Posts made by Blitchga

@BJCard:

I’m not sure the USA can fight effectively in both theaters of war with such little built each turn.  If you ignore one theater, then Germany or Japan goes hog wild.  Hell, Europe by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 3, while the Pacific by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 1,2,or 3.  Why isn’t USA’s total IPCs 120ish?

I think it is because the allies have other things to help them in the global game. For instance, 18 Russian men in Soviet Far East, Indian troops helping Africa. The other thing to remember is that in the game the US can get into action a lot faster than was actually possible in the war. Some of the sea zones in both games are massive and with a naval base allow US to build one turn and attack in their next turn. Giving the US more income could unbalance how quickly they can get into battle.

As for incremented income: Perhaps you could try reducing their starting income by 20 and increase it by 5 for the first four turns. In order to keep things even though I still think that something else would need to be added. Perhaps a one time bonus to income after someone attacks them (ie: after war has been declared on them) Maybe you give them the bonus whether they declare war or not, it sounds like it could be getting complicated… What can I say I love to complicate things if it increases strategy, haha.

More simply: Perhaps just give them a reduction in income by a factor of ‘X’ and give them that money back at ‘A’ IPC’s for ‘X/A’ turns. ie: x=20 and a=5(previous example) so the US starts with 20 IPC less in income but gains 5IPC a turn for ‘X/A’ or 4 turns.

Another interesting idea would be to give the US a very small, such as 1IPC a turn income forever at the cost of reduction of ‘X’ amount at the start up. This way the are not making huge bucks to start but if the axis cannot win then eventually it would become impossible to compete with an ever increasing US income.

I am just throwing ideas out. I hope someone can refine them and make sense of them, lol.

I am not sure the best way to make tech manageable and playable but I find that it is terrible as is right now. I think progressive might have been better but then you start to fall into a game that is dictated to you and your just going through the motions.

As I said I am not sure the best to have implemented tech but the current way could not have been the best way in my opinion.

@Stockus13:

It does seem that a gradual buildup for the US would be both more historical and balance the game better. 52 IPC a turn while at peace is a huge ammount of money.

As far as representing history in this type of game……it’s impossible and we could agrue for hours on it.

1. Yes the USA should have more money when at war to represent history. Russia would have a stronger economy later as well.

2. On the other hand the German Army was incredibly massive when compared to all other powers but the Russians.

Troop quality, tank quality, etc. could all be argued. Manpower, and leadership as well.

Why not have Italy be unable to function because of poor historical performance?

The point is this is a fun casual war game to play for fun. If we want to play an exact replica of history then this is not the game to do it in. Just my 2 cents.

Perfectly said. I couldn’t agree more.

@spectre_04:

I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.  America was gearing up their industries and propaganda machine well before Pearl Harbor.  It wasn’t broadcast on the airwaves but in political secrecy, it was happening.

Still, I maintain that the Harris and his assistants had to artificially reduce the relative income of the USA to actually give the axis a chance of winning, which in reality, they didn’t have a chance in Hell.

I think the USA would have earned some 150-200 IPC by the turn equivalent to the summer of 1944. that being said, Russia’s should be much higher by then as well.

I couldn’t agree more. There are factors on both sides that are impossible to represent without going to a much greater complexity. I have not felt the US makes to much in our games but I would have liked to see less in pre-war and more in the post war.

As per the Axis having no chance to win, that is an impossible debate but I will say that there were many factors that gave the allies an advantage that shouldn’t have. I think the war was a lot closer than most people realize. The Axis tended to lose the war for the allies just as much as the allies beat the axis powers. However, that being said hindsight is 20/20 and impossible to do more than speculate.

@spectre_04:

I don’t think we ALL have gotten off topic, but SOME definitely have.  Jeez people, the game says 14 and up on the box, act like it for goodness sake.

And by the way, NO, the US did not win the war ALL by itself.  I think 15 million dead Russian soldiers proves that.  However we were definitely a pair of aces in the allies hand and if you dispute that then you don’t know history, board games, any of it, sorry.  The sky is not green or yellow, some things are FACT and not up for debate.

Your right we have gotten off topic and I wont dig through my papers and books to find the quotes in interest of staying on topic. I think what you said is exactly the point I was trying to emphasize, no single nation won the war. The US was incredibly powerful economically but they other allies had their own advantages.

Sorry for jumping off topic on that one.

As per the game: One thing our group has tried is forcing the US to not only stay off Africa and Europe until at war but making them stay off the coast of US held territories in the Atlantic and the same in the Pacific with the exception of being allowed to move from Philippine’s to Hawaii if so desired (even though this takes two turns for all but the bomber)

I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war. I also love the idea of having an escalating income. The were isolationist but not oblivious to what was happening in the world around them. Does anyone know why the game designers took the game the way that they did? Was it all balance or was their another historical reason for the US pre-war big time income?

I ahve drawn some of the same conclusions and so what I have been trying is push with Italy and push hard to take the Middleeast. If you can get a factory in Iraq and then a factory in Persia you can push out from their. I put almost nothing into my transport fleet which was hardly added to after Taranto happened (Germany went for a G1 Romanian Major which to be honest has proven extremely useful!) The Brits managed to retake Egypt but Italy is still at roughly 25 IPC and has for more forces between Iraq and Persia. Britain is going to need to back up soon or risk losing their forces in Egypt. The other Italian option is push further into Russia. The almost continually have Caucus and are threatening Volgogrod heavily. Germany has the Russians runnings scared from the massive force they moved in with the factory in Romania and has both an army group north and south which outnumbers the Russians allowing the Italians to get away with a little more. For Italy I chose to build up the air force rather than navy and the navy I do have is subs which are blocking Britain’s money in Egypt and also poised with two bombers to push off a Gibraltar or Morocco landing force. I have four subs and two bombers that can hit the Atlantic side of Gibraltar. Germany also has 2 bombers and 5 subs that can hit that same SZ keeping the Allies from landing in North Africa, they are instead landing in French West Africa and bring in reinforcements that way.

I almost always do a J3 attack. Allows Europe some breathing room but does not allow the ANZAC or Indian forces to get too powerful. On turn one I buy two transports and a Manchurian minor factory. I push into china on all fronts, moving the bulk of forces south while attacking china. I push 2 or 3 infantry into Yunnan to attack the Burma road with all available fighters. I move the two Siamese infantry into French Indo China. I move the mechanized infantry as far south as I can. I keep the transports in the sea of Japan and land the tank, two infantry and an artillery into Korea. I use the transport in the Caroline Islands to grab the infantry off of Palau. I also move an extra carrier down to the Caroline’s.

J2:
Buy: a minor factory for French Indo China, two infantry and an artillery for Manchuria and two more infantry and another artillery for Japan

On turn two I move into Yunnan (assuming China counter attacked) with 5 or 6 infantry, a mechanized infantry and two artillery. I again surge into China across the line. I poise the majority of the fleet down in the Caroline Islands and move a small force off of Johnston Island complete with transport with two infantry. I keep two transports in the Sea of Japan and offload four men into Korea, (grab the two off of Okinawa and Iwo Jima to make sure you have enough men for transports next turn) I usually push into Russia on this turn but it depends on how things look but usually you have more than enough infantry to stand off with them.

J3:
Buy; (If I still hold Yunnan) I buy a couple mechanized infantry and infantry or one infantry and a couple mechanized depending on what is in Yunnan. I buy three Infantry in (or artillery if I can afford it) in Manchuria. Remaining funds go into subs for Japan.

Here is where attacks vary depending on allied movements but typically for my opponents Hawaii has been fortified so the force off the Johnstons moves to take New Britain and stop both ANZAC bonuses with one attack. I move a sub or two off the coast of Queensland with available air-force off carriers and take out the at least destroyer that is blocking Sydney. I move a transport to Borneo with an infantry and AA or two infantry off of the Caroline’s. I move another transport out of the caroline’s with two men onto Celebes with a carrier if need be to attack the forces if any on the island. I also bring enough to ensure that one or both of those transports lives (often a small fleet to defend the Indian navy with Borneo landing and a destroyer off the coast of Java (whatever the long sea zone island is) to defend transport off Celebes and block on convoys. One transport from SZ6 moves to take the Philippine’s with bombers from french indo. The other transport in SZ6 takes Kwangtung with sufficient air force which was also staged in French Indo.  I now use the forces in Yunnan to make sure that both Burma and Shan state fall allowing me to take Malaya on J4 with Shan state and Mech built in French Indo on J3.

