Question about how artillery works

Narvik touched on this briefly.

I think that part of the problem with amphib assault is more the inability to defend the coastal territories efficiently. Lets face it the Germans don’t build an Atlantic Wall to def Normandy or S France because it is too costly and inefficient. They station in Paris, let the allies land and attempt a counter attack to push them back into the sea. The only time we see a coastal territory being defended heavily is if it is a capital, major production territory or a VC.

So is the problem the attacking force is too strong able to use its bombardment then art, tanks and air units in the first round of battle; or that the def coastal force maybe should get a boost like be able to get a per-empt kill strike with its art to make it harder for the enemy to land on the beaches?  Or maybe a combination?

I also like that victims of bombardment get to fire back (as others have posted). It might seem like dead men are shooting back, but in reality bombardment wouldn’t take out the entire force that a single inf represents. The greater remainder would be firing at the guys invading the beaches w/o a doubt.

Thank you guys. I thought it was legal the only thing that was tripping me up was the whole we don’t own the sea zone before the turn but you can’t own a sea zone so it is fine to land on a carrier that has taken a sea zone. Or that is my understanding. Thanks again for the info. It was one thing I was not sure on.

You can ignore the subs, but if Japan scrambles a fighter the subs can fight in the sea battle.

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

True, I did not mean to say that one bad-luck battle increases your odds of a future good-luck battle. What I meant is that Global 1940 is a much bigger game than, say, Revised. Global has more units involved and more battles that matter. The effect of having more units and more battles is to soften the effect of any one unit missing or of any one battle going poorly. In other words, as you broaden your sample size, you get closer to achieving average results in the aggregate.

And submarines / fighters on carriers can do 2 damage under the new Alpha 3 convoy rules.  (Under the old, Submarines could do up to 2 to each enemy nation bordering the convoy zone.)

Thanks, I thought that was right but just wanted to make sure.

Yes, one sub can reach it and that one should be moved there. Combine it with a massive move to Carolines and from there you can pick Hawaii, most ANZAC territories, most of DEI, Phillipines, etc.