Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@barnee

Nice.

@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.

@Franklin_Cain The problem with a 6+5 rule is that the Axis are almost always at or near 11 cities after 6 rounds. Germany with a simple crush Russia assault should have Novgorod (Leningrad), France, Germany, Poland + Italy has Rome = 5 with Volgograd as the relatively easy 6th VC. Japan has Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, and with some effort India = 5.

If the Axis don’t have to get those extra cities (8 Europe or 6 Pacific), then they don’t have to extend themselves to get the “last” VC. India is a stretch for Japan, but not terrible if that is all they need. They can afford to lose a few aircraft if they never have to go get Australia or Hawaii. Similarly, the Germans can easily take Volgograd and leave Moscow alone. The Russians don’t have the flexibility to defend both against the Germans so one of them will fall.

Bumping up the number to 7+5 is still putting a lot of pressure on the Allies. The Germans should be able to takedown Moscow by maintaining a good focus in the East. The Allies might be able to defend Egypt and have a sizeable force in the Middle East, but they may not (probably won’t) initially be in a position to takeback Volgograd immediately after the fall of Moscow. So again the Axis “win” without really having to exert themselves. The magic number of 8 was developed after lots of game testing and is a surprisingly good rule.

That all said, changing the VC count is another way (besides the bid) to level the playing field between players of dissimilar abilities. If you wanted to let the newer player take the Axis and lower the VC count, then you could have a competitive game.

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.

@knp, 3D6 heavies have never been popular. Back in the early nineties we played off and on with them. It’s one of those things where if you have them, you love them if you don’t, well life is hell. I like the 2D6 and seems like most players can live with them especially on the Global scale and sheer number of units on the board.

Personally I liked it better when SBR came out of the player’s bank. People really hate that one and democracy usually rules most of the time when you have a regular group. I understand why people hated that one, however I liked it. It’s one of the things I like about disrupting convoys.

Honestly I love HBG, you can now add a lot of stuff to the game especially when it comes to tech. SPA and TDs are a must.

Anyway your thoughts on mech blitzing and both dice counting for heavies was spot on.

The new map is an uneasy compromise, with some tts values reflecting oil wealth, others not.

Personally I prefer adding industrial base and mineral resources together to create a single economic index, but the separate oil values have been tried:

http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html

The big problem is that the Allies always have more than enough oil, the Axis hardly ever enough.  Forcing the Axis to take oil centres to keep going makes their moves very predictable.

As a huge fan of Imp Games’ East & West, these kinds of games always intrigue me. It’s set in 1948, so there are some similarities to the '46 scenario.

IMHO, 1948 is sort of the high-water mark for NATO (i.e. the European empires) however, East & West is a bit non-historical in this sense.

• NATO was not formed until 1949
• Turkey and Greece did not join NATO until 1952, but are part of the Alliance in-game
• Pakistan, India, and Burma were all independent of Britain in 1948; in E&W they are still part of the empire, and a huge thorn in the side of the USSR
• The breakdown of Indonesia between Dutch-controlled areas and independent(ish) ones is not in line with history

The other high-water mark of the Cold War (based on my research) is around 1975-76. Off the top of my head:

• The Vietnam War was over; Cuba, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were all ruled by communist regimes. The USSR (or Warsaw Pact) was at the height of its influence
• The Arab League had expanded across all of north Africa; the Islamic Conference also greatly increased its membership around this time
• The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) including Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand were still in existence, supported by the major NATO powers of the US, UK, and France
• China had annexed Tibet and fought a small war with India

I’ve done work on 1975-76 scenarios for both the Original A&A as well as E&W and have done a fair bit of study on the cold war era “map” so to speak. If anyone wants to discuss the subject/games here or in a PM, I’d be very happy to respond. :-)

Japanese destroyers can carry one infantry.

typo.