G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Franklin_Cain The problem with a 6+5 rule is that the Axis are almost always at or near 11 cities after 6 rounds. Germany with a simple crush Russia assault should have Novgorod (Leningrad), France, Germany, Poland + Italy has Rome = 5 with Volgograd as the relatively easy 6th VC. Japan has Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, and with some effort India = 5.

If the Axis don’t have to get those extra cities (8 Europe or 6 Pacific), then they don’t have to extend themselves to get the “last” VC. India is a stretch for Japan, but not terrible if that is all they need. They can afford to lose a few aircraft if they never have to go get Australia or Hawaii. Similarly, the Germans can easily take Volgograd and leave Moscow alone. The Russians don’t have the flexibility to defend both against the Germans so one of them will fall.

Bumping up the number to 7+5 is still putting a lot of pressure on the Allies. The Germans should be able to takedown Moscow by maintaining a good focus in the East. The Allies might be able to defend Egypt and have a sizeable force in the Middle East, but they may not (probably won’t) initially be in a position to takeback Volgograd immediately after the fall of Moscow. So again the Axis “win” without really having to exert themselves. The magic number of 8 was developed after lots of game testing and is a surprisingly good rule.

That all said, changing the VC count is another way (besides the bid) to level the playing field between players of dissimilar abilities. If you wanted to let the newer player take the Axis and lower the VC count, then you could have a competitive game.

Hi Manstein,

Cool stuff. Thanks for sharing:+1:

@Mr-Kell Ah yes they do but you can’t get the infantry to Paris before Germany can but you can get the fighter so that adds on defense. If you pay attention to what I set up, it’s still pretty damn favorable for Germany, it just has to bring in the airforce to make it a victory.

@crockett36
What you talkin bout Willis?

Recruiting stations at least?!

@Partydad do a search on the forums here- there are several groups here that use a variety of well-tested event cards.

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but it’s been a crazy year.

I know that there is evidence of Dutch transports, and I’m not refuting that. I’m simply stating that the addition of a transport makes the new Dutch units too powerful on the game board, and grossly unbalances the game in favor of the Allies, which is a bad thing.

My solution, after play testing, is to give the Axis some units to balance it out, and I’ve edited my original post to reflect this.

@Caesar-Seriona said in G40 Benelux (Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg) Setup:

@JustLuthor:

@Herr:

I like the general idea though of course it would have to be carefully balanced. As for the units, I’m not much in favor of the tank in Scotland, for realism’s sake. The Dutch had one small tank at home. The Belgians did have a significant number of tanks but evacuating them to the UK was evidently impossible. Having two Benelux infantry units there is already more than enough compared to the French who were far more numerous.
Dutch New Guinea might have an infantry unit, though. Dutch resistance continued throughout the war there, and the Japanese never completely conquered that territory.

I can’t find it now, but in my research, I came across a Dutch tank unit raised in England after the fall of the Netherlands. For balance’s sake, maybe it should be 1 Artillery to represent Luxembourg’s limited contribution to the allied war effort. And maybe it should be only one infantry in England for both balance, and scale.

I couldn’t find any Dutch 1940 Order of Battle for Dutch New Guinea. I only found references to DNG being reinforced after Japan declared war. This is the best historical argument for a Dutch transport in the Pacific, though I still feel it should be up to ANZAC to ferry Dutch units around for balance’s sake, which is empirically more important than historical accuracy.

Another reason I don’t stress accuracy, is that it’s a slippery slope that eventually leads to completely revamping the game; not just the setup, but the map, and game mechanics as well. I would certainly like to do this for my own amusement, but it’s hard enough to get a game of Global going. I don’t want to compound that problem by creating an even more complicated game with 40-something countries, resources, trade agreements, diplomatic agreements, governments in exile, technology, a dozen new units, prison camps, espionage, sabotage, food rationing on the home front, and the Bretton Woods Conference.

Though I would totally play that game.

From my understanding of Luxembourg war effort against the Wehrmacht was the fact their nation did not have a military and only their capital city had some kind of defense and it was the cities police force that fought and surrendered (if I remember correctly) after a day of fighting. So as far as I know, no military campaign of any sort came from Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg government in exile did field a small artillery troop attached to the 1st Belgian Field Artillery Battery (specifically Troop C). They fought in Northern France, and Belgium.

This mechanics can also be applied to ABs as Carolina is suggesting:

Air and Naval base damage
@Carolina:

Great topic - hi-lights how A&A is a little too basic.  ie. not all hits should be equal - really, when would AAA blow every plane out of the sky?

I would propose to change the AAA rule for bases and industry that AAA does not kill but affects the accuracy of the attacker.  Defending installation rules a 1d6 and this is subtracted from the attacker’s roll.  
1d6-1 for fighters and tacB
1d6-2 for bombers
Roll an AAA dice for each attacking aircraft.