Converting to KJF

@Krieghund Understood. Great discussion, and thanks for the background information! I think it speaks to the greatness of the Global 1940 game that, ~10 years after publication, we can still have these types of philosophical debates about it.

Now, we can move on to addressing the flawed rules for AAA units… :grin:

I agree with Simon’s conclusion that Moscow falls G6. No need for Sea lion after UK1 DOW on Japan. This game is going to end very badly for the Allies unless the Axis player is very weak. Play some tougher competition!

Ok So first priority is to prevent any German Sealion Attacks. For this you would build Infantry and a few fighters.

You should have about 25-30 income so a Fighter and 6 inf isn’t out of the question.

Once you have secured you home island its time to consider offensive operations.

A good idea is to reinforce Africa ASAP. If you have managed to grab Persia or secure Egypt a factory here is a good way to boost India’s Defenses or annoy Italy.

Amphibious operations against France or Norway can also be considered but this will require many turns investment in fleet building or else the ships will be sunk as quickly as they are built. Typically a decent fleet will need carriers, destroyers and subs to protect the transports.

Typical build might be (

tank + Mech + Inf = 13 (for S-AFRICA)
Plane (str  ftr or tac) 10 - 12
1-2 inf to round out purchases

After about turn 5 you will see which way game is going (based on uS pacific v Atlantic focus) Then you can turn your attention to helping India or reinforcing US moves in Europe.

@Cmdr:

@thatonekid:

you really cant take haw j1 can you?? i mean, theres 2 inf and 2 figs there, if they only have 1 trns full of people, then the odds are likely not in their favor.

Yes you can, out of the box Japan may bring:  5 ground units (4 from Japan, 1 from Carolines) and 3 shore bombardments since the only “enemy” ship is a transport.

American only has: 2 Infantry, Fighter, Tactical Bomber, Strategic Bomber to defend with.

It’s only like 33% odds, but I’ve seen some people go for Sea Lion or an attack on a massive army with less odds of success.

thats true, but i dont play with OOB rules.

@suprise:

So here’s the Question How many ALPHA+2 games have you played , and what is the win lose ratio of Axis to Allied , not whether you won or lost, and do you pick your countries  or randomly draw them.
   For us the Axis have taken the last few
   I like the sound of your counter to the Kill Japan First , anyway just wondering how the record looks for your ALPHA+2 win loss as Axis and Allied
   I should probably start a new topic with that question or two table top or lap top

My one on one games, Axis win a lot, but in our 6 player group games, the allies win a lot.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I guess if I was in your position, I would use classic game pieces for the new countries:

Old Germans are gray I think, they could be Italians, Old Russians would be good for Anzac. Old UK for India,  Old U.S. for China, France could be old Japanese or Fortress America Southern Invaders.

France seldom builds units, in fact all you really need are some infantry for later African moves. Tactical bombers if you do not care could be fortress America bomber pieces, use some helicopters for smaller countries if they need any.

I rarely see many tactical bomber builds. Maybe Russia, and America might build some. Carriers and destroyers are built a lot in my games. Since transports are non combatants in 1940, just use transports as Destroyers, I rarely build cruisers, so just use a battleship with a penny underneath it as a cruiser. Just use paper to represent transports. Not sure if this is a good idea, but mechanized units can be risk pieces or even monopoly houses…

Just a few tips with not too much insight. Hope this helps.

Cool. Just an FYI, i knew that by reading the rule book. :roll: