New Global WW2 Game From Larry Harris

@LebaneseWarlord
turn 12 I like it :)

yea allies got a tough row to hoe oob. They might need a boost :)

Rock On

Peace Out

I know that this is a variant, but just wanted to give a brief review of the G42 variant in my Games 94 and 95, here is a link to the canon  :wink: version that I think breathes some new life into the game and the outstandingly designed board/map:

http://axisandallies.wikia.com/wiki/File:G42setup2013424.pdf

The beauty of this scenario is that many of the ‘Cadillac’ extra factories and naval and air bases have been removed from the game, so it makes strategic bombing much more viable and abusive against the Axis.  Germany has to be much more careful how it builds (in terms of +2 turns out planning) and Japan has to avoid losing 1 of its 2 (not 3-4) major fleets.

Also, many of the extra infantry and much of the fleet depth have been removed from the G40 setup, which means that production is more important than the starting pieces at the beginning of the game.

Overall, Germany is on the strategic defensive.  The turn order has been altered, which makes the strategic initiative operate in the Allies favor.  Huge back and forth battles in the steppe and marsh and islands and canals lead to a battle of attrition and placement.

The game has no diplomacy, and starts with everyone at war and the Axis near threshold income (50-60), so it is somewhat faster than G40 to get to the good stuff.    The Axis still have tons of planes and ships but are much curtailed so they have to make more focused choices in order to win.

New NOs and placements make the med, SE pacific, East russia and africa more dynamic areas of conflict.  Hackneyed openers are out forcing you to think dynamically, though the Allies still start with plenty of stacks so the Axis has to attack.

Have fun good luck. Taam

Since were all talking about G39…
Does anyone know if there is a simplified version of G39?
I have the latest map, it’s beautiful. But a little too complex and too many outside pieces required.
To me G40 is a great ruleset.

I would love to play a version that is G40 style with 39 setup on the 39 map.
It would also be much more appealing to new players.

@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.

@Dark_Destroyer:

@knp7765:

@Dark_Destroyer:

The war Japanese started began with Korea and ended with America, it just flowed into WW2.

Incorrect.  As was previously stated, Korea already belonged to Japan.  The war started when Japanese forces invaded Manchuria from Korea in Sept. 1931.

Actually you are incorrect.  Japan had a 35-year imperialist expansion, which lasted August 22, 1910 to August 15, 1945.  That expansion included Korea, China, and finally US islands.  Which ended up (you guessed wrong) happening to include WW2.

nit-picking the nit-picker: japanese expansion started in 1905 with attacking the russian forces in Port Arthur ^^

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.

Thanks very much.
Cheers!

E_D

@mwindianapolis:

how about just toss for them?

UFC cage match in the back yard!  :evil:  :-D