1st F2F game from this forum…..

@redrum

That makes sense. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for responding! :+1:

I agree with a post that Mashmallow posted earlier, there is no guarantee that you are going to get that NO for a clear med, you should not even rely on that one. The Italians have so many uses, on the ground, with actual IPC earning territory’s that those planes can be used for, you need to weigh out their impact in the med versus potentially taking Egypt, steam rolling Greece, building an actually strong can-opener force in Russia, and even Protecting Rome.

The last few games that I have played, when I am the Axis, I get my Italian partner to seriously evaluate the Taranto raid force. If it is the max force possible, and the UK is totally on point, I say scrap the scramble, focus on more attainable objectives. As a German player, I sure as hell don’t want to burn the Luftwaffe on an air vs naval clean up battle G2, where I can lose guaranteed safe hits against Russian ground troops once Barbarossa commences. On the other hand, If the UK doesn’t bring the max force down, or they don’t make a move to middle east with SA and India navies / units, and Italy looks like they might have some time to maneuver for a few rounds, then scramble all the way. I have seen games were Italy won the Taranto raid, and from then on became unstoppable in the Med, which in turn leads to Germany being able to achieve their full potential, and results in an Axis victory.

Italy unfortunately has to play the game, or at least start the game, being completely on board to support the Germans in whichever direction they plan to strike. A strong Afrika campaign with Italian air power can lead to Italy generating sufficient IPCs to gain a bit more control over their destiny. A successful Italian campaign in the middle East, or as a can-opener can have the same impact. Italy with zero navy, and zero air force, means they might as well stockpile Rome and prepare to defend Europe, there will be no expeditionary force.

@zanetheinsane:

@knp7765:

Now I had all those infantry, artillery and tanks stuck in Morocco with no way to get anywhere important.

That’s why I always land in Gibraltar. It’s rare that something horrible happens, but when it does… Spain is always an option. Get with the UK player who can hopefully take on Turkey. Not the prettiest course of action, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and getting an Allied foothold in Spain isn’t the worst you can do.

Hmmm…interesting choice. Early on in playing Global, we had 3 different games where the Axis attacked strict neutrals. In fact, we even adopted a house rule using Neutral Blocks so only certain strict neutrals would be affected – Europe, S America, Africa, Middle-East, Mongolia. So if say Sweeden was taken by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Portugal would go Pro-Allied but Argentina would still be strict neutral. I know some people put Turkey in the Europe block, but we decided to put it in the Middle East block.
We have NEVER had the Allies attack a strict neutral. For one thing, they are usually too busy fighting the Axis to expend resources fighting a neutral. Plus they don’t want to give the Axis any free infantry and territories by turning the other stricts into Pro-Axis, even if it’s just in that block. Also, I guess we just kind of have the mindset that the Allies are the good guys and having them violate a country’s neutrality just doesn’t feel right.
In most of our games, we have played with the strict neutrals basically off limits, both by the Axis and the Allies. Perhaps we should re-think our strategies and start involving the neutrals more in our games.

Hey. i have some problems with the upgraded version of the tutorial of Abattlemap. The upgraded version is called 0.80 + i think. i have downloaded the 0.70 version and that one was fine, but the one i need for playing AAG40 is not working. has enyone had this problem? does anyone know what i need to do? many thanks.

A long time ago, back when we just had the Classic MB version of A&A, I started working on an idea to break all territories into smaller sections so it wouldn’t just be one battle and you get the whole territory.  For example, the Eastern US territory would be broken down into all the different states so if an Axis attacked it, they would have to fight state to state in order to win that territory, and maybe some of the larger states could be split into two or three sections.  I thought this seemed more realistic than just one battle and you win the entire Eastern half of the United States.
However, many problems became apparent fairly quickly.  First of all, I couldn’t always find more detailed maps of some of the territories like those in central and eastern Russia, territories in Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. 
Also, going from the World map to a single territory map you would have to change all the units.  For example;  you have 10 infantry, 2 armor and 2 fighters defending Eastern USA.  If you shrink this down to just that territory broken up into many territories,  it would have to be something like 100 infantry, 20 armors and 20 fighters spread out amongst all those territories.  Plus you would have to figure out where to put them and it wouldn’t necessarily be an even amount.  You wouldn’t have the same amount of units defending Washington or New York as you would some empty space.  The same would hold true for the attackers.  How many units would you have attacking each territory?  Plus, I didn’t have a clue as to how to break it down like this for Naval warfare.  How many actual ships does 1 battleship on the World Map represent on the smaller maps?
Finally, it occurred to me that this would make just one game of A&A take literally MONTHS to complete.  Attacking a territory would be like opening up a whole new game.  Granted, there are a number of unoccupied territories that you could simply “blitz” and not have to refer to the smaller maps, but any substantial combat would take hours to complete as your forces move to take a territory a piece at a time.  Also, this would possibly mess up some attacks and leave a territory in a “contested” state for some time.  For example;  Germany invades Eastern US.  Germany has 20 Inf, 8 tanks, 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  The US has 10 inf, 2 tanks and 2 fighters plus the AA gun.  Now, depending on how the forces get laid out on the small scale map, and also depending on luck of the dice rolls, there are any number of outcomes.  On the World Map, it would be one big battle and over, likely with Germany winning .  However, on the small  map, it’s possible that say the Germans did well in the north.  However, in the south the US forces defeated the invader and still have good forces intact.  Also, on this scale, there will likely be more US forces farther inland as reserves.  So now the territory of Eastern USA is basically half German controlled and half US controlled.  This would drag this one battle out even longer.  Now, it’s possible that the triumphant German forces in the North could possibly get whittled down to nothing as they try to work their way south.
Anyway, my point is that doing a game like this would make it take way too long and I would imagine most people would lose intereste after a while.  It’s an interesting concept but if you get too detailed the game loses its fun.

@FieldMarshalGames:

I second that.  1942 is the best way to train new players.

I know you want to break out Global but you might scare them away!

If you use that funky little 1942 board then you had better anchor it down or one little bump and what a mess.

You wouldn’t happen to have some drawing on that you would be willing to share?

What’s the out to out dimensions?
What’s it  standing on? is it a table that sits on anther table or is it a free standing table too?
How deep is the board set down?…etc, etc?

I’m working on some tables for the AA game group I run but we are tossing around the idea of elevating the table with a “lip” under it for trays and stuff rather than too the sides, the idea being this way the board stays as narrow as possible.

any info you would be willing to share would be cool, if you share none, that’s cool too…just seeing it is help enough.  Thanks for sharing the pics, seeing your board is really inspiring!

i don’t have a drawing.  i just laid the gameboard and pieceboxes on a piece of 6x4 board.  then took a pencil and drew their outlines.  i built up from there.

the table has no legs.  its actually sitting on another table.  its more stable that way.

the table looks wide but when you sit along side it, you can see the whole board.  i wanted to make sure i wouldnt have to stand up every time it was my turn.

i’m happy to help anytime i can.  any other questions, feel free to ask or pm me.

can you measues the amo boxes(lxwxh)and the space between the sapcers in the containers

i will, but they are the boxes from the FMG ammo box

@13thguardsriflediv:

May adjacent ‘pro allied neutrals’ be blitzed and taken over in one go? In other words could the Soviets move a tank to Caucasus and from there take both ‘Iran’ territories in one move?

No.  You have to stop in the first one.