Possible to connect different Versions?

@AndrewAAGamer

:laughing:

Also, you mentioned that you have a game group with which you want to play A&A.  If money is tight, one option would be to ask the members of your group to chip in…perhaps even to the point of splitting the cost evenly between all the members, and treating the game as the collective property of the group.  Alternately, one person could buy and own the Europe 1940 game and one person could buy and own the Pacific 1940 game.

The combined arms rule (actually called “Commander In Chief”) was in the first edition of Classic but was removed from the second edition of Classic.  Apparently they thought back then that this rule was to easily taken advantage of by Allied players.

The way it worked was:
The US moves “X” units to United Kingdom.  The UK already has a number of units already there.  The US moves a number of transports that can carry all the current US and UK units on United Kingdom to the sea zone adjacent to the territory.
During the Collect Income phase of the US turn, the US and UK players agree to make the US Commander In Chief.  The US player takes a stack of 3 US control markers and places them in United Kingdom.
Then on the UK player’s turn, the UK player does not move any of the units intended for the combined force.  If the UK moves any of it’s units stationed on United Kingdom, they CAN NOT be included in the combined force.
Then on the US player’s next turn, the US player is now free to move any or all units stationed on United Kingdom as long as they DID NOT move during the UK player’s turn.
By the way, this includes UK aircraft if they didn’t move on the UK’s turn.

So, basically, any country’s units that are going to be included in the combined force but are not from the country of the Commander In Chief have to be in the launching territory before the Commanding player is chosen.  It might be a little more complex, but I think this rule could be applied to Global 1940.
For example:  Say England wants to attack a Japanese force in Burma from India.  They want to use a combined force of UK, US, Soviet and ANZAC units.  So on UK Pacific’s turn, UK can move units into India.  On the UK’s Collect Income phase, they get chosen as Commander In Chief.  The Soviet, US and ANZAC forces have to be already in India at this time and those are the ONLY non UK forces that the UK can move next turn.  Even if one of the other countries move more units into India, those new units could NOT be used in the UK’s next turn.
Assuming the UK attacks Burma with the combined force and defeats the Japanese, UK India will get possession of that territory.  Also, I believe the last casualty HAS to belong to the Commander In Chief’s country (in this case, UK).

@SouthsideCH:

@ColonelCarter:

That assumption is wrong. While Germany starts the scenario controlling those territories, they are still original Russian territories, similar to how the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the games are still original Chinese territories, preventing Japan from building major ICs on anything but Korea.

Then why in the set up instructions does it say put a German control marker on the territory, as well as units? Just a unit on it should be enough. Every time you take an enemy territory do you put a control marker on it? I don’t.

You can play however you want of course. But the rulebook clearly states:

@rulebook:

If you have captured the territory, place your control
marker on the territory and adjust the national production
levels.

While the emblem printed on the map indicates the original controller of the territory
the control marker indicates the the actual controller of the territory - as ColoneCarter pointed out.

There are some rules where the distinction between original and actual controller is of importance.
The 3 IPC bonus for Russia is only one example. The territories you mentioned can never become
“original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls”.
When the scenario begins Germany has already captured some original Russian territories.
If Russia takes them back, they will be original Russian territories under Russian control.

So better avoid confusion.
HTH :-)

Okay +3 more ipc to the usual 12 allies bid. Makes no difference to me. Kind of lame because that 3 more ipc would go to a more strategic spot like right below it to smack ethiopia with better odds.

mmm, that is fine. I might see more crazy korea attacks.

I wish the developers would post some of their games if they are doing it online. I really want to see the logic in -1 inf for egypt in an already axis stacked game. Too many people complained about Italy sucking I guess, but they never hear the tears of UK hitting the floor. London should start with more money to defend itself, 37 starting income seems more reasonable. 9 inf fighter.

spendo is right.

the full germany push to russia is generally the way to go.

I just am skeptical of japan doing early russia play, because the income japan gets out of it is small and he gives up much in his setup. Makes dealing with china / uk pac / anzac / usa really hard especially at a low income.

I am a full believer in a strong japan going for his objectives. It makes allies commit more and makes allies have less income as a whole

You’re now in turn 3?

I’d say wait with ships and build some defence if needed (or some air units) and some troops for South Africa. Meanwhile wait for USA to come and help out (with a sufficient warfleet en enough subs)

You can also opt to build up UK fleet in Canada, but don’t send them to their death