Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@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.

I think four player is the best.  As the Allies it’s easier to be on the same page and everyone has a more to do.

The setup I prefer:

Germany & Italy
Japan

Russia, UK, France
USA, China, Anzac

The USA player should control Anzac since they’ll be working closely with them.

Exactly, knp.  Someone once asked me why I bothered to DOW Japan as France.  On rare occasions it has proven useful as a blocker.  Why give up something from your bag of tricks out of laziness?

Here is the game setup as provided on Larry’s site:

http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf

@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.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

I’ll SBR just about whenver possible.  The risk/reward is now in my favor.  So unless I can get more than 3 IPC for using my bomber elsewhere, I’ll use it to SBR (if I can.)

Why:  Average Cost: 2 IPC; Average Damage: 4 IPC, net 2 IPC, if I can get an extra infantry, it’s better for me, otherwise, bombing is a good alternative to parking.