J4 Things are varying far to much to do a full report but always put 3 units in both minor factories and take the remainder of the DEI. Main fleet and fighter force tends to move back to caroline’s to stand off with US forces which are probably becoming a little bold.

J5 depending on pressure put a minor or major in Malaya to outproduce or at least stall India while you move some of those men into China to push them back and surround them.

*Subs are always being produced to block convoys and take out Indian fleet with Strat bombers and to crush Australia into making 3-4 a turn.

Obviously depending on Allied strats things need tobe tweaked but the general idea is you make a ton of money by the end of J4 and can now compete with everyone at the same time unless of course the US is pushing the majority against you in which case you have successfully bought your European allies some room to pressure Britain, Russia and Africa.

Does that help a bit?

It is true and I wish that the strained relationship between the Allies and Russia had been incorporated more. I would love to have seen much of the far east worth less income (ie 0) and more in bonuses from controlling specific territory and/or having no allied troops in the same territories. Either that or the fact that Russian troops should never be allowed to occupy the same territory as her allies.

Depends on what your looking for but if you like Axis and Allies then it is well worth it. The game is fantastic and while it does take a little longer to play it is incredible. I wouldn’t consider not having it.

@deadbunny:

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.

As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!

@dadler12:

I apologize if I demeaned the other allied nations contributions. The Russians fought about 80% of German forces. I was simply stating that no other nation had as much industrial and economic power as the US and that the US was able to engage in, and win, both theatres in WW2 (Europe and Pacific), while every other nation (exception is the UK although apart from fighting in Burma and SE Asia they didn’t do much in the Pacific) was fighting a one theatre war. Russia declared war on Japan once the war was over! Germany would have defeated the Russians had it not been for Hitler’s interference, so I do think that front eventually would have ended in stalemate had the US not been able to lead invasions. The commonwealth was important but in reality was the junior partner in the US/UK alliance, I’m sorry but that’s how it was. Do you honestly think the Canadians and Brits could have invaded Europe alone (remember Dieppe)? And if the Canadian fleet having more transports and escorts make it “bigger” than the US navy I used the wrong choice of words, no navy could expect to defeat the US on the seas in 1945 with all their aircraft carriers. I steer clear of US propaganda, but you can’t argue the fact that they were the deciding factor of WW2. Yes Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow were major turning points the US had little to do with (short of supplying tanks to UK in Egypt and tanks and supplies to the Soviets). But without the US the UK would have eventually tired of a war it couldn’t win and elected another Chamberlain to negotiate a peace with Germany, in my opinion. And the Germans beat themselves out East via Hitler’s poor decisions such as diverting forces from Moscow.

The BCATP was another massive contribution put forward by the commonwealth forces. I am not saying they won the war by any means but I feel that no single nation won the war. The BCATP put out tens of thousands of pilots a year and supplied the pilot training for almost the entire Allied air effort. The program was so successful that they actually had to slow it down as it was training more pilots than even the US could build planes.

As for Dieppe, horribly planned raid I couldn’t agree more. Many historians have tried to give reason to it but it was a terrible plan and logistically a disaster with nothing working in conjunction with one another. However, the US was no better when examining their first landings in the Pacific. Some of the atols that the US took had greater losses than all of D-day combined.

As per the navy, I hate to break it to all of you but the Canadian navy really was the biggest one around. It had so many small escort ships to patrol and escort the convoys across the Atlantic that no other nation could outmatch it.

When it came to Allied Victory I strongly feel that no nation deserves more glory than the next. They all had massive contributions in their own way and none were the savior that any of them claimed to be.

It is unfortunately too easy to see coming and defend against. However as already mentioned always to have some transports that can take advantage of when the Allies in the south slip up and do not protect Calcutta or Sydney.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Canada had over 5 aircraft carriers? Or are you just saying the Canadian Navy exceeded the US ATLANTIC Navy?

No but Canada did have a larger navy than any other country post war. It was quickly sold off and disassembled but Canada was the driving force behind getting those supplies to Europe. It was Canadian ports, escort convoys and logistics that took those supplies to Europe to be used in the Allied war effort.

