Bob_A_Mickelson's AAG40 National Production/Objectives and Setup Charts

@Gargantua:

@Marshmallow:

but again my perspective on Sea Lion is that an early Sea Lion is a losing move under most circumstances.

Marsh

Im glad to see that your perspective has upgraded from �always a losing move� to �a losing move under most circumstances�. :)

I look forward to the day it evolves again to �under SOME circumstances� :)

:roll: :evil: :-D

The game in Seattle was very instructive.

A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control

@Baron:

@Young:

Actually, scrap that… I love the simplicity of building new factories on victory cities only. However, I did use your fixed setup idea for a few things and changed how factories are downgraded, checkout the changes to the profiles in post #1.

As far as I understand, you cannot buy any Factory.
But, is it possible to the initial owner to upgrade an IC to his former status once it has been downgraded in a Major Factory due to an earlier conquest?
If not, then there is no need to provide the price of any Factory, this should be deleted to avoid ambiguity.

I have since moved this topic to house rules, there you will find an updated rule discription that will answer your questions… I’m getting very excited about this idea and I’ll be making a YouTube video this weekend explaining it.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34493.0

Thank you for your last post.

The jerk part was a little pot shot at your username. My apologies.

@innocentbystander:

Question for the newbie.  The UK’s one and only national objective, hold on to all their territories in their European economy (and West India has been traded for British Columbia.)  What if (by chance) Italy captures Gibraltar?  That isn’t worth anything (economically) in the European theater.  But if valueless territory (and that one alone) is in the hands of Italy, that voids the UK’s one and only national objective, correct?

Yes, UK must hold all its Europe territories, including ones without income.

j1 gets you borneo easy.  also, you drop that BB before it gets soakers.  other than that it’s sure not as appealing as in p40.

Yeah, I don’t know about Global, but I love it in Pacific. It removes the extreme Japanese advantage from a J1 attack (although I havn’t actually tried that, but seems pretty obvious).

A J3 attack should go Japan’s way if you don’t make any errors and dice are even, but only just. This setup was way more enjoyable than any original setup game I have played.

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)