Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@shadowhawk said in [Global 1940] Changing AA in the game:

Well atm they are free hps. After the pre-combat shots they dont do anything in the fight except take a hit. So as a defender unless its clear im winning the first hits go to the AA, they are dead weight at this point.

When they can return fire every round against planes ( might want to keep the @1 because they target units ) then it might give the defender a reasonable choice.

I agree. I thought when you said that you were referring to the version with your house rules, not the out of box version.

IMO they represent flak88 batteries, a bit more specialised AA guns then the divisional version but a lot weaker then the static stuff that defends ports/airfields and the likes.

Agreed.

The Play Testing has now ended.

This has resulted in the following:

"From the moment that Germany, Japan or Italy declares War on - or attacks the Soviet Union, the Soviet player receives 1 Tank unit in each round, to be placed in Urals.

The Soviet player must control Urals from the start of the Soviet players turn in order to receive this Tank unit.

If Germany, Japan or Italy are not at War with the Soviet Union by Early 1941, the Soviet player receives this Tank unit from the start of the Soviet players turn in Early 1941.

Other rules concerning this Soviet Tank unit are still according to the rules described at page 13.

This rule will be part of the updated Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion (expected release Summer/Autumn 2022).

@Ichabod:

@simon33:

Strikes me that the factory downgrade when you lose and regain a major is harsh and arguably unfair.

What if factories are limited to the production value of the territory if not on original soil, but also limited by the type of factory? .

Do you mean this restriction (of producing only the value number of the territory) only to apply for the countries that capture the major, like Japan capturing India, or the US landing on W. Germany just to reduce the factory to a minor?

I would think this would be another way to add some balance. Forward factories next to Russia only producing 2 units for Germany…ect.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

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.

Air Transport planes will make it so much easier to get that Egypt NO for Germany.  In a number of our games Germany never gets that one because they have no transports in the Med (actually no naval presence period) and too often the Italians are using their transports too much to keep sending troops over from Italy to Africa to keep fighting the Brits and don’t have time to ferry over any Germans.  Plus, if the Brits have fighters about, then it can be dangerous for a German land unit just sitting on an Italian transport waiting to be ferried over to Egypt.  A lot of the time Italy keeps having to replace transports because of British air power and not enough naval protection.

If Germany had an air transport plane, they could wait until Italy captured Egypt and just fly a couple of guys down there then send the plane back to Germany.

Anzac, in reality, could only defend itself versus an eventually over-extended Japan pushing south. 6 IPCs will build just enough Inf to survive. I dont recall Anzac invading anywhere except into New Guinea whereas Canada at 11 IPCs could build Inf & Transports to do what it actually did, re-inforce United Kingdom bedises have its own beach & army on D Day. Boring maybe but definitely more realistic to what happened & a mark of a good simulation is to be as realistic as possible. The designers put a Canadian emblem on the board - too bad they didn`t distinguish the Canadian forces that should be on the board (like the Anzac) & possibly provide some control markers, as well.