if you are sitting infront of your computer hoping to see some awesome kung fu videos you have come to the wrong place.
but if you are wishing someone would make a list of all the reasons why global 1940 is so much fun then keep reading.
1. more viable grand strategies for the axis = more variety in gameplay = more fun
the game is no longer only a race for berlin/moscow. axis can still win by gunning for moscow, but they now have 4 grand strategies to achieve victory;
go all in the pacific such as italy/germany throwing everything at india
go all in Europe such as japan throwing everything at egypt
go for a balanced approach on both maps
go for an economic victory(economy switch) where they out-produce the allies and eventually overwhelm them.
You can do a lot of different strategies, not all are viable, but they are still options.
2. even within a single grand strategy there are multiple real ways to achieve the goals. as one example germany’s strategy to take moscow has 4 real options;
blitzing moscow on turn 5(moscow blitz)
slow march to moscow on turn 7(artillery march)
mass bombing of ussr(dark skies)
economic collapse in 10 or more rounds(the great siege of moscow)
Awesome flexibility.
3. greater variety of units to purchase. there are now 18 units to choose from.
True Dat
4. better pricing of units. reducing the cost of naval and air units has led to a greater variety of units being purchased.
I still believe that some naval units still need to be cheaper in order to be cost effective(rarely a good reason to buy bbs/cruisers).
5. there is now an option to attack neutrals. this was in original but removed in all the more recent versions. there is a heavy price to pay for attacking a neutral so there is the fun decision of weighing the short term benefit vs the long term cost.
I like this one.
6. strategic bombing raids are a legitimate but not overpowering strategy. how complexes are damaged and repaired is excellent. there is now a bigger reward for bombing but still plenty of risk, and the defender can have a counter strategy by having interceptors.
Agreed
7. good map design. there are many ways to get to the same key areas. the pacific is very dynamic.
Agreed
8. facilities add a lot of strategy. the cost to benefit is great. having facilities helps drive action to otherwise less valuable territories.
Some people still don’t like the movement bonuses.
9. national objectives add mini in game objectives that add strategy and can encourage play to areas of the map that otherwise would be ignored.
I see only 2(maybe 3) areas that would of been ignored if it was not for objectives.
10. transports taken last as casualties now has more naval units being purchased and a greater variety in those purchases. earlier editions had the allies creating a super navy that was unsinkable. once this point was achieved the allies would rightfully stop building navy. the navies had a few loaded carriers defended by huge amounts of transports. now, how navies are built and deployed, involves many more decisions. there is much more naval action with many fleets being sunk.
This rule works well for me.
11. politics and declarations of war(dow). depending on which round japan issues a dow, the game plays out very differently. there are benefits, different strategies, and different tactics for each different round that japan declares war. there is great game design in each round of dow having equal opportunity for victory.
Complicated as hell for newbies.
12. setup. the starting setup allows for a variety of openings that leads to more diverse gameplay than earlier editions.
Agreed
13. global 1942 scenario. the game has a whole new set of strategies to explore with the alternate start. http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf
While interesting, the 1942 scenario does have some issues.
14. most importantly the victory conditions as it drives all choices from purchases, to attacks to movements. the axis having 2 separate victory conditions adds many layers to the game.
all older games were won by economics and the axis had to overtake the allies(most easily achieved by taking moscow). although they had victory cities it was for a world total and to reach this total you had to being winning economically, so while it might seem that players were making a push for victory cities we were all actually just playing for an economic victory. in older editions after the either side reached their victory city conditions you could keep playing to total domination and the same side would win. the axis still have an option to go for an economic victory but it is not a necessity.
axis and allies finally has action spread across the whole world and not concentrated on the 2 territories of moscow and berlin. in all past world editions the game boiled down to the axis racing to moscow/berlin. having victory conditions that are truly based on cities means the game is no longer just an economic game. the basic premise of economically strong allies vs starting military strong axis can be accentuated.
the split victory conditions lead to the most fun aspect in this game(and probably all board games) were both sides have a chance at winning that comes to a head in a critical turn. the most fun games i have had is when the allies have an economic advantage and will win the game if it continues past the next round or two. but the axis have a chance at reaching the required number of victory cities. so all the planning, strategy, and rolling comes to a conclusion where one side has earned victory.
Don’t need to respond to this one.
