Global 40 Objective for Normandy

@chrisbump86 Does the attacker have to declare on their combat move which territory or sz they wish to continue to if they succeed w/o taking a casualty?Can they split their forces and go to multiple territories or sz?Can they return to another friendly spot or even to where they attacked from?Would a matter if the attacker needed more than 2,3 or more combat rounds to kill the defender?
If we playtest,these kind of questions are likely to come up.

@the-duke

You just load em up onto your Soviet Black Sea Navy. The one with the Battleship.

@Mr-Kell Ah yes they do but you can’t get the infantry to Paris before Germany can but you can get the fighter so that adds on defense. If you pay attention to what I set up, it’s still pretty damn favorable for Germany, it just has to bring in the airforce to make it a victory.

If you NoDOW, this usually means you are after Russia and defeat China and stall the US in the Pacific.
UK will likely grow strong and a Calcutta Crush (CC) is almost not doable.

This helps out Euro Axis alot.
BUT!:
If anything goes wrong with the german march on Moscow, you are screwed on both sides of the Map.

I tried it over and over with minimal success.
Now i prefer a solid J1 in BM and Vanilla since the impact on both Theaters are enormous.
The US has to choose a side and need to quickly balance out the whole board.
UK has all hands full as well.

A J1 is putting a lot of pressure to the Allies.

a CC is very likely stabilize J’s income arround 70-80 ipc creating many Threats at once by better pistioning your self in the Pacific.
-better odds on achivieving all 6 VC’s

The downfall is that this will be heavily in favor for the Allies.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

What could be unbalancing is UK putting a minor in Egypt (and/or Iraq) UK1, even with a sealion feign UK could still put a minor in Iraq or Egypt with little to no repercussions.
If Germany doesn’t threaten Sealion (Or DOW Russia) G1, UK could put a minor in both Egypt and Iraq and an Airbase in Egypt, and still plop a couple INF in UK or India. (Sounds powerful)

The thing is, in G40 enhanced this rule change is along with adding all of Canada and the 2 South African territories to ANZAC (creating the Common Wealth Dominions).
This takes away some UK income (10IPCs), thus reducing the impact of a single UK economy, thus reducing the overall impact on game balance.

Would just need testing.
And speaking of, im looking at some time off work coming up, and will be testing alot of G40 enhanced out.
And A F2F game during thanksgiving, in which id like to play atleast a preliminary version of G40 enhanced.

Italy is sure taking a pounding, and Germany not getting that extra money to use against a fully-powered USSR is hurting them.  This should offset any USA/China/ANZAC loss in a Global game.  We’ll see what happens.