Sure, take your time with it. I’m out on vacation, so probably can’t make a move for another 10 days or so anyways.
League Global 1940 2nd edition non-ranked Team Tournament
-
Here’s how AI synthesized my setup ideas, just for fun
🛡 G40 2v2 Variant: Coordinated Resistance
A historical balance tweak for two-player teams in Axis & Allies Global 1940
📜 Purpose
This variant addresses inherent coordination challenges in Allied 2v2 team formats. Since Germany and Japan benefit from more focused strategic alignment, this proposal introduces modest unit boosts for the Allies to reflect historical deployments, improve survivability, and sustain competitive pacing.
🎲 Setup Adjustments
Each change adheres to the “1 unit per territory/zone” guideline.
🌊 Pacific Theater
Nation Territory/Zone Unit Change Historical Rationale China Szechwan +1 AA Simulate Flying China Yunnan +1 AA tiger China Hunan +1 AA devastation of China Shensi +1 AA Japanese air China Chahar +1 infantry Represents local resistance and rearguard China Anhwe +1 infantry Delays Axis advance toward central China China Hopei +1 infantry Strengthens northern front line UK (Pacific) India +1 infantry Helps sustain Burma Road defense 🌍 Europe Theater
Nation Territory/Zone Unit Change Historical Rationale UK SZ 101 +1 destroyer Bolsters Atlantic convoy defense UK Egypt +1 infantry Reinforces defense against Italy UK SZ 91 +1 destroyer Slows Italian fleet mobility UK SZ 110 +1 destroyer Adds protection vs German naval threat UK SZ 71 (S. Africa) +1 transport Enhances reach into East Africa / India USSR Ukraine +1 infantry Bolsters defense on Dnieper front USSR Russia (Moscow) +1 infantry Strategic depth for capital defense USSR East Poland +1 fighter Reflects pre-Barbarossa Soviet air presence
🧠 Gameplay Rationale
- Historical Anchoring: Each unit placement references plausible pre-June 1940 deployments or logistical positioning.
- Balance Correction: Enhances Allied survivability without nullifying Axis initiative.
- Team Dynamics: Supports distributed Allied coordination across two players, mitigating decision friction.
📝 Submission Notes
This variant was inspired by recurring imbalances in competitive 2v2 matchups and aligns with existing tournament bid frameworks (40–60 IPCs typical). It’s designed to remain compatible with official rules, requiring only setup tweaks rather than structural overhaul.
-
Very cool concept. I had always just thought we’d do the tried and tested bidding for Allies, but open to new ideas. How were you envisioning sides be chosen, coin flip? Or do we run it 2x, each team plays 2 games swapping sides the 2nd time?
My initial thought on the setup, is subtracting the 2 planes from Japan may have a bigger impact than anticipated. Japan usually just needs to buy Carriers to defend the Pacific, but lacking the planes will be costlier early on.
-
I love it. Doesn’t wreck the initial Allied disaster. Yet strengthens operation ricochet.
-
The current bid system is stale, historically inaccurate and spoils the brilliance of Larry’s set.
I have issues with Larry’s set up. Japan is really on a 41 war footing. Germany should be completely concentrated on taking France and not ending up in a 4 year stalemate. France could be strengthened with 6 more infantry, 1 fighter, 1 anti-aircraft. 93 with a sub.
I love what you did Gamerman01!
The other possibility 10 more infantry for Russia, 6 more China. 6 more Britian (2 in London, Africa, Asia).
-
Thanks guys!! Means a lot
I’d say coin flip unless one side objects, then they could bid starting off that set up I put out there, but it’s not a very competitive little tournament so coin flip is encouraged.
@Booper You are not the first to tell me that Japan needs every single plane they start with so you are in very good company! (I mean in times past, not others commenting on this tournament setup)
If I don’t take away those planes, I’d be adding about 20 more to the Allies, albeit not necessarily in the most strategic spots. Some people hate the idea of taking anything off the board for starting setups, I understand.
I am not one of those people. But if you’d like to propose an alternative to two less Japanese planes (they have like 19 + 2 bombers?!) I did put this out there for ideas.
Thank you for being patient, guys, we’ll get 2 more and then could start. I’m not in the arm-twisting phase yet. Feel free to recruit.
-
@gamerman01 i’m from Allied headquarters so take the planes
-
I wanted to take more.
-
Hey I’m not too sure whats going on here but I would be willing to play in any team games! I do not have any teammates right now though.
