Thanks for the report and the thread!
I do believe you guys played with at least one rules mistake: Scout Cars cannot take enemy controlled territories. Attacks against even empty controlled territories are still declared attacks (and can be opposed by minefields), and the Scout Car “Hit and Run” ability forces them to retreat after the first round of combat so that they can never move in to take control.
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Bids:
@tmartin the crazy thing is that the game doesn’t feel that much different even with ~40PU bid. The Allies will more easily control the Atlantic, Med, and Africa. China will be more difficult to exterminate. Moscow will survive for a few more turns.
Otherwise the Axis can proceed as normal with India and Moscow eventually falling due to the overwhelming power of Axis air power.
The game changes dramatically at 60 PUs when China becomes so powerful they can drive Japan off of mainland Asia (or least credibly threaten that).
I find the bid conversation quite fascinating.
Given what you say, wouldn’t that possibly be a sign the bids are being used in the wrong place? If controlling the Med/Africa doesn’t prevent the Axis key path to victory shouldn’t more of the bid be spent in maybe China/USSR instead?
The Vichy French units are basically static until turn 7, then they defend against the Allied landings and either switch to Free French or are eliminated. The Free French units then activate at the same time as the USA forces, and the USA player can produce new ones in Oran within limits. No French trucks are needed or provided in the normal piece limit, the French use supply moved by USA trucks or don’t use any at all when their “self-sufficient” characteristic is in effect. The “extra” bag of pieces has some to use for player variants.
I think the ANZAC and Free French forces fighting with the 8th Army are all abstracted out as UK forces which is fine by me. There were certainly political considerations with those forces in real life, but for game purposes they were all under a unified command.
I had originally figured (and heard at Gen Con) that it was a manufacturing error and I still think that might be the case. However, Gary from Board Game Nation in his unboxing YouTube video makes a case that the jeeps are appropriately sized as scaled to the German armored car mini and that the size was intentional. Even if that’s true their size is really annoying and I also would love a replacement. It would be fun to learn the true history of the minis though, whether it was in fact an error or intentional.
FYI there is a similar thread on the Boardgamegeek forum:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3480001/british-strategy-for-full-campaign
I’ll cross-post here what I posted there, because I am also struggling with UK strategy for the first half of the full game:
I’ve slowly come to realize just how incredibly weak the UK situation is at the start of the Rommel’s Last Push scenario.
My huge caveat is that I’ve only played solo (sadly), but I’ve managed to see the Axis player take Cairo quite a few times even against what seems to be competent UK play.
In terms of the ground war, the fundamental problem I’ve seen is that the UK only starts with 12 IPC worth of ground units in the “pipeline” for the first 3 rounds. I typically sequence that as 4 infantry, then tank/AT/infantry, then tank/artillery/infantry. No matter how you spend it that’s only 36 IPC of units arriving for the first 3 turns, and against that the UK will be losing quite a few units during those same turns. That’s also against the Germans/Italians getting over 40 IPC a turn right away (going up when they take Benghazi and Tobruk). The German/Italian ground units also come into play much quicker.
Mersa Brega is annihilated on the first turn and Benghazi is indefensible on Turn 2 unless UK throws everything in there, which then means a likely defeat there will probably also lead to the rapid fall of Tobruk; there just aren’t enough UK land units arriving to replace losses. The German/Italian armor using flank attacks and the superior Axis air force is incredibly strong and can melt even strong-looking UK defenses. Defending Tobruk in strength makes sense to take advantage of the fortifications there, and a few more forces will arrive before it can be realistically attacked, but it’s still very unlikely to hold in my experience. Cairo can come under pressure by Turn 5/6 quite easily. By that point the Axis can be taking in over 50 IPC a turn to the UK only getting a little over 20, making it surprisingly feasible for the Germans and Italians to set up a 1-2 punch, usually the Italians attacking first to weaken and then German mobile/air units coming in from 2 spaces away for the kill.
The UK will collect Malta’s income on the first turn, giving it a big pile of IPC on Round 1 which feels great. The temptation is to spend this on a strong navy or fighters for Malta but I’ve found either way this tends to get countered by Axis air/submarines and also results in too much weakening of the UK ground forces. Those ground units purchased Turn 1 won’t actually land till Turn 4 by which point the situation near Tobruk can be very poor, and Mersa Matruh is a terrible defensive position as it can be attacked from 3 directions.
