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

@Grandmaster-Bert
nice like the artwork :) Seems as if the unit names are a tad too dark but it all looks good

@Young:

Instead of “rewriting” or “reorganizing” the Europe and Pacific books into one, I have thought hard about the possible creation of a separate book that would only be reference, index, glossary or an epic “Table of Contents” if you will. The Star Wars Rebellion game has something like this and it’s extremely effective, plus this would be a complete original work which would not alter the copyrighted material, but rather add a whole separate document booklet that compliments the original material.

Yes, that sounds like a good practical solution to the problem, and very useful too.

@AndrewAAGamer:

Our gaming group has come to the conclusion that some bid is needed to balance the game for the Allies.  In reading through the posts it seems to me that the general consensus is that the Allies need a bid of about 9-12.

My questions are:

Is a bid of 9-12 the current and reasonable amount?  As we will not want to bid for a particular side, we will set a certain bid point for each game and then let people choose which side they want to be as some Players enjoy playing particular Powers.  So what is a fair bid?

My group usually goes 10-15, some where in the ball park of 8 to 14 is what everyone does.

Is this bid added as starting income to be spent on Turn 1?

What Siparo said.

Is this bid added as units and money such as the Revised FIDA bid?

Never played revised, and what is FIDA?  Another government agency?

Is this bid added as units on the board with remainders as starting money?

Siparo doesn’t do it, but my group allows it.

For any units placed on the board are there any restrictions?  For example:
     a) Must have a unit already in the territory / sea zone?
     b) May not place more than X number of units?

My group has 3 rules:
1.  Must be one unit per territory/seazone.
2.  Can only be placed in a territory/seazone where you already have units occupying it.
3.  Can only be a unit that power has access to (china can be inf and art only).

I would appreciate your kind thoughts and comments.  Thank you…

Nice, maybe i can try this HR! Thanks

@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.

@Admiral:

@Rhey:

I always attack Japan in China on UK Pac 2. This reopens the burma route (as the Japanese have way too limited ground forces) and keeps china in play. China is really more important then most of the players think. I find them very strong, especially against those scattered Japanese forces. The only problem is their airforce but every japanese unit you can take out on the mainland, is a huge win.

Crazy thing about the Japanese air force and Chinese units is this, the latter just needs to keep those precious stacks out of their range. Pull back, retreat. Advance when the time is right. A smart Chinese players does this, and makes the Japanese player really invest their time in the Chinese hinterland, splitting their options.

Best strategy for the Chinese is to play exactly like the Russians:  Turtle up and keep one step away from the units trying to take them out.  Each round you’ll be able to add 2-3 Inf to your big starting stack.  Once Japan attacks the UK or Anzac, you’re free to start marching towards either A:  Burma Road to reclaim it or B: The valuable territories the Japanese start with in the north.

Both cases make Japan invest more deeply into taking China than it wants to, while buying time until India can help you retake the Burma Road.  Don’t play foolish with your big starting stack, protect it until the Japanese are too thin or they’ve invested too much in China (which is an IPC sink if Japan doesn’t get it early).

With the relative ease of taking London and Calcutta (in opposition to Sydney and Muskva) it seems better to go after England

But beyond that, if you take London, you negate all of England’s income, even if you cannot take the territories!  Worse yet, Calcutta can take stuff and can liberate stuff on the Atlantic map, but can never collect for it, so you’ve effectively, permanently ended England.

Just my current thoughts, I reserve the right to change my mind with little to no notice and for whatever reason I so choose. (Woman’s perogative.)