@dadler12link=topic=20427.msg687645#msg687644:

I’m not as much a patriot as a history nut. And I don’t think you can argue that without the US on the side of the allies the axis would have won the war. There is no way Canada had a more powerful navy than the US postwar. I agree that Russia fought the bulk of the European theatre, but without US led invasions in both Italy and Normandy diverting German resources and troops, that front would probably have ended in stalemate. The USSR and the UK depended on US supplies and money early war and throughout. I could continue but I think it’s common knowledge that the US’s industrial and economic power was the deciding factor of WW2. I was simply providing reasons for why the US is so powerful in Global 40.

Again I am not saying that the Canadian navy had been more powerful but that it was quite simply larger. As for the US, I apologize but no single nation in WWII was the deciding factor behind the Allied victory. The USA was needed just as much as Russia, Britain, the Commonwealth or any other ally. Even French resistance played its part. I agree that the allies could not have won without the US, however I also stand by the claim that they could not have won without the Commonwealth countries, Russia, Britain or any other allied nation.

The US economic might was tremendous but not the sole deciding factor in victory, instead it was a large contributing factor in a group of many factors that all led to an allied victory.

I would love to point out that the further you go into the history of WWII the more it can be realized that the allies were in serious trouble if not for the incredibly long list of mistakes that the axis made. In many respects the axis powers shot themselves in the foot and lost the war on their own. I wont go into all of those details but many of them are incredibly interesting to study. Please do not get me wrong, I by no means am nostalgic for any other outcome than the one that happened.

I also want to add a personal apology to you dadler12 if I in any way offended you. I know that when it comes to this topic I can tend to be quite devoted. As an accomplished History student and fledgling historian and professor it tends to drive me mad when US Propaganda continues to dominate the history surrounding WWII. Yes they were key and I would never want to belittle that fact. I do however find it insulting to the rest of the world to say that the US was the sole reason for victory. They were no more or less important than any other major allied power.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yeah. One side usually has a higher learning curve. In time, we’ll see whether or not it’s as unbalanced as P40

I am not so sure that P40 is so unbalanced in G40 as attacking early may be in the best interest of Japan but not the Axis and the Axis cannot win the war without the European Axis powers. In truth p40 is not even unbalanced if you force the Japanese to attack on J3 or later. However, that being said the fact that you would need to force that means it has some balancing issues, however I do believe that some of those issues are based on people who purposely go out and attempt to find exploitive strategies that take advantage of things. (such as the naive people who believed that attacking Japan with Russia on R1 would really give them their NO.)

I suppose in the interest of staying on topic I have found that a J1 minor in Manchuria, J2 minor in French-Indo and an eventual third minor or major in Malaya is great for keeping India in check and eventually moving to take Australia. As for Germany and Italy their is a lot more to learn but a Romanian Major on G1 with 10 art on G2 and 8-10 art on G3 with 8-10 Mechanized on G4 when you attack that can then meet with your advancing troops has proven unstoppable for the Russians. Italy and Germany can work together with bombers and subs to keep the British and US navies from joining together off the coast of Africa. Italians can hit the British and the Germans can hit the US forces. This way the British cannot move until they are defended well enough against the Italian counter attack to them landing in Africa and Germany can make sure that USA will need to sink massive IPC’s into a navy before doing the same.

@dadler12:

Historically the US was “the sleeping giant.” Yes it was still struggling from the depression pre-war, but it still had the highest industrial capacity on Earth. The US helped bankroll almost every allied power pre-war and throughout the war (Lets not forget that America became one of the banks of the world after WW1 and had been heavily involved in lending European countries money since the treaty Versailles). Once the US entered the war it was able to outproduce almost all the other powers combined. The US possessed almost every resource needed for the war, and those it did not have in great quantity (ex. rubber) it could import from it’s sphere of influence within South and Central America. Yes the war was won by the allies, but it was won with US dollars, weapons, and ordinance (except maybe Soviet Russia although it did receive massive amounts of lend-lease weapons early-war and copied American technology whenever it could late-war). Russia may have survived without the US, but not for long. England would’ve fallen as easily as France without lend-lease or if Hitler wasn’t intent on invading Russia. The US defeated Japan almost on it’s own and all while fighting a war on another front. By the end of the war the US fielded more aircraft carriers than all nations combined. The US conducted (with the British) the largest amphibious invasion EVER. The US dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs. Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units. In the Pacific, it is dealing with a monster (Japan) that no other power can fend off unless the US is involved in 30+ IPC per turn builds. Let’s not forget that after turn one Germany makes 70 IPC and around 50-60 IPC per turn after, and by round 3 latest Japan has 50+ IPC. Not to mention the US starts out with very few units compared to the other major powers. Almost every build the US makes (minus air units) will take at least 2 rounds to reach the front. I think the US is represented fairly in-game and fairly historically. If the US is not a beast, it cannot fight a war in the Pacific and Atlantic and the Axis will run all over the board. In fact in most of my games the Allies can only win by playing defense until the US gets involved (just like in real life!) and smart Axis players can knock out both UK capitals by turn 3 and whittle the USSR to 30ish IPC. The Axis needs to wait until turn 3 or 4 to bring the US into the war. When they have in my games, they have won.

