@ProtesT:
I like to join playing some more 42 2E game via forum :lol: if anyone is interested…
It’s been close to a year since I played 42.2 but I wouldn’t mind my first forum game being this edition.
Good to hear back…Would you like to be Axis or Allies side? If you like to be Axis please PM your email and we can start one soon. :lol:
PM sent. Forgot to ask about your bid as Allies. How much do you need?
I like to join playing some more 42 2E game via forum :lol: if anyone is interested…
It’s been close to a year since I played 42.2 but I wouldn’t mind my first forum game being this edition.
Still looking for an opponent? Would love A&A Global '40 2nd edition but will also play 1942.2
Yes, I was online last night and watched a game round or two of a couple global 40 games. Just to get a sneak peek of what strategies are being used. I will see if I can find someone to set up a play by forum game against. Looking forward to a game against different opponents other then my couple friends who play. More importantly, and I might get blown out of the water, but I’d like to play against some skilled opponents. Just to see where I stand.
Thanks again for your help. The videos were especially helpful
Was going to post this in the “Play Boardgames Thread” but noticed that is just game summaries posted there so hopefully it gets noticed here. Question is, is it possible to play someone online on TripleA but not play a full game in one day? I want to try my luck against players around the world but don’t have the time for a 12-14 hour sitting. Would like to play Global '40 2nd edition.
Let him play russia or anzac next turn at least for russia you can remove all ships from the game besides if he still refuses to think and buy ships start playing online.
Anzac well he needs ships anyway so not that bad there.
Last time he played Russia, he purchased two Cruisers R1. With the mentality of “Since Russia is predictable and does the same thing always I will do this”. Anzac would probably work except it would be pretty boring to just play them. To give the UK as well is a bit sketchy if you are partnered with him as any repeated builds in the ocean will be sunk by German air.
Let him play russia or anzac next turn at least for russia you can remove all ships from the game besides if he still refuses to think and buy ships start playing online.
There’s only two major powers that building a fleet is either questionable or insane, and that’s Germany and/or Russia…
Let this guy play the US, UK or Japan… and if he wants to build ships, that’s not really a bad thing with any of them.
As for letting him play Russia… well, even he should realize that ships aren’t really a thing for the Russians… or you’ll have one of the most entertaining games of A&A you’ve ever played with the “Soviet Fleet” strategy in-play before your eyes.
Just keep this guy away from playing Germany… any other power should be fine for him with his style of play.
Last game he was the entire axis powers, as is the usual in our games because we are a max of three players with him. As Japan he built all muscle ships. The starting three transports were is only TT that game on that side. Zero inland factory. With the UK helping China due to no threat on India, China was collecting 14 or 15 on the income tracker minus their Burma road objective so in the 20 IPC range when they collect. He did Pearl Harbour J4 I think… Not seeing that it was sandwiched between San Fran and Sydney. He was successful but the US counter wiped him out. So letting him play Japan is a no I think.
Playing the UK I mentioned the problem above and that hurts whoever his partner is. Giving him the States I think would be the scariest move of all. The allies need the States to be good. The US needs transports fully loaded on whatever side they go. He has yet to play the US/Anzac/China combination and I am dreading that day. He just doesn’t understand that the game is won on land in the end. Ships don’t capture IPCs they only destroy TUV.
If he only builds cruisers and battleships with the US then you lose the war as allies pretty quickly, same if he does the same with japan.
Really if he spends 60ipcs on ships in the 2nd round and does not have any transports with that fleet for something usefull he is an idiot.
Building a few subs each round ( 1-3 ) to deter an US landing and to convoy the UK could be ok-ish but building 2 carriers and a cruiser and some other stuff with germany. That isnt even strange it is stupid.
You summed it up nicely.
Sadly, myself as well as my other playing partner are considering kicking him out of our games. Which is sad because he is a good friend and loves the game. This might seem drastic but from our point of view one of us has to be his partner as the Allies which is a disadvantage. Or we play together when he takes the axis and completely annihilate him which becomes boring. We do have the odd time when a fourth player plays and he is a very strong player but mostly we are three. He understands the game mechanics and certain basic strategies but does not plan well for his end game. As for myself I will enter every game with a plan on what I want to do and unless I have to react to something different I purchase and move accordingly. I think he purchases and moves based on what he is doing that turn. He realizes you do need TTs but he says those are later purchases. It’s too long of a wait. I might seem like a A-hole because of this but I’ve really tried to help. Sent him links to YG’s videos as well as pages on these forums about strategies and moves. He absolutely refuses to use “someone else’s strategy”. I do understand his point, axis and allies is about doing your strategy and trying to win with whatever you want to do. But you will never get better unless you learn from mistakes of your own as well as other people’s ideas. If he refuses to do both, we don’t have fun when he is in the game.
@Caesar:
But I never seen someone build the Graf Zepplin and not follow with transports.
Try two… That’s what my particular opponent did in the game I started this thread for. Turn one he bought some tanks and infantry and planes. I’m like “OK let’s get ready Russia”. Then turn two he spent 60 something dollars in the sea. Zero transports. So the two carriers plus some subs and I think he even added a Cruiser in there. He refuses to listen to anything to make him better, he’s the best. The German navy stayed inside the Danish Strait and killed the Russian sub and Cruiser. He moved it out turn 6 to take an empty Scotland which UK took back on its move.
Needless to say, the allies won turn 7 when he quit. Rome was captured by the UK, Tokyo by the USA and France liberated by UK as well. USA was moving into Europe coast turn 8. Russia was next to Germany but couldn’t take it for a couple turns due to poor dicing. I want to remove all the ships from my game for whatever nation he plays next. But like he says “I don’t need YG’s videos or your opinion, it’s all about the luck of the dice”.
I need some competition there is only so many times my friend and I can play one on one without this particular player.
Thank you Marsh. I was leaning towards the slow movers first but wanted to see support for my initial thoughts first to see if I was thinking right. You confirmed that unless others chime in with different reasons but I think you are right here. However I tend to lean towards a 7Inf/4Art purchase rather then 12 Inf. Simply because rather then rolling 12 @1 on offence I can roll 3 @1 and 8 @2 at the cost of losing only one defending unit @2 on defence.
The player I will be partnering up against is someone who just loves navy warfare and has benefited from playing with a very strong partner the last couple games. He believes he is invincible. He basically is stating that he will take the axis and wipe my partner and I out with zero problems. What his downfall will be is too many muscle ships and not enough transports, that is on both sides. As I said to him many times to no avail, "a great navy is good but with out loaded transports you are useless because ships can’t grow legs and start taking IPC value territories. After SeaLion is a bust he will be a bust, at least I am betting on this.
Hello fello gamers. I have a game coming up where my opponent who is controlling Germany is a ship builder. I will be controlling UK, France and the Russians and besides stacking London for full defence, which is an obvious, I would like to make sure his ship purchases will be costly on the Eastern Front. I am open to any suggestions. Should I go all tanks first few turns? Tanks and Mechs? Throw in some air power perhaps or still stick with the Inf/Art build first few turns? What has worked for you guys? I would really like to show this player that the Russians are no joke if he ignores them.
Hopefully someone notices this new post in the sticky. On the ArtsCow website during the purchasing phase of the order it shows a picture of one German “NO” card with the quantity of 1 and it says it’s $16.99 Canadian plus shipping to purchase this. Before I do so, I need to make sure that it’s $16.99 for the entire 54 card deck or just for one card out of the deck.
Keeping in mind Grasshopper has a new deck coming out, I’d still like this in the meantime.
Really cool looking pieces, however I will bring up on negative… Where are you going to fit them? During set up I slide in the ICs after the units and I’m usually pushing placed units with the IC to get it into the territory for most places. Let’s take Rome for instance. The territory is cluttered as it is. The two adjacent sea zones are full not to mention Germany is typically going to send a fighter there before Italy gets to move units out. I don’t see a place for a Roman Coliseum I really don’t.
Overall however, the strategy is kinda flawed as well. If you make Italy rage, and if UK doesn’t commit to the defense, it can kill your fleet and forces in Africa. Then, you begin the game with a minor power having a ton of money that it might like to spend on strategic assets (ie buying a new fleet) but we’ve seen again and again that no matter how much Italy builds up in the Med, it isn’t going to be adequate after US5. Italy will grab the oil and north Africa, but German is permanently neutered by the fact it never got a threshold income to buy a stack of tanks or arty with, and so killing Moscow early is off the table.
I agree with the last part of this. A few of my friends argue this same strategy idea for the Italian Rage and I gladly offer them to try it however I want the allies alone. I don’t want any false ideas that it worked but in reality it’s cause of a over passive Russian player. I am a firm believer that this strategy isn’t a good idea. Germany needs the money more then Italy does. There is ONE VC in Africa and THREE in Russia. Italy cannot gain an axis victory with German help.
Why not bid a DD and sub for 14 IPC’s? I too wouldn’t allow t if I were the axis player. It seems to me from being one step away from making your own set up
When playing TripleA you have to remember that some of the more “technical” rules like this one, you are responsible to know the rules for and follow them. The A&A rulebook isn’t the greatest tool to use however as it isn’t very organized, you need two rulebook and the wording can leave certain rules up for debate. In this case however, if your opponent(in this case the UK Pacific) has purchased units and is capable of placing them then that player MUST place them unless he is unable to. The player cannot simply choose to not place units. If Calcutta is damaged and he cannot place some or all of them, then this would be the only exception.
Also another example, say if your opponent is playing as UK Europe and buys units for London but London is damaged, he cannot simply return them. They must be placed unless unable to which means they would have to go in Canada or South Africa or if any other factories have been built unless they are all damaged to the point they cannot mobilize anything.
I’ve thought about this because many people do this with chess. Unlike chess however this game isn’t as simple as moving a queen this way or your king that way. This game(especially global) is more about misconception and disguising your strategy as best as possible. Take the Spanish beachhead for instance. Your opponent cannot know it’s coming or it won’t work. So how would you go about playing the USA and setting it up for three turns but at the same time you play Germany for three turns and you can’t be there thinking “I wonder where that fleet is going to land”? You know exactly where it’s going. I don’t see it being possible to play a fair game with any misconception what so ever.
In a future update I would like to see YG’s Victory Token house rule incorporated if possible. I also think if there were to ever be a 3rd edition of global then these victory conditions should be at least an OOB optional rule.
I voted for the strategic bombing here tho. Always feel I’m being robbed somehow when conducting these. I feel like I’m playing against one of the players I play on the actual board game and if he’s attack with say 25 units he grabs 25 dice , throws them into the dice tower and starts saying “all these 1s and 2s are infantry, 3s are my tanks and fighters, etc”. It might not be that extreme on the software I was just giving an example.
Infantry
Rolling 6d6:
(1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6)
Infantry + Artillary
Rolling 12d6:
(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6)
Tanks
Rolling 6d6:
(3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5)
Tactical Bombers
Rolling 5d6:
(3, 3, 6, 6, 6)
Strategic Bombers
Rolling 2d6:
(4, 5)