Recap of global game played 12-3-11 with photos

@shadowhawk

Yeah, I definitely didn’t think of things that way. Mostly the AAA just stays in the US the whole time. I’ll give it a try.

Could you play global 42 with the balance mod or is OOB just right? I didn’t see a BM3 map for the global 1942 and was wondering if anyone has tried it.

Great game report.

Your consensus on “who would win, eventually” is how most games are determined.  Fighting for capitals after Moscow is a big slog, that’s how it goes–the game kind of mutates at that point because the stacks keep growing and there are no rules that limit stack size, unit maintenance, etc, they can get pretty big.

@ShadowHAwk:

@Kreuzfeld:

@seancb:

Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.

I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships  than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.

The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D

which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.

What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.

I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.

@Maddog77:

After looking at the game table (board) I can understand why this idea is intriguing. But after thinking a bit, Russia & GB can very easily keep any the black sea ship free with their air force. At least if I was Russia, I would sink anything built there. Also would love Germany to spend that kind of $$ ion an IC & navy instead of tanks, art & inf……still, it might be fun to give it a go sometime.

I once built an airbase in Romania in a Tech game where I had rockets and paratroopers. If you had that, I guess you could protect a TT with scrambled fighters and hit Caucusus from the Ukraine.

Guest said in Minor Threat's Alpha+3.9 (Global 1940) COMPLETE! Setup Charts:

Wow, these are super, muchos gracias :-D

And now KICKS SELF FOR NITPICKING
-United States card: NOs #1 and #4 the word ‘Sovereignty’ spelled wrong (extra ‘i’)
-UK card: UK (London) operations: the phrase ‘exclusively only’ seems redundant, just ‘exclusively’ would do (same on India card)
-UK card: the word ‘Canadian’ spelled wrong (extra ‘n’)
-Japan card: NO #1 the word ‘resource’ spelled wrong (second ‘s’ instead of a ‘c’)
-ANZAC card: wording of NO #2 seems weird ‘Strategic cornerstone - to far East British Empire’. Does this miss the words ‘Malaya considered’?

KICKS SELF AGAIN

Beside these little wording mistakes, they are still great and stick to the latest updates and rules!

While I checked my stuff again I found something but I am not quite sure if there is a benefit when you will change it:

It is not necessary but you could add the (2) for all anti-aircraft gun at DEFENSE… they only occur when Radar is researched…
Fighter Attack (4) when Jet Fighters
Submarines --> Super Submarines (3)
Heavy Bombers Roll 2 Dice (but not easy to show this while not causing confusion)
Etc…

and maybe on the turn sequence to add the polictics move “to declare war”

Just suggestions, no need! As said above, maybe you should leave it like it is… The player should use a Research Board, so that they can see which technology they got… hopefully they do not forget it during the game ;)

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.)

@real-life-rorschach
I played about 6 games, 1 Axis win, the others Allied. The main deciding factors were bad G1 dice in all of the games, the Soviets being almost impossible to defeat in time (the one time the Axis won, the U.S. and Britain were about to take Berlin/Warsaw on the next turn), and the Americans sending strategic bombers to Europe and crippling the German factory production while still being able to fight Japan.