingly) has a legitimate decision to make in terms of England or Russia.  What’s even cooler is that if England falls the Allies can still win!  I love this game!

I played Japan last weekend. I didn’t have too hard a time, however I tend to play a very anti-US strategy. Therefore I was able to manage them as well as I had been able to in the Pacific game. I even had him spending more on the pacific side. Russia was actually what tended to throw me off because I had to constantly be prepared for a potential invasion until it was my time. Luckily I had set a trap and Russia invaded Korea, allowing me to trap him between my navy and land forces.

If your looking for more specifics then let me know, otherwise that should give you a slight idea as to what to expect.