Patriot much? I hate to burst your bubble but while the USA was immensely powerful they did not single handedly win the war. The US did not train the majority of your pilots (The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan or BCATP did), they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic and had to rely on Canadian escort. Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US? The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians, the Russians contributed immensely in every way to the European war effort and made it to Berlin before the USA. The Russians produced more tanks than ALL Allied nations combined (Yes that means more than the USA AND ALL OTHER ALLIES combined, actually the Russians LOST almost as many tanks as the other allies produced). I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.

As for the game itself, I believe that the representation is just fine. The one problem if anything is that the USA should have a slightly bigger economy and NOT be able to reach the European or Pacific fronts in a single turn. It should take at least an extra turn to get into combat. I can assume that this was done for playability as apposed to historical accuracy.

As Gargantua and Calvin (I think it was the two of them) said the axis have to think ahead and prepare for plans to delay and push the US troops back if the US comes in without adequate protection on their landing forces.

@Sgt.:

The allies will probably have some better strats next game but Global doesn’t seem horribly imbalanced right now.

I am not calling it unbalanced, I am calling allied players as a whole less experienced or making mistakes when the axis win since in many of the groups the allied strategies are easier to see (for veteran players) and so allow them to be more powerful. I could go into all sorts of Allied strategies that rip apart the axis but this thread is for Axis strategies. Lets try to keep it that way please. I can make another one for allied strategies if the idea is catching on.

I think the game is balanced but from my 13 and a half games experience the axis have won only once and we are all players of good caliber. Therefore some strategies for the axis seem to need some developing. That is what I have been hoping to do and so far have found a few strategies that appear to be working. Some are ones I came up with in my group and others are ones that are either tweaked with information found on this board or ones that we have tweaked that were first found on this board.

@billinjackson:

What about ideas on increasing the advantage to the Axis. Perhaps giving them more tanks at start with Germany and an extra battlship with Japan? - something like that? thoughts and or ideas?

I am hoping to be able to find some strategies that do not require this as I often find that the problem then becomes that you must constantly re-balance the game as new strategies are developed. Right now the Allied strategies are easier to see and so finding some good Axis strategies are all that are needed.

@Gargantua:

I played with Larry Harris’s revised setup.

I have not tried this yet. I have found that while P40 was unbalanced that G40 has been fairly balanced.

I suppose that it would allow you to trick your enemies by being able to go to either hawaii or Africa. However I am not sure that that trick would cause enough of a surprise against the axis to make it worth while. The one use I could see would be to have kept Hawaii and wait for the Japanese fleet to be out of range of Japan. Then jump an invasion fleet from the Atlantic to Hawaii and be able to attack Japan with an Atlantic invasion force before Japan can react any more than adding 10 units to Japan or Japanese waters. It is possible this could work but seems unlikely and so not the wisest use of your money.

Remember that just because the US makes a ton of cash does not mean they can use it without thought. Doing so would allow the Axis to equalize incomes and cause no end to the Allies war.

Our turns are usually an hour to an hour and half depending on if there are new people or how long it has been since some of us last played. Encourage people to have their buys ready before their turn. An experienced player will not change their buy drastically without a VERY good reason. Remember you want the enemy to play YOUR game not the other way around. (That being said their are occasions where you will need to scrap a buy and change things, but otherwise this is a good general rule)