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

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

@aequitas:

@knp7765:

Or how about Germany? In our game, it’s 1 battle and done. In reality it took the Allies on both sides from December 1944 to May 1945 to conquer all of that single country and that was with their main thrusts involved for the US/UK and USSR.

That was because the Americans dragged it out because of the good Food here in Germany.
Name one american who can resist Bratwurst and  Sauerkraut or Schweinsbraten??

Oh and 'mericans love Castles so there you go, they got a lot of them here.
(Not to mention the good beer,though)

Well, I do like a good Bratwurst. Don’t care for Sauerkraut (although I loved it as a kid) and I don’t even know what a Schweinsbraten is.
I must admit, castles are pretty cool too. And who doesn’t love a good cold beer (especially if it’s served up by a lovely blond fraulein)?

If UK attacks and does not finish the standing army off, the standing army stays there.

I generally represent such a scenario with French units atop of chips as the French are the least utilized army.

If the Axis then moves in, you would represent all units there with the Axis nation that claims the remaining standing army.  So in example:

UK attacks Turkey and has to retreat after killing 4 units.
Put 1 French Inf atop of the remaining units (3, I think?)
Italy then moves in and claims Turkey.
Remove the French INF, place an Italian INF atop the chips.  They now move and act as Italian units.

Pretty sure that is how the scenario would work.  Just remember that claiming neutral standing armies is part of the NCM phase, so those units in Turkey can only defend until the subsequent Italian turn.

Its a pretty straight forward setup:

Attacker declares ALL combat moves and then you request defender to decide on Scrambles/Intercepts.  This indicates you have concluded all your combat moves for the turn.

At this point, the Attacker has passed the point of no return and is stuck with all the decisions just made.

You’ll get a lot of mileage out of requiring the attacker to request scramble decisions with the understanding it indicates they have concluded all their combat moves.

In the case where there are no scrambles, just require the attacker to announce something along the lines of, “That ends my combat move phase.”

Generally it is VERY important when playing in person to make sure you announce the transition of the phases and don’t muddle up combat and non-combat moves.  Not saying people all cheat, but it sucks when you lose track of unit movement and end up double moving something that impacts the game dramatically (like moving a bomber to Hawaii in your combat move phase and then non-combat moving it in the same round to one of the smaller islands and now being in striking distance of unprotected Japanese TT which should have been safe but now are not).

germany did sea lion. russia bought mostly mech / tank and bunkered romania when germany/italy finally got enough for force ruskies out (ruskies did a detour for iraq and the african spots). ruskies turned around with mech and tanks and blitzed to calcutta then made it back in time for germany vs russia.

this game coupled with 30 infantry china and all 18 ruskies still alive in asia… japan was shut down.  germany took russia, uk just finally got transports and men. uk pac was worthless but still a funny liberation.
~
yeah sea lion sucks sometimes lol. ruskies owning italy africa is no good lol. +3 each one and iraq too. go go mech + bombers.

the pacific showdown was hilarious too. I am not sure why japan attacked phillipines. it was a mutual destruction battle… but after that anzac’s naval looked pretty nice on an empty board. I had java the whole game because he round 3 india and lost so much stuff.

If japan did not get shut down, I would have totally lost. all he needed was hawaii after round 3. that was a funny game

it is better.

ANZAC and UK should be allowed to fight together anyways.

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.)

post on the tripleA forums any questions you have, Kev is pretty good about replying.