[1942 Second Ed.] 1940 Scenario

@SuperbattleshipYamato I have played a few games and though the Axis can initially worry the Allies , (I thought I would lose ), I have always been able to keep the income gap and , as the game progresses, it opens up much more .
I don’t believe , The Allies don’t need help in this game, if the players are equal ability.

@imperious-leader said in Global 1940 Fixed Units Variants:

@gen-manstein right, just off the top of my head.Baron M. could collaborate

Barons to busy. We don’t need his collaborate.

Fair enough! And thanks very much for the writeup. If anyone tries this again, consider adding:

2 German subs in SZ 10 (Greenland)
2 German subs in SZ 12 (west of Morocco)
1 Japanese carrier with 1 Japanese fighter in SZ 62 (east of Tokyo)

Retreat and Pursuit Clarifications…

Clarifications…

Not all attacking ships must pursue.  The sea zone is used for 2 separate battles if the defender has scrambled planes to the sea zone. Scrambling planes cannot retreat, and would fight any ships that did not pursue. Any opponent ships that are in the target retreat zone are not included in the combat. After combat, if the target retreat sea zone has no surviving defenders, the attacker has option to occupy with
pursuing ships, even IF the defender retreated twice. If attacking planes have enough MP after their move into the battle sea zone, then the defender might not have enough MP to retreat.
Example: 1 attacking fighter, 1 defending DD.
a) Attacker uses 1 MP to SZ (has 3 MP remaining).
b) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 1 MP remaining).
*) Attacker can choose not to pursue and gets 1 free shot - all combat finished.
c) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 2 MP remaining).
d) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 0 MP remaining).
e) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 1 MP remaining).
f) Defender cannot retreat and x rounds of combat occur (assume defender sunk).
g) Attacker uses 1 MP remaining to return to base or carrier.

Answers to questions…

How many complete combat round is allowed before defender retreat?  The retreat can be immediate, and attacker then chooses to take free shot or pursue.
One as per planes retreat in amphibous assault? Not sure understand question.
Does the second combat round then becomes an all one free shots for the attacker? Yes it would if defender burned another MP to retreat. Unless attacking planes are involved.

If some warships can pursuit, do they get their free shot too, before continuing naval battle with retreating defender?  No, they either pursue OR take free shot on the retreating ships.
Is it possible to flee this second naval combat with another move point? Yes, though if survive, they would only actually be just 1 sea zone away with 0 MP available in their next move.
In this case, there is nothing the attacker can do then, right? Correct (unless planes involved). The defender is burning up his MP from his next turn to just get 1 SZ away.

An example or two can useful to understand multiples cases.  Yes, see example above.
Thanks.

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

TUV counting, making sure the allies start with a clear numbers, tuv, and income advantage to compensate for the drastic positional advantage. Axis quickly catch up in income and the ICs shift to the axis within the first 3 rounds.

More importantly the axis now have to make decisions instead of having one best move to do.

Even more importantly the allies have something to look forward to potentially within the first 3 rounds which typically saw a whole lot of nothing, which is a big reason people do not play this map.

Still favors the axis to win. I like to play the axis so I am a little biased, I just hate to see the game won before it even begun.

I ran across this on BGG on the AA50 page. http://files.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/3knjbg6od1/Axis__Allies_National_Objectives.pdf? Can someone that has the know how make something like this for Hobbes’ AA42 NOs? I do not have the equipment or the skills needed to make something like this. Thanks.