Global War 1940 2nd ed.

Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
😊😊😊

@Charles-de-Gaulle said in Global 1939 (simple alternate setup for 1940 2nd.Edition):

(This version has been supersede by Version 3.  Please proceed here for the latest dedicated setup.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41080.0)

Global 1939

Try this link to find the Version 3 of this alternate setup: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30608/global-europe-pacific-1939-for-1940-2nd-editon

This is an alternate setup for those of you who have 1940 2nd Edition.  It brings the start date to September 1939 only implementing a few special rules.  If you would like to play the Europe or Pacific side alone, go to
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38589.0
Questions and comments are welcome!  
                          de Gaulle

Try this link to find the Version 3 of the Europe / Pacific setup: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28154/simple-1939-setup-variant-for-global-1940

I hope this helps!

-Midnight_Reaper

@nicbizz:

YG, what happens after all units have been rolled for, does it just restart over, or is that bonus expended? Like, on turn 7 after a J1 attack for instance.

I would say yes… the list would reset after all units are taken.

I love the idea for a Europe 1939 game, 3 individual blocks with own specific victory conditions.

Player 1, the Axis with Germany and Italy, separate economies but move and attack together.

Player 2, the Commies, USSR aka Russia, joined with China in the global game.

Player 3, the democratic western allies USA, UK, France, separate economies but move and attack together.

Here’s one that doesn’t have any IPC changes or the added Russian and UK NOs.

ww2global40_2nd_edition_A-Bomb_No_PUs.xml

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

@Imperious:

OK.
Cruisers when they shoot and roll a 1 can force the defender to remove a plane
Cruisers move 3 spaces even if they didn’t come out of port.
Now they are worth the extra 2 IPC.

@Young:

@variance:

Another idea has been that each cruiser would only fire an AA shot at 1 attacking plane.

This is better than 3 shots per ship IMO.

So our Cruisers combine those ideas and get:
1-An attack and a defense @3 + 1 bombard @3,
2-A first round AA @1 against 1 attacking aircraft,
3-Cruisers when they shoot, either on attack or defense, and roll a 1 can force the attacker/defender to remove a plane.

In the game I played, the AA has more of a psychological impact than a real effect.
Indeed, it never destroyed any aircraft. And thus, neither by the AA and even by the “1” roll which force the defender to destroy an aircraft.

But UK bought 3 cruisers, instead of any BB, against German Luftwaffe.

Thanks everybody, those suggestions makes cruiser a more interesting unit that worth buying.

However, it can be a real nuisance for Germany but it may also help protect the Baltic fleet against UK aircrafts: at least, it slightly upgrade the Baltic fleet to better defend against attacking UK planes.

@AlphaKappa:

 Which Neutral Powers would have the economic equivalent of a “Minor Industrial Complex”?

I think Spain, Turkey and Sweden are the obvious neutral powers that have a large enough industrial base to build their own tanks, planes and ships. Depending on how the sculpts are going to look, I think the Italian burnt orange will fit Spain, and maybe the french dark blue will fit Sweden. Turkey already got their units.

Maybe use the medium green for Brazil, and lime green to supply China.

Maybe even Canada can have own nation specific units ?

The Russian maroon will fit Mongolia I guess