94Canuck's Global 1940 Alpha + 2 Setup Charts and Game Aids

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?

Hello all. Just wondering if there are any custom setup charts for the Global 1942 scenario? I have the printout but was looking for setup charts to customize what I have. Thanks in advance.

I print them off on regular paper, then laminate them w/ the peel off kind. Works real well and tolerates drink spills and food dropping much better than the board or cardboard stuff that comes w/ the game.

Will these ever be updated for second edition?  They are too great to be forgotten.

Thanks for trying them out, and PLEASE help me correct the errors that you find!  Just post them here or on BGG and I’ll upload new versions as soon as they are fixed.

Also, I like the idea of adding in a sheet or two summarizing some of the rules changes to submarines, SBR, etc.  I plan on doing this.  Have any suggestions of things that should be covered, let me know.

Also, keep in mind the NO descriptions are meant to be reminders, not an exhaustive description.  They should be helpful but may not explain everything needed due to space constraints.  However, if you are finding any of them misleading then let me know.

EDIT:  Ok I did a check and found a couple major errors, my sincere apologies to anyone who printed these!  I have taken down the file and submitted a new one that I believe is 100% accurate, its waiting for approval.

EDIT:  February 3, ok new files have been approved and are available at the link above.

Oh whoops at first glance I thought you made the cards but now I see it is Bob.

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.)

@Frank:

But I have to say I like the Alpha set up much better.

It is incredible how much better it makes the game from both sides.