Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@The-Captain

Finished reading it.

Looks great!

Hopefully in the future you can add Japanese impulse rounds to reflect their action in the Second Sino-Japanese War (maybe even simulate Khalkhin Gol).

@The-Captain

Hi Captain

So I assume one can upgrade to SS Artillery same as if it was a regular Artillery ? The SPA

Screenshot from 2026-01-26 20-21-08.png

Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
😊😊😊

Some good ideas here. A few things I’ve done were to have bmbrs hit at 3 unless paired with a ftr. Makes taking solo blockers out more risky and unless used with carrier aircraft, not as powerful with the big range they have.

Also give tacs +1 when paired with inf the same way artillery does. Makes them a lot more popular in my test games.

None of the Prices change. The ftr still has the big hit on D and can boost the bmbr. Also still the cheapest for fodder. Tac boosting the inf is really nice for small counterattacks and is somewhat realistic as well.

So some minor changes but makes for a more balanced air buy as opposed to just going huge with bmbrs imo.

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.

Here’s one that doesn’t have any IPC changes or the added Russian and UK NOs.

ww2global40_2nd_edition_A-Bomb_No_PUs.xml

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.)

I was thinking of playing games in which russia had to take Non African original axis territories for his national objective (ie no +14 off africa).

However this money is very useful for russia to survive mid-late game. How should russia be compensated?

I put 2 russian destroyers and 2 cruisers in the black sea with a transport. Russia battleship in the baltic sea in sz 115 where the cruiser is.  I also gave russia a bomber.

You may be thinking it is a bit much, but they can’t actually go anywhere and get blasted easily by germany anyway. However it should equate to the late game money russia would have gotten off of africa.

What do you guys think?