Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

@gen-manstein yea i’d almost go at it the other way and make the CAs and fast BBs go 3. But that will create it’s own issues. Besides 19 knots is over 20 mph anyway

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.

@CWO:

A&A is fundamentally a board game, and its relationship to more rigorous military-simulation wargames (both hobby-level and professional-grade) is roughly the relationship that the Monopoly board game has to the kinds of economic-simulation games that are detailed and accurate enough that they could be used as teaching tools in a management school curriculum.

I agree to the Monopoly comment, or maybe better said, without historical events and situations to use in conjunction with play, then A&A is just a glorified version of Risk.  But, I want some history and random events that change the play of the game.

It is more realistic to move warships from one SZ to another.
But, would you retreat more than 1 TT to repair your Tank?
(Land movement are much slower and falling back damaged Tanks while staying in position with Art and Inf make such delay an issue. You also have to compare between planes for the cost. Aircraft mobility and versatility is way more interesting than 2 hits units which have to return to IC for repair.)

IMO, it is easier to consider that such unit are repaired right on place with spare parts.

A different procedure I suggested a while ago is that you can only repair one and have to pick a damaged Tank as casualty before allocating a hit to damage another Tank.

So, instead of 10 Tanks staying on battle until the 11th hits.
A second hits eliminates a first Tank.
This becomes far less effective, but it is easier to follow a single damaged Tank per stack.

However, I did not search on how to calculate such way of allocating damage.

I’ll be able to post set up this weekend any comments on it will help

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.