All in all I think Willem’s advice above is really sound. The only ones I struggle with are his #4 and #6. #4 can be foiled by a single sea unit and is also a little sketchy at times in terms of payoff, though I probably need to experiment more; being able to knock out a needed supply token or German tank could be a big deal. #6 goes back to my problem above: you need Malta to have the income to afford defending it, or else you are spending IPCs that should instead have been spent on ground units you will need 3 rounds from now.
It seems that trying to defend Malta but failing is the quickest way to lose the game as the UK. Not defending Malta leads to a very unfavorable attrition situation on the ground. Successfully Defending Malta even intermittently likely diverts so much IPC to naval/air units that Cairo is under risk. I’ve yet to find a good solution to this dilemma.
I am making no claim that any of this is a result of an imbalanced design, or that it detracts from my enjoyment of the game. Playing solo is especially problematic because you can get stuck in a repetitive rut of strategy. I’m really enjoying the puzzle and look forward to reading people’s perspectives on it.
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Bids:
@tmartin the crazy thing is that the game doesn’t feel that much different even with ~40PU bid. The Allies will more easily control the Atlantic, Med, and Africa. China will be more difficult to exterminate. Moscow will survive for a few more turns.
Otherwise the Axis can proceed as normal with India and Moscow eventually falling due to the overwhelming power of Axis air power.
The game changes dramatically at 60 PUs when China becomes so powerful they can drive Japan off of mainland Asia (or least credibly threaten that).
I find the bid conversation quite fascinating.
Given what you say, wouldn’t that possibly be a sign the bids are being used in the wrong place? If controlling the Med/Africa doesn’t prevent the Axis key path to victory shouldn’t more of the bid be spent in maybe China/USSR instead?
FYI there is a similar thread on the Boardgamegeek forum:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3480001/british-strategy-for-full-campaign
I’ll cross-post here what I posted there, because I am also struggling with UK strategy for the first half of the full game:
I’ve slowly come to realize just how incredibly weak the UK situation is at the start of the Rommel’s Last Push scenario.
My huge caveat is that I’ve only played solo (sadly), but I’ve managed to see the Axis player take Cairo quite a few times even against what seems to be competent UK play.
In terms of the ground war, the fundamental problem I’ve seen is that the UK only starts with 12 IPC worth of ground units in the “pipeline” for the first 3 rounds. I typically sequence that as 4 infantry, then tank/AT/infantry, then tank/artillery/infantry. No matter how you spend it that’s only 36 IPC of units arriving for the first 3 turns, and against that the UK will be losing quite a few units during those same turns. That’s also against the Germans/Italians getting over 40 IPC a turn right away (going up when they take Benghazi and Tobruk). The German/Italian ground units also come into play much quicker.
Mersa Brega is annihilated on the first turn and Benghazi is indefensible on Turn 2 unless UK throws everything in there, which then means a likely defeat there will probably also lead to the rapid fall of Tobruk; there just aren’t enough UK land units arriving to replace losses. The German/Italian armor using flank attacks and the superior Axis air force is incredibly strong and can melt even strong-looking UK defenses. Defending Tobruk in strength makes sense to take advantage of the fortifications there, and a few more forces will arrive before it can be realistically attacked, but it’s still very unlikely to hold in my experience. Cairo can come under pressure by Turn 5/6 quite easily. By that point the Axis can be taking in over 50 IPC a turn to the UK only getting a little over 20, making it surprisingly feasible for the Germans and Italians to set up a 1-2 punch, usually the Italians attacking first to weaken and then German mobile/air units coming in from 2 spaces away for the kill.
The UK will collect Malta’s income on the first turn, giving it a big pile of IPC on Round 1 which feels great. The temptation is to spend this on a strong navy or fighters for Malta but I’ve found either way this tends to get countered by Axis air/submarines and also results in too much weakening of the UK ground forces. Those ground units purchased Turn 1 won’t actually land till Turn 4 by which point the situation near Tobruk can be very poor, and Mersa Matruh is a terrible defensive position as it can be attacked from 3 directions.
All in all I think Willem’s advice above is really sound. The only ones I struggle with are his #4 and #6. #4 can be foiled by a single sea unit and is also a little sketchy at times in terms of payoff, though I probably need to experiment more; being able to knock out a needed supply token or German tank could be a big deal. #6 goes back to my problem above: you need Malta to have the income to afford defending it, or else you are spending IPCs that should instead have been spent on ground units you will need 3 rounds from now.
