Oztea's 1939 Global Setup

Hi @nishav

I use Factory Limited from the Redesign Thread. I find them to work well.

“FactoryLimited” Air and Naval Bases now cost 12. All captured and newly constructed Minor Factories may only produce Artillery, AAguns, Armor, Mech Infantry, Mobile Infantry, Marines, Elite and Infantry. If a NB is present you may also build Subs, Transports, Escort Carriers and Destroyers. If an AB is present you may also build Fighters and Tac Bombers.

ABs are required to build Fighters, Tac Bombers, Bombers and Air Transports. Bombers and Air Transports may only be built in Factories on originally owned Territories that also have an AB. In addition, Bombers and Air Transports may not be built in the following territories: Kwangtung, Egypt, Norway, Alaska, West India and Korea. May not build at an AB with 3 or more damage.

NBs are required to build all Naval Units. BBs, CVs and CAs may only be built in Territories with originally owned starting Factories. These Territories must also have a NB (Need not be original NB). May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.

So similar to what you’ve suggested. Basically the Big Guns can only be built in original major factories.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in When USA not at War:

@Marshmallow-of-War ANZAC DOW is not always dumb. Sometimes it allows a key ship block or prevents transports in disputed zones from picking up soldiers. I have seen it happen a handful of times.

Completely true! The ANZAC declaration following a UK Pacific ship move is a classic! I can’t imagine anyone taking issue with that.

However, you’re ignoring the second half of that…

It’s taking the Carolines after initiating a war that leaves the US out of the fight that is the issue, leaving the transports vulnerable and stripping defenses from ANZAC itself. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would be wise.

@crockett36
What you talkin bout Willis?

@Valladares said in G40 Historial v1.1:

@SS-GEN These are some preview, new things, that we include in our new version 1.2:

New National Objectives:

UK Europe: Theme “Mediterranean supply line”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Europe controls Malta.

UK Pacific: Theme “Jewel of the far East”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Pacific controls all: India, West India and Cylon.

Japan: Theme “USSR Oil trade”: 2 I.P.C. if Japan is not at war with Soviet Union.

ANZAC: Theme “Anzac new day”: 5 I.P.C. If Anzac have at last one land unit in Egypt, Alexandria or Crete

China: Theme: “Asian Sherman”: China can purchase tanks if at last one USA land unit is in china controlled territory. Historical context: http://www.theshermantank.com/tag/china/
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/china/m4a2-sherman-in-chinese-service/

Modes of play

Historical and Victory Conditions: With year historical restrictions and game max duration is 12 rounds, and axis or allies have 3 of 4 victory conditions, at the end of the round 12.

Majority of victory cities in Europe.
Majority of victory cities in Pacific.
Majority of oil world producing areas.
Majority of global team I. P. C. (Map and bonuses)

Axis & Allies Global 1940 Historical MOD 6° Play Test
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Med supply. Malta. I like if any axis ship between Malta and Gib blocks this

Anzac had guys in Egypt.

China building tanks based on a US tank or 2 in China at end of war should be a no go.
Keep in mind this game your playing isn’t a lot like mine. Just feel NOs should have some type of resources on them to get. IMO
Just me. Not knocking your ideas. Try them first. You guys may like them

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.

I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.

that would be cool :-D

Italian 14:  I don’t get this one.

Bridging friendly units has the same effect, so this NA is of no value.  Or does this reset the units and regardless of whether the unit fought in the Combat Phase it can bridge across?