Strategy Guide Global 1940

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I now think a similar idea could apply to Finland.

Its 4 infantry can only move in the following territories:

Finland
Vyborg
Karelia
Norway
Sweden (not if the Axis are at war with the strict neutrals)

@The-Captain

I would love to hear more about your Most Precious Soviet Strategies. I love talking about strategy, especially if it’s about my favorite power when it comes to tactical decision making 😀

@The-Captain

Didn’t know your team was so impressive. I look forward to the update.

@rommel13579
I also don’t use my mechs to attack.

@jostermann

I saw this a few days ago. I am going to try this out it sounds like fun :smile:

…
…
…
.
.
.
.
.
.
…
…
…
.
.
.

.
…
.
.

.
.

Recruiting stations at least?!

@taamvan Nope. Its Deathheads map he came out with right around 1st AA50 edition came out. 2008 or 9 I believe.

He did get ideas from AAE AAP. Had his own Mods with using AA50 rules if they applied. D6.

I changed a ton of stuff to it and made it a D12 system. Game reports are in House Rules thread under 1940 Global War 2nd Edition if your interested in looking at.

Honestly The 2 young good players I have went at it in Europe the whole game. Said it was the best game for them as far as historic effects. Convoy raiding SBRing back and forth and UKUS did there NA combine attack one time in game and got Paris back. Germany had UK down to 26 icps with raiding and some Africa stuff but US got on board and finally got UK back to 50 icps in income. Also what hurt UK early was there Tacs and destroyers could not get dice hits on the Wolf Packs. Epic.
UK even had there NA Sub Hunters for whole game and Got a +1 for Tac bombers against lone subs and still missed a bunch.
Also only 1-1 for figs hitting surfaced subs with a destroyer. 5 subs Vs 2 Destroyers can only scramble 2 figs.
You also got to have the Sub being able to submerge after Tac bomber attack and even with a destroyer present. Then you give Destroyer a depth Charge drop attack.

Map pics in the thread i posted.

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.)