How many G40 games have you played?

@surfer

Hi surfer,

As barnee and the General correctly said - barnee is working on it:+1:

You’ll find both RULEBOOK threads under Customizations - House Rules section - as well as the Strategy Guide and Rules Clarification.

I play solo often. It helps in learning rules. It helps to develop a sense of possible strategies and gain some mastery of mechanics. Sometimes I play out limited scenarios in “what-if” mode. Yes, if I develop a strategy, my “opponent” is fully aware of what I’m attempting. When I switch sides, I look for the best possible response and thus can learn something about how my strategy can be countered. I have sometimes played out entire games like that, because it’s fun to see how different choices (and luck) work out. If a strategy turns out to be fatally flawed and disaster ensues, that becomes part of the narrative of the game. I’ve also made maps for small scale engagements, inspired by a wonderful game that imagined a British invasion of Heligoland-Bight (I am sorry I can’t recall the name). My current interest is a map of Ceylon imagining an invasion to take it as a stage for invasion of India.

I can also whimsical stuff just for the hell of it. Alternate histories and just weird stuff. A recent setup of 1942 became The Great Orc War when genetic mutants called Orcs because Orcs came swarming out of Mongolia in mid-1943 (dictated by die roll). Determining things by die roll can be a way of limiting bias. Die rolls determined when the Orcs appeared, how many of each type appeared in a turn, when they acquired certain capabilities and what those capabilities were, how nations responded to events, and so on. In addition to die rolls, it is helpful (as already suggested) to define objectives and any unique tendencies for each power. Sometimes those become principles that can make a decision, and sometimes they can be reasons to tilt the die roll. The response of the Japanese in the game was assigned to the “very unlikely” pile but the die just happened to go there.

In the unlikely event that anyone would be interested, the Orcs were defeated, the Soviet Union was destroyed, the Japanese were contained and cooperative, the UK was a shell of itself with colonial possessions lost, the Germans were defeated by the US and UK despite an alliance with the Orcs, and the US emerged as the only surviving great power with some interesting tech developments. This matters because I’m thinking of some new events in this alternate universe. :)

I don’t see a flight path on the map that would be shortened by being able to fly over the Pripet Marshes, so I suppose that it’s not particularly relevant from an A&A perspective whether or not planes can fly over them.

The allies can (and usually will) still win the game if being 30-40 IPCs behind, IF they can correct this pretty soon. Let’s say in ~5 turns max., they must at least get a total equalization of both economies.

Having said that, if there is no visible possibility to (at least) equalize, the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is only small. I have no exact figures here but I bet the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is 5 IPCs per turn only, if they have no possibility to repair this.

Sometimes every IPC (per turn) counts…

@diabo:

in my group we play in similar ways, but i think it is not wise to do japan’s turn, BEFORE russia bought units.

another thing is, i have to admit, i had to smile that you regarded france as a block for itself… ;)

If there were a reason to change Japan’s strategy based on what Russia purchases, I’m sure it would be a minor issue. A larger issue is the time it takes for Japan to finish their turn, in my experience, Japan is the biggest culprit when it comes to clock consumption and getting Japan started right away is paramount for quick games.

(The way I play Germany:)
Create 1 huge army that marches into Russia and arrives in Bryansk G5, ready to attack Moscow G6, together with purchases from G5 (aircraft in Berlin/fast in Ukraine). Purchases in G1/2/3/4/5 are always aimed at maximally reinforcing this marching ‘deathball’, like ghr and Demandr described.

Russia has no choice but to surrender Leningrad+Ukraine and Germany should gladly take them with some token forces (1 to 2 inf + air).

What the Allies CAN do about this (very generally speaking because of all the variables): Russia retreats into Moscow while building a lot of inf + ART(!). RAF helps to defend it. UK + USA getting strong at Gibraltar/London + Middle East and, very important, setting up ‘bomber command’. Comes G6 Germany cannot attack Moscow because it is too heavily defended. Luftwaffe is tied into Russia (making life easier for the allies preparing for DDay) because otherwise Russia begins counter-attacking, ending the German presence there. Germany can take Caucasus + Stalingrad but NOT in force because then the Russians can break out where it is most effective, attacking and destroying the German army defending Bryansk if there is still some there. If there is not, because all the Germans are in Caucasus/Stalingrad, what is to stop Russia from retaking Leningrad, Ukraine and all those juicy eastern-european countries? Nada.
Too bad this game has no ‘out-of-supply’ rules as this is exactly what happend in Russia, starving the massive German army in Stalingrad.

In the pacific, the USA + ANZAC have Allied task number 1: prevent an Axis (Pac 6VC) win. This does not mean Japan has to be killed (though you can certainly try), but Hawai + Sydney must be held. If Japan crushes India this is an easy job. If Japan clearly invests in taking Hawai/Sydney (luckily the USA goes after Japan so can react), the task is more difficult, but India will be safe  longer and can even become strong strong strong if Japan focuses too much on Hawai. Most Japanese players I have seen, invest heavily into taking India and Middle East and THEN they try to take Hawai/Sydney. This gives the USA breathing space to invest around 20% per turn into the Pacific, spending 80% of its income into Europe. By the time Japan is ready to invest into taking Hawai the USA can switch to near 100% into Pacific (depending on the Japanese investments) without a problem because its forces in Europe are already massive.

Note that I am using the LL system in my games (and posts) to predict/dictate what major powers must do to stay alive. The LL system is usually pretty accurate and if the dice screw you up, well, then it’s the dice, not strategy, that cost you the game.

I might peek in.

Too bad twitter doesnt have a dice roller lol

@Clyde85:

China can attack into Kwangtung and Burma, the only 2 non-Chinese tt in the game China can move units into, with the exception of the Flying Tigers, which are not allowed to land in either.

I have seen a growing number of instances where the Japanese player will send its airforce to kill off large stacks of Inf in the hinterlands of China, without land units to take the tt itself. It seems a pretty good idea, as your risk of loss is fairly low, but it seems like such an unfair move  :roll: oh well

Actually, the Tigers CAN land in Burma