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

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

Ah, I get what you are saying. No, I don’t have those numbers because I didn’t think of that. I would have to check out the whole setup again. In that case, it might go a little better for the Allies because they have a LOT of empty territories. The Axis have very few, I think just 2 or 3 of the Japanese islands.

@theROCmonster:

I recommend playing the newest alpha. The new alpha rules allow scrambling from not island airbases as well, which I believe is huge. The entire flavor of the game is changed with the new alpha rules VS out of box. Also out of Box I think UK just falls to sea lion everytime…

theROCmonster, he is playing the G40 2nd edition (recently released). The OOB rules include the the newest Alpha (nicknamed Alpha 3.9) with the couple changes Port Hardcore mentioned. I guess you could call OOB 2nd edition Alpha+4, or the final Alpha.

I would go OOB 2nd edition instead of Alpha+3.9, like kcdzim said. The changes between the two were minor compared to the changes that took place through the Alpha project (like the scramble rules from Alpha+1 allowing all airbases to scramble, but only 3 units). 1 UK inf missing in Egypt surprised many ppl thinking the game is axis bias, but like he said it probably balances the Med which is a battle with-in the war. Adding Korea to the Nap just makes sense.

What I would do is play OOB 2nd ED a few times, and decide for yourself which side has an edge (every group is different), keeping in mind that the allies have a longer learning curve and it normally takes a few games for them to figure things out. If in the first game you lose Moscow in turn 6-7, then figure out what the allies need to do to save/delay that in the next game. I would also plan for a two day game the first time LOL (2-10 hour sessions).

Hi guys.  I will be playing me first Global 1940 game this weekend and i was wondering how balanced Alpha 2 setup is when using global.  Is it about a 50/50 win/loss ratio between the Axis and Allies or do the Allies have an advantage that needs to be balanced out with a bid?  We are playing 2v2 and all players are about equal in skill and experience.  Thanks.

@akreider2
roll 1’s not sixes :)

Germany, Japan and Italy have to be aggressive. While also taking calculation on when to go to war with certain countries. So if you just sit and build without moving, you’re doomed.

@lnmajor:

But then you would never send unescorted transports to amphibous assault a TT containing a airbase with fighters present. Is that correct?

yup, gotta protect those transports.

the 2 extra infantry does not appear on the list of national objectives and bonus income on page 23
i assume that page lists the NO’s for europe, since japan is not on the list.

for sovjet union it only says:

+5 ipc if there are no axis warship on seazone 125, SU controls archangel and no other allies present on SU ground
+3 for any original german territory and sovjet controls its own.