The group I play with is very casual, a lot of drinking and joking around. We don’t have a set time for turns, but you can be assured that the longer you take, the more razzing you’re gonna get for taking a long time. So either your quick and decisive or you will be ridiculed to the point of not being able to concentrate.

I normally maintain peace with the west and go after USSR & China. There’s a possibility of a UK2 DOW with that. I think USSR’s best response is to hold in Buryatia. Those troops aren’t getting back to Moscow in time anyway. I’ve never seen USSR helping out China but maybe it would make sense if there’s no UK2 DOW? The Soviet air force could defend against strategic bombing G3 and also defend Yunnan J3. Never thought about that before.

FIC, if under united UK economy, can be useful for UK. I agree with you that it serves better for Japan but once again, it depends on what Japan attacks first.

I made an axis and allies utility app that includes a battle calculator, and supports Global 1940 rules. On iOS it’s called “Axis & Allies Utility”, on android its called “Utility for Axis & Allies Game”

@Young:

Instead of “rewriting” or “reorganizing” the Europe and Pacific books into one, I have thought hard about the possible creation of a separate book that would only be reference, index, glossary or an epic “Table of Contents” if you will. The Star Wars Rebellion game has something like this and it’s extremely effective, plus this would be a complete original work which would not alter the copyrighted material, but rather add a whole separate document booklet that compliments the original material.

Yes, that sounds like a good practical solution to the problem, and very useful too.

I actually think the US BB should start in SZ26 to give an incentive to this attack which was historically accurate too. Perhaps the cruiser too, but both of those take balance in the wrong direction.

@Young:

I don’t mean to derail the topic, I just want some opinions about my own house rule NOs for G40 balance… please PM me with any comments about the following NOs so that we can keep this thread about Balance Mod.

Thanks.

New & Modified National Objectives

Germany (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if an Axis power controls London

Soviet Union (2 NOs which will replace the original National Prestige NO)
-5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships in sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel as well as London
-5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any original Russian territories

Japan (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if Japan controls all original Chinese territories

United States (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers

UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)

5 IPCs if there are no German submarines anywhere on the board other than in the Baltic Sea (sea zones 113-115), the Black Sea (100), and the Caspian Sea (unnumbered)

ANZAC (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the Allies control Cairo (when at war with Germany/Italy)

Grasshopper, Germany already gets +5 for controlling UK in Balance Mod (its “+5 if Axis control EITHER UK or Egypt” now)

The only issue with Italian Can Opening is that Italy being the poorest major power in the game either has to focus on controlling the Med against UK and France, or can open for Germany. And I honestly prefer the idea of Italy dealing with the allies’ naval power.

I can’t say the best plans as Axis as I am usually USSR when I play but when you use the term Asymmetric Warfare, you do know that means when two armies that are not equal fight each other like a professional army vs a militia would be an example for Asymmetric Warfare.

@Argothair:

You’re correct, and I apologize for the error, but my basic question stands: Britain starts with two Atlantic transports. Is there a way to reliably kill them both, take Normandy, take France, kill at least one of Britain’s two main fleets, and not lose 8+ German planes in the attempt, all on G1?

No, is the short answer, or at least you shouldn’t try.

Letting the SZ110 fleet escape might allow you to accomplish that but you’d rather sink that than tie up 4+ planes on sinking two ships.

@Argothair:

My play group is very considerate about trying to (a) identify when the game isn’t much worth playing anymore, and then (2) accurately describe the likely outcome of the game.

Right, like there are no hard-and-fast rules about “oh, you lost your capital, or you lost Cairo, or you’re making 30 IPCs less per turn, so it’s game over.” Instead we look at the board and try to see if there are battles or campaigns coming up that are likely (>10%?) to make a dramatic impact on the state of the game, especially campaigns where the underdog is going on the offensive, or where the apparent favorite is in danger of being pushed back if they lose a key attack. E.g. it matters a lot whether Germany has one stack next door to Moscow, with nothing to reinforce it if that stack is destroyed, vs. a steady stream of reinforcements and a huge stack next to Moscow. In the former case, Moscow could recover if it fends off a German battle with 80% odds to take Moscow. In the latter case, even if Moscow pulls out that 20% from the dice, they will still have 80% odds to die one turn later, so it’s not a big deal. The former position is interesting and worth playing on if we can manage to find time for a second session; the latter position is not interesting and the game should be called.

When we call a game, we don’t insist on unconditional surrender. Instead, we try to agree on what the game looks like. For example, “the Allies are way ahead, but the Axis still have a slight chance.” Or, “It’s hard to say for sure who’s winning, but it looks like the Axis have a slight edge.” Sometimes we don’t always precisely agree – one side might claim the Allies are ahead by “a little” while the other side might claim the Allies have “a significant lead,” but so far we have always at least agreed on which side has the edge, even if not by how much.

Hey!  I am in your play group and what you are saying is…. basically right.  Although have we played global together?  Don’t recall honestly

If the US could build even airbases and naval bases on Allied territories, that would change the game significantly. For example, if USSR takes Norway, building an airbase there connects planes in a single turn to Moscow. Similar with an airbase on Transjordan.

We use the army pieces from the 2008 RISK as movement trackers.
I have seen a lot of people use the cities from this game as Industrial complexes and such.
The army pieces are arrows with either 1 chevron or 3 chevrons. So when we move something we place the corresponding arrow piece. Once all the units movement points are spent we flip the arrow upside down.

Welcome back knp7765!

But you basically saying that Axis will loose the game :-D.
It will be as you described it.
The US will be on a rampage in the Pac. while Russia doesn’t need much support from her Allies friends. Just UK to lock up the Med. and bomb Italy back to ancient Rome.

Thanks so much!!

Oh ok thanks.

My original calculations did not even consider that Japan has to repair the damage it causes. That extra cost means that over two rounds of strat bombing Japan is at around zero net-gain even if no strat bombers were lost in the process.

Marsh

ShadowHAwk:

That is why I think my victory conditions are better.  :-) (Btw, I refer to these conditions as the “1 and a 1/2” conditions).

@Baron:

@ShadowHAwk:

The american public and congress did not want to declare war but the president and some staff did.
Without the attack on pearl and the public cry for revenge i doubt it that the congress would even declare war because the public would not like it at all.

I always find it funny that Americans judge the japanese attack on pearl as a violation while at the same time they where violating the rules even more.

But history didnt work out that way, japan did attack the US after being provoked plenty and germany just declared war on the US ( but hitler did more stupid things )

Probably Hitler was hoping that his Japanese allies would do the same against Russia and Stalin.
He would have needed that oriental soviet troops be stuck with Japan.

Yeah, he was hoping that would have happened. If he didn’t declare war on the US, then the War would have been separate still.

I think you just made your plan worse.

I pointed out that the attack on G3 isn’t strong enough to take London. You have just made your G3 attack weaker, which means that london definlity isn’t falling.