Global 1940 Cold War goes Hot Scenario

Here is what you do. upload the AA rules of whatever version. then Chat Cpb or Genmini upload the rules and it will decide with brutal logic. The Battleship is priced correctly if its 20IPC and takes 2 hits and SB at 4. the only issue might be the Carrier could have different combat values, otherwise its good. Let AI solve your issue!

Check the range of V weapons. Four spaces is too long of a distance. Also, the new tech units it needs to be clear: When you get say King Tigers do all your tanks go “Poof” and become Tigers , or from that point on are any tanks you build…Tigers. The later idea is much more realistic.

See I thought about changing Mongolian values to be a standard pro-Soviet neutral so each territory gets a value of one while the capital territory gets a value of two and then keep the original rules, that way, if Japan decides to get imperialist on USSR, they will gain their military, 7 dollars, and a spot to place a minor should they choose.

@Ichabod:

@simon33:

Strikes me that the factory downgrade when you lose and regain a major is harsh and arguably unfair.

What if factories are limited to the production value of the territory if not on original soil, but also limited by the type of factory? .

Do you mean this restriction (of producing only the value number of the territory) only to apply for the countries that capture the major, like Japan capturing India, or the US landing on W. Germany just to reduce the factory to a minor?

I would think this would be another way to add some balance. Forward factories next to Russia only producing 2 units for Germany…ect.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.

Yes. Balance Mod. The board setup is identical to 1940. The rules are a bit different. It is the primary version of Global 1940 played in League.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37883.0

there’s the rules

@Carolina:

I tend to take a historical slant, so thinking mainly of Iwo and Malta - but you would be correct where A&A powers are all treated equally and have the same capabilities.  Its a house rule - adjust and use as you wish.  I do like your China comment - will put some thought into that.

Another way to depict Iwo and Malta higher defense per soldier implied is simply that a single Inf unit represent pretty much less soldiers compared to European land units.
So this Inf worth the same combat value than 10x soldiers per unit in Russian battle field.
So no need to change from OOB.

@CWO:

Interesting hypothetical scenario.  It raises all sorts of questions, both from a point of view of weapons technology and politics.

Assuming that WWI had lasted for another 20 years (meaning, I assume, 20 more years after 1918, which brings us to 1938, one year short of the starting date of WWII), weapons technology would certainly have progressed further and faster (though not necessarily in the same directions) than it did historically.  To quote one example as an illustration, just look at the classes of battleships and battlecruisers that many WWI combatants had planned or were actually building at the time the war ended in 1918, but which were then abandoned.  The British, for instance, were planning a class of battleships armed with 18-inch guns that would probably have entered service in the early 1920s; in the real world, it was only in the early 1940s that an 18-inch gun battleship class (the Yamatos) entered service.  Many of the weapons that achieved maturity in WWII existed in WWI, albeit at the infancy stage – notably tanks and aircraft carriers.  The same was true of certain tactics: had the war lasted until 1919, there were plans on the Allied side to mount attacks by massed tanks working in close coordination with motorized infantry and aircraft support…essentially an early version of Blitzkrieg.

However, even though I can see some WWII-type weapons being used on the WWI game board under such a scenario, the part I think is problematic is the political element: the idea that the same 8 powers who are the contestants in the A&A 1914 game could still all be in existence, and still fighting each other, in 1938.  Remember, after all, that three of those states – Tsarist Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire – were already politically and/or economically unstable in 1914.  Russia had already seen one revolution against the Romavov dynasty in 1906, and this had done nothing to persuade Nicolas II to liberalize his regime.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a mish-mash of restless ethnic groups led by an elderly ruler who, like Nicolas II, believed in absolute monarchy.  The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for a long time, and its leaders were both divided and paralyzed by indecision.  Frankly, I’m surprised that Russia managed to last till 1917 and the other two until 1918, so I don’t see any of those regimes surviving a further two decades of war.

I said another 20 years was highly improbable for the very reason of political (as well as economic) instability. I highly doubt the war could have gone on for twenty more years without several nations collapsing from the strain.

But as you correctly pointed out, technology would have advanced much faster had the war continued. I know for example that Thompson sub-machine guns were developed during WW1, but never saw action, and that they would later be used in WW2. So let’s say the war only goes on for another 2 or 3 years. This would bring many weapons used in WW2 into the conflict.

Now that we have a somewhat alternate-historical basis, can we design rules for allowing WW2 era A&A units such as TcB, StrB, MechInf, and CVs? As I’ve said, I haven’t actually played 1914, but I know there’s a rule for when tanks can actually be built, could a similar rule be implemented for other units? I plan to buy 1914 and try it out.

@empireman:

this is cool! :-D
Just 1 thing: Sweden should not be pro anything

Yeah, there’s a problem with Sweden being pro-Finland….  mainly that the Finns and Swedes had a rather contentious relationship due in part to the fact that Sweden and Russia both vied for control of Finland.  Many of the treaties between Sweden and Russia that resulted from these wars used Finland a a bargaining chip, ceding land to each with little regard for an independent Finnish state.  So yeah…  Finns don’t really like Swedes.

Tangentially, a Swedish historian told a group of us that in a treaty with the Russians from one of the final wars between them there was a clause that if Sweden were to engage in hostilities again against the Russians and they were to lose, Russia would claim all Swedish lands.  He indicated that this was one of the many reasons Sweden maintained neutrality, even when supplying materials to the Axis.