[Global 1940] Additional Unit Stats

@vodot

Shoot, my sentence was in the wrong order. I edited it to mean what I wanted to say.

@franklin_cain yea it’d make sense for it to be Dutch and German controlled. Treat it the same as the Dutch Territories in the Pacific and the Chinese ones controlled by Japan.

You could house rule it. I guess that way Italy could get it if they conquered it after Germany lost it. I’ve never seen Germany build a major there or even a minor : )

Those are the rules though : ) So yea, no erratta

Edit
I suppose Poland, Norway and Denmark should be treated as Neutrals though. Vyborg, Baltic States and Bessarabia for USSR too. Maybe Poland Pro-Allies ? Vyborg Pro-Axis ? Hmm … I’d say no to Vyborg.

Thats it right there…a lot of realism is sacrificed for ease of play.
Personally, i think global is complex enough and long enough without this add on. I must admit, it is an interesting and simple mod.

Thank you kind sir. If you get the chance, try it out and give me the results. I am adding Romanian today. :wink: I am changing a few things for Finland as well.

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

That SHOULD A US bonus. They need more offensive oriented bonuses.
It feels like they are too reactionary (take back X, don’t lose Y) and all in the pacific.

They should have a homeland bonus for 20
and 2 Pacific bonuses and 2 Atlantic bonuses.

Atlantic:
5 IPCs if the Axis controls no territory in the middle east or Africa
5 IPCs for allied Co-occupation of either of the following: Normandy/Bordeaux, Holland/Belgium

Pacific
5 IPCs for control of the Philippines
5 IPCs if the Allies control Hawaii, Midway, and any three Japanese islands

I slightly redesigned my concept of ATGs:

ATGs should be 1(2)/2(3)/1 units.

1/2/1 vs all units except tanks
2/3/1 vs tanks

It’s more logical to get the + 1 bonus against tanks as an ATG in both, attack and defense.

This makes ATGs more valuable and justifies its costs of 4 IPC.

@SSG:

Uhhh….Switch, was that last ‘chits’ a typo or a Freudian slip? :-D

Um, BOTH.  Because keeping up with this little laminated squares is a pain :-)