Community Links for Global 1940 Related files

@ShadowHAwk:

@Kreuzfeld:

@seancb:

Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.

I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships  than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.

The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D

which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.

What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.

I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.

Ignore this topic the link has been updated, if you want to view the rules to the variant go to Axis and Allies Cold War Variant 2

AxisandAlliesColdWarVersion.pdf

Fantastic!  Thanks Bob!

Guest said in Minor Threat's Alpha+3.9 (Global 1940) COMPLETE! Setup Charts:

Wow, these are super, muchos gracias :-D

And now KICKS SELF FOR NITPICKING
-United States card: NOs #1 and #4 the word ‘Sovereignty’ spelled wrong (extra ‘i’)
-UK card: UK (London) operations: the phrase ‘exclusively only’ seems redundant, just ‘exclusively’ would do (same on India card)
-UK card: the word ‘Canadian’ spelled wrong (extra ‘n’)
-Japan card: NO #1 the word ‘resource’ spelled wrong (second ‘s’ instead of a ‘c’)
-ANZAC card: wording of NO #2 seems weird ‘Strategic cornerstone - to far East British Empire’. Does this miss the words ‘Malaya considered’?

KICKS SELF AGAIN

Beside these little wording mistakes, they are still great and stick to the latest updates and rules!

While I checked my stuff again I found something but I am not quite sure if there is a benefit when you will change it:

It is not necessary but you could add the (2) for all anti-aircraft gun at DEFENSE… they only occur when Radar is researched…
Fighter Attack (4) when Jet Fighters
Submarines --> Super Submarines (3)
Heavy Bombers Roll 2 Dice (but not easy to show this while not causing confusion)
Etc…

and maybe on the turn sequence to add the polictics move “to declare war”

Just suggestions, no need! As said above, maybe you should leave it like it is… The player should use a Research Board, so that they can see which technology they got… hopefully they do not forget it during the game ;)

Thanks for the responses.  They were a big help.

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.

@Pelanderfunk:

I like the early attacks against the US, but it looks like Russia was becoming a problem.

The attacks against America were half baked - I was still at the drawing board but jumped in anyway.

A bigger problem than Russia is UK in Africa, the Mediterranean, and South East Europe.  If Italy were an asset to Europe and not a liability, I think I could deal with the Russians.  In fact, if I could lock UK out of the Med (without extra effort from Japan or Germany) I would combine the Japanese North American campaign with Sea Lion and be sitting pretty.

What to do about that pesky Med…

calvin…sent you a pm!!!