1940 Global Errata

@bakerbei I thought the Nimitz card was great for Global until you read the booklet and it says it doesn’t apply to seazones w/ naval bases. Which makes it really not that effective since most of the game you are staging and protecting naval bases. I think it would be really interesting if it let you get the 4th movement point. In fact I think I am going to just ignore the booklet rule and allow the Nimitz card to use the naval bases.

Notes on the Global 1940 2nd rules, mainly highlights of the most important rules as they appear in rulebooks along with some additional comments and explanations and some helpful tables:
Global 1940 2nd - Setup Charts:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ccw97pjjrx45768/Setup Charts for A%26A G40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Global 1940 2nd - Important Notes about Rules:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m83pt7a1o2f2iru/Important Notes for A%26A G40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Some pages as a sample of these Notes below:

f70a78ac-d08c-42a6-8cd0-dbd83066b09e-image.png

b8edf848-6156-4614-8594-8f3c30c1c544-image.png

1e065c39-8da7-4238-882b-2ba330f27f8c-image.png

See also the posts for Europe and Pacific 1940 SE versions:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1622770
and
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1623789

If USA declares war in turn 3’s income phase, the bonus is +25. +20 is if they don’t hold the Philippines.

Okay, I did that and now the numbers all look right.  Thanks.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

Yes, here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20043.0

well, if russia buys three art turn 1 and saves the rest and collects the same turn 2, that would be a turn two buy of 25+37= 62 to spend in 16 slots. which is either 9 tanks and 2 mech inf if Germany is going sea lion, or 14 art + 1 tank if Germany is going for russia. so your save idea seems to have some merit.

@Plasticdeathbydice:

$6.00 bucks an hour?!?!  At the rate my buddies drink - it is costing me $6.00 every ten minutes!

Exactly.  Over time the game does not add a significant cost to your gaming experience.  If you sick to AA50 you still have to buy that booze.

$6/hr is relatively high - ask me what it works out to this time next year.  Also I didn’t account for the games of Pacific alone I’ve already played.  This will be down to pennies an hour in no time.

@Koningstiger:

I do believe it’s worth it, but at the same time, I find A&A50 the better game (ease and relative quickness of play)

To each their own.  Some people might prefer AA42 to AA50 for the same reason, but probably not many because AA50 is only a little bit bigger and more elaborate than AA42.  Global is way bigger than AA50.  I personally think they’re all excellent.

One thing really cool about Global is that Germany (at this point seemingly) has a legitimate decision to make in terms of England or Russia.  What’s even cooler is that if England falls the Allies can still win!  I love this game!