End game play…

Made a few more changes. Removed 3 inf from allies on setup in Asia.
Made FIC worth 3 instead of 2.
Cauraucus now worth 4 instead of 5. Russia income back to 24. from 25.

We played another game but ended it on turn 4. Axis not being able to get that 12 city.
But of course more play is needed.

I can post updated map if somebody wants to see it.

@snipersquad

Yes you can
Pregame write out a mission / tactic / objective for each nation. Then refer to it each turn turn to keep you honest.
Germany could be complete sea lion
Japan could be conquer China and India
Etc etc

We played Global 40 today (6 player game) with the following turn order.

Russia non com far east forces
All Axis go except Italy)
All allies go except France
All Axis go
All Allies go
Then switch off from then on. 
All the normal rules applies as to who can can-opener for whom and order of non com etc.

On the plus side, we found that it did not change the game play or balance which we wanted to avoid.  It was also fun from the standpoint of the whole team being “on” together and “off” together.   
On the down side, however, it also did not speed up play much.  Of course, we had a couple of new players, and I think it would might have saved significant time with more experienced player.  So, it is something we might do again, but not because it saved all that much time.

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

@Lozmoid:

I really like the idea of combining South Africa, Australia & New Zeleand, and Canada to form the Commonwealth playable nation. Can anyone please advise me exactly which territories would fall into this faction? […] Am I missing any others? Thank you!

For the answer that I worked out for my own customized version of the game map, have a look at the pictures I posted of my map table here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32700.0

…and look for all the territories on which I put a customized blue-white-red roundel (the largest shot of which you’ll see on South West Africa and the Union of South Africa in the picture labeled “7 Europe Right Panel”).

Note that I tinkered with some of the British and ANZAC possessions in the Pacific, which are incorrectly attributed on the OOB map.

@BJCard:

Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).

With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber.  And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London.  Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3).  No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1).  Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.

I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.

If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.

The obvious Allied counter would be to prioritize aircraft production, like in the real war (see: Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, Battle of Kursk), which isn’t as daunting as your projections would indicate.

Because planes can’t land in newly-conquered territories, each side could use their air units to cherry-pick the other fellow’s best offensive units on their respective turns, resulting in a mutual neutering until somebody finally broke through.

It would be a bloodbath in the sky for the first few rounds, but the Allies have the economic clout to pull off air superiority in the long run… and with this targeting prize, air superiority would really mean something worth fighting for, for a change.

I was thinking of playing games in which russia had to take Non African original axis territories for his national objective (ie no +14 off africa).

However this money is very useful for russia to survive mid-late game. How should russia be compensated?

I put 2 russian destroyers and 2 cruisers in the black sea with a transport. Russia battleship in the baltic sea in sz 115 where the cruiser is.  I also gave russia a bomber.

You may be thinking it is a bit much, but they can’t actually go anywhere and get blasted easily by germany anyway. However it should equate to the late game money russia would have gotten off of africa.

What do you guys think?

@Loki:

I heard someone mention the idea sometime of allowing tanks to take their second move after combat if they had one left. That might be interesting because in essence it would allow tanks to strafe like fighters can do. Maybe it would suck, I don’t know.

Its fun playing like this, definetely makes Germany better, but also helps the Soviets repel the Japs and Nazis after they move into one of their territories and it keeps Tanks with a def of 2, which means the enemy will probably use their fighters to bomb them when the bulk of your infantry is in the next territory blocking the enemy from hitting your tanks. I dont see tanks as a 3/3 unless they’re the heavier versions that appeared towards the end of the war (tigers/IS-2’s etc…)