Differences between 1st and 2nd edition global gamboard?

@Navymule:

If there are 241 IPC’s worth of territories (before NO’s), that would mean the Allies would be earning well over 200 IPC’s a turn.  No way the Axis could recover from that deficit.  That would mean another 50-70 IPC’s worth of NO’s as well.

I wouldn’t think the Axis could recover, either, but I also wouldn’t say it’s impossible. The Allies begin the game with a 175-66 IPC advantage, but seem to lose more than half the time. Why does this happen?

The short answer is that the Axis victory conditions are easier to achieve, in part because Axis income is concentrated in Germany and Japan. This allows the two main aggressors to develop strategy, purchase units needed to implement that strategy and get them to the front rapidly. Put another way, in the hands of an experienced player, the Axis have a very efficient military-industrial complex.

On the other hand, the Allied IPC advantage, at least for the first 5-6 turns, is negated by the dispersal of those IPCs to every corner of the globe…and the Allies’ powerhouse must cross two oceans to join the fight. Until the US is fully engaged in battle, the Allied IPC advantage is virtually nonexistent.

I could talk/write at length on the economics of G40, but I’ll jump to the key question: If the goal is to improve game balance by creating a new victory condition, wherein the Allies win if the number of Axis-controlled Victory Cities falls below X and the combined IPC value of Axis-controlled territories falls below Y, what are X and Y? In other words, what is the Axis’ “point of no return?”

Why is it interesting you got a damaged package from Amazon?

:evil:

@Azpathfinder:

Has anyone ever tried 1940 rules/units on the 1942 map?

We have a group that enjoys to play, but 1940 is a serious time commitment that we just can’t schedule, and it seems to be taking the fun out of it (for us). When we played 1942, we could set up and play a few rounds in one night and while not always finishing, we could get a good enough sense in how the game was going to declare a victor.

We do enjoy the new pieces and rules (scrambling, tac bombers, convoys, air fields, kamakazi, shipyards) from 1940 … has anyone ever tried to use them on the older, smaller, more manageable 1942 board? any tips? any existing transfer rules? any thoughts?

Thanks everyone!

I would stay away incorporating air bases, shipyards due to number of spaces on the 1942.2 map.

Kamikazis and scrambling although fun, they will drastically change the overall strategy and dynamic of the game.

Now when it comes to mechanized infantry and tactical bombers that’s something that can be integrated with success. I haven’t done it yet but will start trying it out now that my brother and I have about 20 games under our belt and can call ourselves intermediate players. I will post results and overall outcome. In my opinion it will slightly benefit the Axis thus making it even harder for the Allies.

@Gamerman01:

Getting the money when taking a capital is as old as A&A itself, so what, about 35 years?

Never a good reason if it’s the only reason.

I prefer the pressure to be on the axis to make things happen. Right now it is a little too easy for the axis to catch up in income.

The size of the map is getting a bit better with each installment.  You used to be able to fly a bomber from Omaha or Texas to Moscow!!!

I’ve been lurking on the boards for a good while now and been trying to figure out different strategies that would make the game fun. I’ve only played a half game and against myself at that. I’m still in the middle of that game and I’ve noticed the following thoughts:

It seems like Germany almost always has to build a CV, a TT, and likely a sub. I feels like if one doesn’t then the Taranto attack will occur and Italy will be in a bad position.

As a tangent: What comprises this Taranto attack and what does it attack exactly? I see that 4-5 air and sea units are available to attack the Italy navy, but is the intention to simply kill both italy navies or just the western one? Likely I think it means smiting the Italy BB because that really hurts Italy in Africa.

Otherwise, the above attack really hurts Italy to the point where it has a hard time competing effectively. I realize this is intended but it almost forces the G1 player to always invest in a sea and destroy the British navy if they want Italy to grow quickly. An effective sea force is necessary to even add the treat of Sealion as Germany can toss down 10 AP the next turn and smash England G3. If Germany ignores sea units then England can do other things like do the Taranto attack and build units in South Africa. All things bad for Italy.

The thing only reason I could see to ignore the above is if one plans a G2 attack on Russia and use plane to wipe out France while moving units east enmasse. (I would suggest killing the British APs though). It does seem like Germany’s first turn feel scripted but maybe I’m not thinking outside of the box.
–----

Regarding the 18 USSR units in eastern Russia. It seems to me that its best choice is to pull back near Yakut and hold position there. If one stacks the units in Siberia or the one to west of Siberia then it can be trapped by a move north with the Manchurian army (which ironically is even stronger in Alpha). A counter attack by those 18 units is going to get them wiped out and and if no matter where that stack goes unless it retreated back on the first turn then it’s likely dead (if that’s what Japan wants to spend it’s resources on)

Mind this is Global and I don’t see much benefit for Japan attack any earlier than J2 or J3.

I like the game quite a bit otherwise though will be interested to see if there will be a need for a Alpha setup for AAE40 too.

Once again I doubt if you missed the American units at the west coast that starting TUV means anything. If it cant be protected in force its useless unless its out of range.