Global 1940 Combat Engineer Unit

@The-Captain Thanks. Got it for carrier hits first. But not clear for my other question. So in my scenario is this correct??

First, Escorts sweep and remove mines which escorts successfully cleared
Second, Naval Force crosses into the SZ and the NM’s not cleared by Escorts roll for hits
Third, after hits applied, the naval combat takes place which in this case is naval task force against one defending Escort.

@magnum I’m not yet convinced that letting them pick what they want, and potentially the same thing, is a problem. If anything, this will give them the opportunity to try out different strategies, involving research, and see how they work.

I’d like to see your modified set up for Global 41.  My thoughts on your rules:

1. I like the multi turn build for capital ships.  Two turns seems right.  I know in HGB’s Global war it takes 4 turns, which seems way to long.

2. Would be fun to try, however if Japan sets up that strategy correctly they could gobble up China/Russia even faster.  If I’m playing the Axis, then I’m good to try that.

3. Don’t like the idea of taking a strat bomber out of play to drop a unit that attacks @ 1.  Using a transport plane or a special infantry unit that represents the paratrooper & transport would be a better way to go.

4. We actually use that as a research mod.  I guess we could just incorporate that for all tactical bombers.

Don’t forget to post your 1941 mod.  Thx.

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.

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.)

@imperious-leader said in ANTI-TANK UNIT:

Ok unit is a 3-2-1-5 unit.

But moves 2 in NCM

if it rolls one in combat, another tank or armor class unit must be taken as loss by defender.

Bingo !

Yo crusa, I don’t have those rules about Germany hiding ships.

LOL…I’m waiting for this reply!!!
U-Boat rules = Old rules, I forget to put it on english version.
For the warship. Take a look at WAW Port Rules. Chapter I or II.

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. :-)