Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in [Global 1940] Balance idea for the Allies:

Give all the technologies of one row (the Allied player(s) chooses) to one Allied power (Allied player(s) choose), free of charge. These technologies apply at the beginning of the game on Germany’s very first turn for those powers. These powers cannot research further. Other powers research normally.

Do this twice with two different Allied powers.

If the Allied player(s) cannot make a decision the Axis player(s) choose (s).

For example, the Soviet Union chooses the first row and therefore has the technologies Rockets, War Bonds, Improved Mechanized Infantry, Advanced Artillery, Paratroopers, and Increased Factory Production, at the start of the game, and the US chooses the second row and gets the technologies Improved Shipyards, Super Submarines, Radar, Jet Fighters, Long Range Aircraft, and Heavy Bombers.

I think this can balance the game significantly for the Allies instead of a bid. If the game still isn’t balanced enough, do this with more Allied powers.

My contention is that Global 1940 is NOT a World War 2 game without technology. It is stuck in 1940l

@Vendetta said in [Global 1940] Blitz After Attacking With No Casualties:

My proposal is this: tanks (and any other blitzing unit) are only prevented from blitzing if they fight a battle where the defenders inflict at least one casualty on the attacking force - i.e. if you invade that territory with 1 infantry and kill him, and he doesn’t land a hit on you, your tanks are then free to invade one more territory.

Tanks become much scarier when you play this way - you won’t be sure what exactly it takes to stop them, and you can never be 100% certain that a breakthrough is impossible. Defense in depth remains a valid strategy - but now you have to think more about how strong of a blocking force to leave behind in your front line territories.

I think the Path to Victory modification, with its expanded number of Eastern Front territories, would especially benefit from this rule

Good idea. Will use this to build off both for this and for Destroyer screens.

@Axisarmpit said in [Global 1940] HELP PLEASE Axis and Allies Global Impasse:

Im not blitzing through a territory with infrastructure, but I am entering a territory with infrastructure as part of my non contact move. Lots of gamers agree variations on their understanding of particular rules?

Right. I understood you were not blitzing. I was using that as an example of logic. Please let me explain.

In your explanation of your House Rule you said “…a non combat movement can take the form of an advance into empty enemy territory…”. Your question then is a territory containing infrastructure empty or not? Therefore:

An armor unit may blitz through empty enemy territories An armor unit may not blitz through a territory containing infrastructure Thus a territory containing infrastructure is not empty

Of course it is your House Rule so you can do anything you want but if you want to follow the logic of the game I would say you cannot advance into an enemy territory containing infrastructure during the Non-combat Phase.

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!

@Transports - I did some test battles.  I think it is better to leave transports on the OOB system where they have to be chosen last.  Otherwise, they will just become meat-shields to protect BB’s (when empty).  Or, they will become too high-value targets when full.

For my personal playing system and House Rules set, I’m just going to have transports be able to be targeted when a TAC rolls a “1”, otherwise they must still be targeted until last.

Also, @Baron.  I accidentally hit -1 instead of +1 on one of your posts on this topic thread!  Sorry about that!  It has been corrected.  :-D

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

Hmmm, How do I alter the topic title? It says 1942 as the year - that was a mistake - the darn thing took so long to type.

Deleted my prior post…I put it in the wrong forum!  :oops: