Community Links for Global 1940 Related files

If you need any rule clarifications feel free to ask us!

I think four player is the best.  As the Allies it’s easier to be on the same page and everyone has a more to do.

The setup I prefer:

Germany & Italy
Japan

Russia, UK, France
USA, China, Anzac

The USA player should control Anzac since they’ll be working closely with them.

New sculps from aa 1940 second edition are ugly, bad builded, look like a really bad job.

But the 16 new scupls from aa 1941 are beautiful with lots of detail.

Can anyone explain to me this huge difference between the quality of the units?

I guess if I was in your position, I would use classic game pieces for the new countries:

Old Germans are gray I think, they could be Italians, Old Russians would be good for Anzac. Old UK for India,  Old U.S. for China, France could be old Japanese or Fortress America Southern Invaders.

France seldom builds units, in fact all you really need are some infantry for later African moves. Tactical bombers if you do not care could be fortress America bomber pieces, use some helicopters for smaller countries if they need any.

I rarely see many tactical bomber builds. Maybe Russia, and America might build some. Carriers and destroyers are built a lot in my games. Since transports are non combatants in 1940, just use transports as Destroyers, I rarely build cruisers, so just use a battleship with a penny underneath it as a cruiser. Just use paper to represent transports. Not sure if this is a good idea, but mechanized units can be risk pieces or even monopoly houses…

Just a few tips with not too much insight. Hope this helps.

@13thguardsriflediv:

Planes were mostly used to attack sz 111, 112, Yugo and France. It is why sz 110 did not get hit. The other seazones west of England and east of Canada were hit by subs. No German fighters landed in southern Italy to help against Taranto which was an oversight.

UK would have thought twice if without the cruiser and facing three fighters. But maybe not, sometimes I like dicey battles (no risk no glory).

If the U.K. pulls that carrier out of the Med. then it can join the Indian fleet to help defend the Indies and if the U.S. is building enough navy in the Pacific the allies can put a lot of pressure on Japan. Japan cannot move south unless they bring a sizeable navy which will leave the home islands open to invasion by the U.S.

Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.

Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?

Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.

I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)

Nice, well with depreciation of the dollar I would say that would probably be about what I pay for something like that as well. I will have to do some digging to find a place that does that, because I do admit that the ridges irritate me, not to mention the board separating from time to time if someone hits the edge or something.