What is the current set up and rules for Global 1940?

People on FB and here are continuing the discussion of subs–worthless or worthy, so I’ma gonna pull this plan back up to the top as an example of a detailed, sub based plan.

@Azpathfinder:

Has anyone ever tried 1940 rules/units on the 1942 map?

We have a group that enjoys to play, but 1940 is a serious time commitment that we just can’t schedule, and it seems to be taking the fun out of it (for us). When we played 1942, we could set up and play a few rounds in one night and while not always finishing, we could get a good enough sense in how the game was going to declare a victor.

We do enjoy the new pieces and rules (scrambling, tac bombers, convoys, air fields, kamakazi, shipyards) from 1940 … has anyone ever tried to use them on the older, smaller, more manageable 1942 board? any tips? any existing transfer rules? any thoughts?

Thanks everyone!

I would stay away incorporating air bases, shipyards due to number of spaces on the 1942.2 map.

Kamikazis and scrambling although fun, they will drastically change the overall strategy and dynamic of the game.

Now when it comes to mechanized infantry and tactical bombers that’s something that can be integrated with success. I haven’t done it yet but will start trying it out now that my brother and I have about 20 games under our belt and can call ourselves intermediate players. I will post results and overall outcome. In my opinion it will slightly benefit the Axis thus making it even harder for the Allies.

Japan is ridiculously strong (but then is on 1940 too).
Germany can be held a while and Italy should not grow at all, but the U.S. must invest nearly all its income in the Pacific.
Still makes a refreshing change from 1940 though.

Meh…I think that goes both ways.  As to whether the bomber would be too strong, I think it might be good for the game now.  On the other side, if I had a bomber, I would immediately buy another one.  Lots of creative things to do with that bomber…I think it could prove to be pretty strong…but that’s just my opinion.

I attacked Russia G1 today, the axis lost, but I wouldn’t blame the German strategy for it. I would do it again for sure. Sorry for the lame report, but it’s past my bed time.

@Krieghund:

As I have explained before, the reason Chinese movement is limited is to reflect the historical fact that China was also embroiled in a civil war (Nationalists versus Communists) at the same time that it was fighting the Japanese invaders.  As such, it had little interest in matters outside its own borders (keeping the Burma Road open for Allied aid being an obvious exception).  This restriction keeps China from influencing the game outside of its borders without having complicated rules to represent the impact of this conflict.

Don’t forget about the warlord factions!:)  Sure they were nominally supportive of Chaing but he had to keep a decent force back just to police his ‘allies’.

@valtteri771:

why would japan have to attack russia I have won many times as germany without sealion and japanese help in barbarossa.

Oh ,  and if you check out the early GNazi buys,  my Axis opponent  even admits he didn’t buy enough tanks since he used his airforce to destroy the British Navy in turn 2 and the Mediterranean Navy in turn 3  early in the game.  so the extra 9 IPCs from the far east could have been elminated earlier.  He didn’t hit it till Japan Turn 8  which meant the Soviets colleted 72 IPCs for the game from the far east.  cutting it down by turn 5 or 6 well after Germany was pressuring the Soviets and with Japan stomping to to india could have swung the war against the Allies!  I had also moved 15 far east troops all the way back to moscow and they were big help in retaking Stalingrad.

Eh?  :?