-
OK, I can add you to the sign up and if you’re in, we only need 1 more
Don’t worry about a pairing, you’ll get it
Although we could start and the one side of the bracket just wait,
Let’s wait for the 8th for more options for making teams -
G gamerman01 referenced this topic
-
Oysteilo and mikawagunichi are not paired yet, and we’ll have one more player before we start, so 3 possibilities for each of you
-
@gamerman01 said in League Global 1940 2nd edition non-ranked Team Tournament:
Thanks guys!! Means a lot
I’d say coin flip unless one side objects, then they could bid starting off that set up I put out there, but it’s not a very competitive little tournament so coin flip is encouraged.
@Booper You are not the first to tell me that Japan needs every single plane they start with so you are in very good company! (I mean in times past, not others commenting on this tournament setup)
If I don’t take away those planes, I’d be adding about 20 more to the Allies, albeit not necessarily in the most strategic spots. Some people hate the idea of taking anything off the board for starting setups, I understand.
I am not one of those people. But if you’d like to propose an alternative to two less Japanese planes (they have like 19 + 2 bombers?!) I did put this out there for ideas.
How about giving China a tac, instead of taking the 2 planes away from Japan. I think this would be (A) more historically accurate, as there were enough Flying Tigers to fill an aircraft carrier (represented in game by 2 planes), (B) give China more offensive options (planes fight in 2 separate battles or together), and © be something never before played in OOB!
Just a thought - open to feedback as well.
-
Fascinating idea,
When I looked at the flying tigers years ago, the thing is they didn’t find in coordination with Chinese infantry, they were more strategic bombers going after bases and such.
Looking it up again now,
Mission and Combat Role
The Flying Tigers were tasked with:- Defending Chinese cities from Japanese air raids, especially Kunming and Chongqing.
- Escorting supply convoys along the Burma Road.
- Engaging Japanese aircraft in tactical air battles using hit-and-run diving attacks, exploiting the P-40’s speed and durability.
Combat Achievements
- First combat: December 20, 1941, over Kunming—downed 9 Japanese bombers.
- Total enemy aircraft destroyed: 296 in just seven months of combat.
- Losses: Only 14 AVG pilots were lost in combat during that period.
Looks like they kicked butt, but they weren’t used in coordination with Chinese ground forces and their targets weren’t Japanese ground units.
Looks like I could make an argument to take the flying tigers off the board, and another Japanese fighter along with it?!You can tell an American designed A&A sometimes lol
-
How about this alternative - sprinkle 4 AA guns for China - say in Szechuan, Yunnan, Hunan, and Shensi.
This could result in some J1 losses of Japanese planes, and we wouldn’t need to take away the Japanese fighters.
For some reason my preference is not to subtract from the initial setup, but to add to it.
Just brainstorming some ideas here. Fun discussion!
-
I think @gamerman01 suggested set up favours allies. Seems that way, but i also thought a bid was required for axis in BM3/4 when it first came out. Gamerman01 knows what he is talking about so lets just go with his set up. I encourage that, but all discussions are fun and ood to read,
-
Yes, I agree that it appears to favor allies as well. Was going to suggest we solicit feedback from some of the top players, like the finalists of OOB for the last few years.
This could be the beginnings of a very nice “standard” OOB setup that @crockett36 has been advocating for over the years.
-
<sigh> you are among the vast majority of players, booper, I am the weird one.
I will fully adopt your idea to do 4 Chinese AA and leave the Japanese planes alone. I’m not sure you said this, but that kind of simulates the tigers’ effect, and we’ll just let Larry have his purple planes.
You guys make me feel great. Yes it favors the Allies on purpose, because in team play the Allies suffer a bit from coordination between players, like all A&A games.
Nice standard setup?! I’m flattered. I know I didn’t put in as much thought and it’s not as sophisticated as @AndrewAAGamer so I just want to say right now it’s not on that level.
But I’m very pleased Andrew independently has similar ideas to me as to strengthening India and China since the Axis are favored in the game and therefore we can be more historical/realistic in that way.
Always remembering that there are real limits to making A&A historical but that when you could go two different ways, why not lean historical -
I edited the table to change -2 air to +4 AA
I’m not going to sit and think about how that affects everything,
The tourney is for fun, as is the setup -
@oysteilo @mikawagunichi @Jacob16
Another idea is 1 of you find a partner for yourself and the other 2 pair up! -
@gamerman01 Ill battle
-
We rounded up 8 players for OOB in 2025! That’s not easy!
Now it’s a mad scramble for a partner. Remember it’s just two games if you win the first, it’s a little informal fun team tourney, so you don’t need to do a background check and check satellite and AI to find a suitable partner.
You see the other 3 I tagged just now -
You four need to pair off (I sound like a gym teacher)
And we’ll RNG the first round matchupsShoot I’m inclined to RNG whether you get Axis or Allies, too. Prevents whining about how to do bids and such.
Suggested Topics
