[Global 1940] Additional Unit Stats

@barnee

Naval Mines work under same game mechanisms as Land Mines.

So, the Nation that passes through the Minefield must choose which units are lost.

Okay so I that title sounds kinda clickbait-y and I apologize for that. To get it said and done, no I don’t think France should be scrapped entirely replaced with Britain or something. I just think that as is, it needs way more to be an actual nation worth having a person play if you have a lot of people while still being balanced. So we all know that 99% of the time, France is gonna fall on the first turn to Germany. Maybe they pull some weird new mega brain ultra plan but that’s pretty unlikely. Paris falls, Germany gets cash money and the French are left playing the most minor and conservative support role known to man.
This really sucks for you when you first pick up the game and think maybe there’s gonna be some interesting new faction with special rules like China but instead you’re just a stepping stone. So here’s what I would suggest:

Instead of having just France it be France and a collection of the other minor allied powers in exile. So France, Dutch, Poland, etc. Change Congo to this new faction and place an infantry down there. Maybe one infantry in Indonesia and one in Indo China, an extra fighter in Britain, and maybe a Transport in either the Atlantic or Med.
But that still isn’t really much of an improvement for the player, so similarly to China I would say that the exiled Allies should get some special way of recruiting units. It’d be very small like at the end of every turn roll a die and if you roll a one you can place one infantry down in any territory of yours worth at least one IPC. While I do want to make it more interesting for the exiled Allies player, I don’t want to make them too powerful to significantly hurt the Axis. To counteract this maybe make a few territories they own worth an extra IPC? They won’t be making money once Paris falls and a few more IPCs I think would add up to a rough equivalence. Territories like Normandy, Indochina, Tunis, etc.

I’m not gonna pretend like I’ve actually tested this yet and I’m also fully admitting that I might be accidentally suggesting some horrible completely unbalanced idea that would throw it to the Allies. But this is just a little idea I thought up to try and help make things slightly more fun for the poor French player. Is this a good idea? Am I a big dumb-dumb? (Those are not mutually exclusive.) I really want to know your guys’ thoughts on this before I actually try it or anything I could do to change or fine tune it so please let me know!

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

This is a mod which changes some rules and adds many more pieces to the setup. It uses the pieces and countries of 1940. I would love for everyone to try it and give their opinion.

Rules changes:
All units are added from 1940 2nd Edition except air and naval bases. ICs printed on the map are not used; ICs from 1940 are used instead. Strategic bombing raids can be done against these. No new ICs can be built. Units such as carriers and battleships which have different rules in 1941 compared to 1940 keep the rules of 1941.

All spaces are worth double their printed value. Countries start with double IPCs as well.

Italy: Italy is its own power now. It receives control of Southern and Western(ahistorical but the best I can do) Europe. Italy’s capital is in Southern Europe.

ANZAC: ANZAC is its own power now. It receives control of Australia, East Indies(ahistorical again), New Guinea, Sllolomon Islands, and New Zealand. Its capital is in Australia.

China: China is its own power. China must stay in China. China may only purchase infantry and artillery. China may deploy anywhere in China(Northwestern China, Szechwan, Manchuria, and Coastal China). If all four of these are captured by Allies, China gets control of all of them and may build all units (anywhere in China) and may move out of China. The US may give China as many IPCs as it wants; however China may only purchase one unit with US funds per turn. If all China is controlled by Axis, US gets China’s IPCs.

France: France is its own power now. France receives control of France(note that this has been captured) West Africa, Equatorial Africa,and  Madagascar. France is considered an originally controlled territory of France. If France is liberated France assumes control and places one infantry there(this happens each time France is captured). Note that if France is liberated by Alllies and Germany takes it back, Italy will NOT assume control as it is an original French territory.

Anything blunt or unspecified should be corrected. Feel free to ask me abut any rules.

Note that the setup is really three setups in one: the original, the setup pictured on the back of the box, and the units I added. A bit crowded. It plays well but some problems are still here. Please try it out and give me feedback.

