Under Construction (Please don't post)

@barney:

“Bids and Scramble”
sounds like a good name for a board game   :lol:

IDK “Chutes and Ladders” just came to mind lol

The combined arms rule (actually called “Commander In Chief”) was in the first edition of Classic but was removed from the second edition of Classic.  Apparently they thought back then that this rule was to easily taken advantage of by Allied players.

The way it worked was:
The US moves “X” units to United Kingdom.  The UK already has a number of units already there.  The US moves a number of transports that can carry all the current US and UK units on United Kingdom to the sea zone adjacent to the territory.
During the Collect Income phase of the US turn, the US and UK players agree to make the US Commander In Chief.  The US player takes a stack of 3 US control markers and places them in United Kingdom.
Then on the UK player’s turn, the UK player does not move any of the units intended for the combined force.  If the UK moves any of it’s units stationed on United Kingdom, they CAN NOT be included in the combined force.
Then on the US player’s next turn, the US player is now free to move any or all units stationed on United Kingdom as long as they DID NOT move during the UK player’s turn.
By the way, this includes UK aircraft if they didn’t move on the UK’s turn.

So, basically, any country’s units that are going to be included in the combined force but are not from the country of the Commander In Chief have to be in the launching territory before the Commanding player is chosen.  It might be a little more complex, but I think this rule could be applied to Global 1940.
For example:  Say England wants to attack a Japanese force in Burma from India.  They want to use a combined force of UK, US, Soviet and ANZAC units.  So on UK Pacific’s turn, UK can move units into India.  On the UK’s Collect Income phase, they get chosen as Commander In Chief.  The Soviet, US and ANZAC forces have to be already in India at this time and those are the ONLY non UK forces that the UK can move next turn.  Even if one of the other countries move more units into India, those new units could NOT be used in the UK’s next turn.
Assuming the UK attacks Burma with the combined force and defeats the Japanese, UK India will get possession of that territory.  Also, I believe the last casualty HAS to belong to the Commander In Chief’s country (in this case, UK).

@Young:

@Nippon-koku:

Japan has to almost have a perfect game to take India round 4 by not losing any land units on the islands and taking out ANZAC’s DD + TT round 1.�  There are no guarantees in a dice game.

Exactly.�  On top of that, even if Japan does take India round 4, how does it look on the rest of the board?�  Japan can’t take India round 4 AND dominate the waters AND completely wipe out China AND take care of the Siberian troops (most games I’m using those units to attack Manchuria or Korea) AND completely control the money islands.�

If Japan goes all out to get India by round 4 the Allies can cause them a lot of headaches elsewhere.�

I think new players favor the Calcutta crush, while experienced players understand other priorities.

And I’ll fully admit that Calcutta crush can appear unstoppable to new players who find themselves on the receiving end

Had have only 2 global games so far…  but both have been Allied victories.  I have yet to play the Axis as of yet.  both times Berlin fell because A. Demark was lightly defended once the Americans and British had fleets.    and B.  Berlin was lightly defended because all resources Axis resources were in Belgium, Normandy ,  and the eastern front.

When I play the Axis I think I need to make sure I can counter any land invasion in force rather than straight coastal defend.

I think that a Good Soviet Player will definitely defend through turn 4 when the US is in the war in Europe or at least has a fleet in SZ 109 or SZ 110.  I’m not sure that the balance with Japan is all that good since an experienced player can do so much damage with 19 planes in Alpha 2.  But since Japan is so far away from the Soviet union and the axis players waited till turn 4 or later to attack the soviet union,  my view of balance with the Japanese is tainted.

Seems extremely hard to get the Axis to defeat the allies unless they roll extremley well whereas the Allies can roll badly again and again and still pull it out.  This could also be the relationship between IPC’s as the Allies definitely can waste units and rebuild especially the Americans.

I really don’t like the NO’s for America so much.  its just too many NO’s for the US that are very difficult for the Axis to hit.  Maybe remove the Central /Western/Eastern 5 IPC NO .

Again we’ve only done 2 Global games so far.

The +1 was Larry’s newest add on, the Beta.  I was trying to figure out how to make the new fellas stick out myself.  Probably just should remove it.

Think I forgot the AA Gun on the West Coast BTW

great news looks like my post over on larry’s site did not fall on deaf ears.
i hope my idea is not only being considered but does get implemented into the errata.

@Krieghund:

This should probably be addressed in the FAQ, as the intent was that those general rules should apply.

Should definitely!  :-)

You can block the blitz using an AAG, and NOTHING Japan can do, can stop this block.