Global 1940 Basic Expansion

@Rosco

Hello Rosco and welcome.
As mentilned by barnee and The Captain, the Expansion house rule sets woild be the perfect match for you. It allows you to buy both units once jet fighter become available.
I play the Expansion rule set for over a year now and can highly recommend it! I can’t go back to the standard G40 anymore. :-)

On firdt sight the rulebook may be overwhelming, but after 2-3 rounds of 1 game the rules and gameplay become natural and opens whole new universe of options and fun.

I would be glad to play a game of this ruleset against you to give you a taste of this awesome game.

Feel free to contact me if you are up for a game.

Br

@Krieghund

Oh…

I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???

:disappointed:

Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.

@Trout

True - a Dessert Army is a regular PG / TG and land combat 3 units.

The problem with 1936 is that Com China is so weak at the start of 1936 that KMT can easily destroy them within two turns and USSR can’t do anything about it since they can’t Lend-Lease due to Com China not boarding USSR.

My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;

The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected. There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here). The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest. I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space  reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.

Thanks SS.  I re-read the report: minor clarification:  It looks like I’m recommending that Britain can’t be attacked at all R1, but actually meant that Italy specifically needs to wait until R2 to attack (preventing the total annihilation of all UK forces from the mediterranean on R1).  Also, I thought there was little the UK could do with these house rules to prevent a takeover if Italy was allowed to attack the UK in R1, but this was assuming Italy could set up their fleet and transports to attack England on R2 with Germany, but skilled Allied players could put naval ships in the path to block Italy from joining in on R2.  With that, I think it’s appropriate to play that Italy can attack the UK on R1… especially since the Italian player only earns 10 IPC’s at start and with no National Objectives, it could be a slow climb to more income if Britain has a chance to maintain it’s fleet and holdings in Africa.

Retreat and Pursuit Clarifications…

Clarifications…

Not all attacking ships must pursue.  The sea zone is used for 2 separate battles if the defender has scrambled planes to the sea zone. Scrambling planes cannot retreat, and would fight any ships that did not pursue. Any opponent ships that are in the target retreat zone are not included in the combat. After combat, if the target retreat sea zone has no surviving defenders, the attacker has option to occupy with
pursuing ships, even IF the defender retreated twice. If attacking planes have enough MP after their move into the battle sea zone, then the defender might not have enough MP to retreat.
Example: 1 attacking fighter, 1 defending DD.
a) Attacker uses 1 MP to SZ (has 3 MP remaining).
b) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 1 MP remaining).
*) Attacker can choose not to pursue and gets 1 free shot - all combat finished.
c) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 2 MP remaining).
d) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 0 MP remaining).
e) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 1 MP remaining).
f) Defender cannot retreat and x rounds of combat occur (assume defender sunk).
g) Attacker uses 1 MP remaining to return to base or carrier.

Answers to questions…

How many complete combat round is allowed before defender retreat?  The retreat can be immediate, and attacker then chooses to take free shot or pursue.
One as per planes retreat in amphibous assault? Not sure understand question.
Does the second combat round then becomes an all one free shots for the attacker? Yes it would if defender burned another MP to retreat. Unless attacking planes are involved.

If some warships can pursuit, do they get their free shot too, before continuing naval battle with retreating defender?  No, they either pursue OR take free shot on the retreating ships.
Is it possible to flee this second naval combat with another move point? Yes, though if survive, they would only actually be just 1 sea zone away with 0 MP available in their next move.
In this case, there is nothing the attacker can do then, right? Correct (unless planes involved). The defender is burning up his MP from his next turn to just get 1 SZ away.

An example or two can useful to understand multiples cases.  Yes, see example above.
Thanks.

To add some diversity and other strategies to winning.

21 points to win  (Axis pts/Allied pts)  Axis starts with 9  Allied starts with 15

2/4 Germany - Berlin
2/2 Southern Italy - Rome
1/1 Norway
1/1 Northern Italy
1/2 Poland - Warsaw
2/2 Eastern US - Washington
3/2 United Kingdom - London
2/2 Russia - Moscow
2/1 France - Paris
2/1 Egypt - Cairo

1/1 Novgorod - Leningrad
2/1 Ontario - Ottawa
1/1 Volgograd - Stalingrad
1/1 Union of South Africa
1/2 Suez Canal
2/1 Gibraltar
1/1 Greece
2/1 Iraq & Persia
2/1 Libya & Malta
1/0 Axis units in S. America
1/0 No Russians W of Kar/Ukr
0/1 No Axis units in Africa
1/0 Strict Neutrals in place
1/0 No US in France & Germany