Turn order and starting IPCs in hand/ starting income(don’t forget that everything is doubled):
Soviet Union: 14
Italy: 8
Germany: 16
ANZAC: 6
France: 0
United Kingdom: 18
Japan: 18
United States: 32
China: 2

Setup:
Germany:
Germany:6 infantry, 2 mech, 1 fighter, 2 S bombers, major IC
France: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AAA, 1tank, 1 fighter, 1 T bomber
Norway/Finland: 3 infantry, 1 AAA
Southern Europe: 2 infantry
North Africa: 3 infantry, 1 mech, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Eastern Europe: 5 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 AAA, 3 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 T bomber, 1 S bomber
Ukraine: 3 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 AAA
West Russia: 4 infantry
SZ 5: 1 sub, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
SZ 6: 1 sub
SZ 9: 1 sub
SZ 16: 1 sub, 1 transport, 1 cruiser
SZ 17: 1 transport, 1 destroyer
SZ 18: 1 transport, 1 cruiser

Italy:
Southern Europe: 4 infantry 1 artillery 1 AAA 1 fighter 1 t bomber minor IC control marker
Western Europe: 1 infantry minor IC control marker
North Africa: 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 mech. 1 tank
SZ 17 1 transport 2 destroyers 1 cruiser

Japan:
Japan: 6 infantry 1 artillery 1 mech. 1 AAA 1 tank 1 fighter 1 T bomber 2 S bombers major IC
Iwo Jima: 1 infantry
Okinawa: 1 infantry 1 fighter
Manchuria: 4 infantry
Coastal China: 3 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 1 fighter
Southeast Asia: 2 infantry 1 artillery
Caroline Islands: 2 infantry
SZ 45: 1 transport 1 destroyer 1 cruiser 2 carriers(carrying 3 fighters and 1 t bomber) 1 battleship
SZ 46: 1 transport 1 destroyer 1 carrier( carrying 1 fighter and 1 t bomber)
SZ 31: 1 destroyer 1 sub
SZ. 38: 1 transport 1 destroyer 2 cruisers 1 carrier(carrying 2 fighters)
SZ 37: 1 sub

Soviet Union:
Russia: 8 infantry, 2 mech., 1 artillery, 1 AAA, 1 tank, 2 fighters 1 T bomber 1 S bomber major IC
Archangel: 4 infantry
Karelia: 3 infantry 1 AAA
Caucasus: 5 infantry, 1 artillery 1 AAA 1 tank minor IC
Urals: 1 infantry 1 tank
Siberia: 5 infantry
SZ 4: 1 sub
SZ 3 1 sub 1 transport
SZ18: 1 transport 1 cruiser

ANZAC:
Australia: 3 infantry 1 artillery 1 AAA 1 fighter minor IC
New Zealand: 1 infantry 1 fighter
New Guinea: 1 infantry
India: 1 infantry
Egypt: 1 infantry 1 artillery
SZ 33: 2 subs 1 transport 1 cruiser

France:
England: 1 infantry 1 fighter
Equatorial Africa:  1 infantry 1 mech. 1 artillery
Egypt: 1 infantry
Middle East: 1 infantry
SZ 25: 1 transport 1 destroyer 1 cruiser

United Kingdom:
England: 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 AAA 1 fighter 1 t bomber 2 s bombers major IC
Eastern Canada: 1 infantry 1 tank
Western Canada :1 infantry
Egypt :2 infantry 1 mech. 1 artillery 1 AAA 2 tanks 1 t bomber
Kenya :1 infantry 1 fighter
Union of South Africa :1 infantry
Middle East : 1 infantry
India : 3 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter 1 t bomber minor IC
SZ 8: 1 sub 1 cruiser 1 battleship
SZ 10: 2 transports 1 destroyer
SZ 14: 1 carrier (carrying 1 fighter)
SZ 29: 1 transport 1 destroyer 1 cruiser
SZ 30: 1 battleship

United States :
Easter US :6 infantry 2 tanks 1 fighter 1 s bomber major IC
Western US :3 infantry 1 mech. 1 artillery 1 tank 1 s bomber major IC
Alaska : 1 infantry
Hawaii : 2 infantry 1 AAA
Philippines : 2 infantry
Midway : 1 infantry 1 t bomber
Wake: 1 infantry
SZ 11: 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 transport 1 cruiser
SZ 42: 1 sub 1 transport 1 cruiser 1 carrier (carrying 2 fighters)  1 battleship
SZ 40: 1 transport 1 carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 t bomber) 1 battleship

China:
Northwestern China: 2 infantry
Szechwan: 3 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter

@Der:

Planes WERE historically superior to ships as far as bang for the buck - that’s why carriers replaced battleships.

That is correct, but the 1940 fighters did not got the range to sink the Royal Navy in the real war. Taking off from Normandy they barely crossed the English Channel and got 10 minutes of operational time before they run out of gas. In this A&A game a Fighter unit can easily cross the Atlantic and sink everything afloat. And that is not historical correct, and I doubt it make the game better

Lets suppose that units generated by the mobilization of minor ally nations can visually be distinguished rather than simply merge into the armies of the controlling power.

This might just mean, for example, a yellow stripe on a French infantry to mark it as Belgian. With all the new pieces available if you contact WOTC this becomes practical.

What differences might these units have?

+1 in combat when defending their homeland; -1 elsewhere, or if their homeland is under enemy occupation?

e.g. - If Poland is under German occupation, will Polish units in the Russian army be less effective fighting for Russia, unless it means fighting over Poland itself?

option to place a new unit in the respective homeland each turn (with a sensible total limit - probably the original starting number; i.e. you can never have more than 3 & 1 Belgian inf and art).

One might extend the principle to colonies, e.g. marking some UK units as Canadian, South African, Indian, Anzac etc.

Would separate Bavarian units be representative of German political divisions?

Polish corps in the Russian army?

Austria-Hungary might have a real problem…

@Pjor:

The second unit is Heavy Tank. A:3 D:3 M:2 cost: 9.
This unit will represent the heavy late-war tanks. Examples are the Soviet Josef Stalin tanks, British Churchill and German Tiger tank. Aside that it function as a normal tank it will rise it’s attack value to 4 if it’s combined with a mechanized infantry OR tactical bomber.

Tanks already Attack @3, Defend @3 and Move 2 for a cost of 6 IPCs. “Heavy” tanks should attack and defend @ 4 if they will cost 9 IPCs.
Also, there has been discussion in other threads that “Heavy” tanks should only move 1, or at least can not Blitz. This is due to the fact that they are so big and heavy. For example: The King Tiger tank was a very tough tank but was also kind of big and cumbersome. Part of that problem was that the engine was underpowered so they just couldn’t go very fast at all. However, if the movement is cut down to 1, perhaps the cost should also drop to 8.

One member came up with a pretty good formula to figure out the cost for land units: Attack + Defense + Movement - 1 = Cost.
For an example, say Heavy Tanks at 4-4-2-9. This works out perfectly. Attack 4(4) + Defense 4 (8) + Movement 2 (10) - 1 = Cost 9.
Now try Artillery: Attack 2 (2) + Defense 2 (4) + Movement 1 (5) -1 = Cost 4.
It actually doesn’t work for tanks since they changed the values to 3-3-2-6. By the formula, tanks should cost 7. Some have argued that OOB tanks should be considered “Medium” and should only defend at 2, which would fit the formula 3+2+2-1=6. Unfortunately, others say if you lower the defense to 2, then cost should go down to 5, which screws up the formula again.
Personally, I would be fine with Medium tanks at 3-2-2-6 because it also allowes for Tank Destroyer units (currently being put out by HBG) that would switch Attack/Defense values (2-3-2-6).

By the way, this formula does NOT work for aircraft or naval vessels. I don’t know if anyone has figured out a formula for them yet.

As a huge fan of Imp Games’ East & West, these kinds of games always intrigue me. It’s set in 1948, so there are some similarities to the '46 scenario.

IMHO, 1948 is sort of the high-water mark for NATO (i.e. the European empires) however, East & West is a bit non-historical in this sense.

• NATO was not formed until 1949
• Turkey and Greece did not join NATO until 1952, but are part of the Alliance in-game
• Pakistan, India, and Burma were all independent of Britain in 1948; in E&W they are still part of the empire, and a huge thorn in the side of the USSR
• The breakdown of Indonesia between Dutch-controlled areas and independent(ish) ones is not in line with history

The other high-water mark of the Cold War (based on my research) is around 1975-76. Off the top of my head:

• The Vietnam War was over; Cuba, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were all ruled by communist regimes. The USSR (or Warsaw Pact) was at the height of its influence
• The Arab League had expanded across all of north Africa; the Islamic Conference also greatly increased its membership around this time
• The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) including Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand were still in existence, supported by the major NATO powers of the US, UK, and France
• China had annexed Tibet and fought a small war with India

I’ve done work on 1975-76 scenarios for both the Original A&A as well as E&W and have done a fair bit of study on the cold war era “map” so to speak. If anyone wants to discuss the subject/games here or in a PM, I’d be very happy to respond. :-)