It seems that trying to defend Malta but failing is the quickest way to lose the game as the UK. Not defending Malta leads to a very unfavorable attrition situation on the ground. Successfully Defending Malta even intermittently likely diverts so much IPC to naval/air units that Cairo is under risk. I’ve yet to find a good solution to this dilemma.
I am making no claim that any of this is a result of an imbalanced design, or that it detracts from my enjoyment of the game. Playing solo is especially problematic because you can get stuck in a repetitive rut of strategy. I’m really enjoying the puzzle and look forward to reading people’s perspectives on it.
Thanks for the report and the thread!
I do believe you guys played with at least one rules mistake: Scout Cars cannot take enemy controlled territories. Attacks against even empty controlled territories are still declared attacks (and can be opposed by minefields), and the Scout Car “Hit and Run” ability forces them to retreat after the first round of combat so that they can never move in to take control.
I mostly just find it frustrating that US can’t move ships from E Coast to UK in 1 turn even with Naval Base bonus. It discourages historical outcomes, and encourages ahistorical outcomes (US building up forces on the tiny rock of Gibraltar instead). It’s one of my biggest complaints with the 1940 board, alongside Northern Italy being able to nonsensically access Central France.
I had originally figured (and heard at Gen Con) that it was a manufacturing error and I still think that might be the case. However, Gary from Board Game Nation in his unboxing YouTube video makes a case that the jeeps are appropriately sized as scaled to the German armored car mini and that the size was intentional. Even if that’s true their size is really annoying and I also would love a replacement. It would be fun to learn the true history of the minis though, whether it was in fact an error or intentional.
The Vichy French units are basically static until turn 7, then they defend against the Allied landings and either switch to Free French or are eliminated. The Free French units then activate at the same time as the USA forces, and the USA player can produce new ones in Oran within limits. No French trucks are needed or provided in the normal piece limit, the French use supply moved by USA trucks or don’t use any at all when their “self-sufficient” characteristic is in effect. The “extra” bag of pieces has some to use for player variants.
I think the ANZAC and Free French forces fighting with the 8th Army are all abstracted out as UK forces which is fine by me. There were certainly political considerations with those forces in real life, but for game purposes they were all under a unified command.
Has there ever been a push to re-open the Alpha process and create a new, more balanced “standard” set-up? It’s hard not to view requiring a bid of ~50 for the same side consistently as a significant failure in game balance.
I realize that bids are more necessarily for skilled players than unskilled, but it still seems odd that it’s never been formalized. Do skilled players (of which I am not) actually enjoy the bidding process as part of the game?
Yes, bring on the 2nd edition review!
Thanks for trying them out, and PLEASE help me correct the errors that you find! Just post them here or on BGG and I’ll upload new versions as soon as they are fixed.
Also, I like the idea of adding in a sheet or two summarizing some of the rules changes to submarines, SBR, etc. I plan on doing this. Have any suggestions of things that should be covered, let me know.
Also, keep in mind the NO descriptions are meant to be reminders, not an exhaustive description. They should be helpful but may not explain everything needed due to space constraints. However, if you are finding any of them misleading then let me know.
EDIT: Ok I did a check and found a couple major errors, my sincere apologies to anyone who printed these! I have taken down the file and submitted a new one that I believe is 100% accurate, its waiting for approval.
EDIT: February 3, ok new files have been approved and are available at the link above.
Hi guys,
I know there are some other setup sheets for Alpha +2 out there but I thought I would put mine up. These are created with Microsoft Word and suitable to be printed on a normal color printer using standard sheets of printer paper. They could be laminated or placed in sheet protectors if desired. UK has two sheets, one for the Europe map and one for the Pacific map.
There are some other great set-up sheets out there and I’m not looking to compete with those. However, these might appeal to a lot of folks because of the simple format, larger font size, extra information, and because they print on a normal sized sheet of printer paper with minimal ink expenditure.
The setup sheets also have National Objectives on them as well as a few other reminders. They use size 14 Bookman Old Style font, and the lettering size should be very readable for most folks.
Check them out and please give me feedback.
I’ve uploaded the files to Boardgamegeek, I can’t figure out how to upload them here.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/63361/global-1940-setup-sheets-updated-alpha-version