[Global 1940] One rule to balance it?

I’m going to say that I don’t really like that this strategy is as effective as it is. If Japan changed the J2 buy to 2CV+1TT even full Pacific naval buys by USA wouldn’t stop this half the time, although obviously that would weaken the ground attack.

My view is that the game is a little broken here.

UK helping defend USA should stop this strategy pretty dead with troops/planes dropped in Quebec but really, should they have to? The other possibility is UK/Anzac retake of the Philippines which would help USA income if they can hold it but distracting Japan from its objectives may be enough.

@fat-belly-general

I really like this idea, as it allows even in a three player game to have two players as the Axis.

If you NoDOW, this usually means you are after Russia and defeat China and stall the US in the Pacific.
UK will likely grow strong and a Calcutta Crush (CC) is almost not doable.

This helps out Euro Axis alot.
BUT!:
If anything goes wrong with the german march on Moscow, you are screwed on both sides of the Map.

I tried it over and over with minimal success.
Now i prefer a solid J1 in BM and Vanilla since the impact on both Theaters are enormous.
The US has to choose a side and need to quickly balance out the whole board.
UK has all hands full as well.

A J1 is putting a lot of pressure to the Allies.

a CC is very likely stabilize J’s income arround 70-80 ipc creating many Threats at once by better pistioning your self in the Pacific.
-better odds on achivieving all 6 VC’s

Axis gets full advantage in the early turns, this forces them to get more aggression there for no reason for them to use peace as a shield and if I am playing as the allies, I’d rather have them be aggressive at turn 1 than turn 4.

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 I will check it out.

I agree that it helps the Allies.

And there could be a malicious surrender: UKE surrenders, giving the African territories to Germany, and before Italy can react US starts blitzing through the south, ADDING ABOUT 15 IPC’S TO THEIR VALUE. Same could be done with France.

It really helps the Allies and screws the game balance.

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.