Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?

pacific 2000 silver box has marine molds

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

Naval Task Forces at sea brought with them Support & Supply Ships - in order to perform their operations - and make necessary repairs without depending on a Port.

This is reflected in the Capital Warship Damage rule.

The largest Battleships ever built, were limited in numbers - but extremely powerfull.
This is reflected in the Super Heavy Battleship rule.

G40 Capital Warship Damage & Super Heavy Battleships.pdf

@Dashofpepper:

Hey guys -

I see this has been moved into house rules…and that a moderator tagged this as Global 1941.   This is for Global 1940 - I’ve never played Global 1941, so I don’t know if there are differences or if the advice would be the same for Global 1940.

Typo corrected, thanks.

Oh cool, we’re back! For a few days there I wasn’t able to get the site up.

I like the idea of a round 0 build up, but I think the implementation needs more work.

The first issue I’m anticipating is just sheer amount of time it would take to go around the table piece for piece. Beyond that you also have the issue of players matching each other (out in the open) by choosing to place all their TUV in just a few hot spots, at the expense of everywhere else. And finally, without any limits or caps for individual territories or sea zones you will likely see a ton of front line units, placed just outside the range of any opening attacks.

My suggestion would be to have more structure to the zero round, more rules defining where the units can be placed, or perhaps some kind of initiative role to determine the sequence in which they are placed.

One approach might be to just scale back the number of units or ipcs that are included in this process. So instead of taking all the starting TUV and putting that in a tray, you might just use a portion of the total, or perhaps instead allow players to add some smaller amount of TUV on top of the normal starting totals. Not only would that make things faster, it would also provide some much needed structure to the set up process.

Particularly with sea zones, instead of a race to be the first to occupy the contested ones (that border multiple originally controlled territories), you could restrict where naval units can be added to just those sea zones that already have a ship etc. Same deal with land.

You might make it a secret placement only revealed after everyone has recorded all their placements. Or you could break it down by unit type, first bases then inf then tanks then fighters then ships etc.

For ease of use, the more this zero round looked like a bid the easier it would be to implement. Although in this case it would be like a bid for all sides.

Again I like the idea a lot, I just think it needs more polish.

Hi Tolstoj,

I’ve never played 1st Ed., so I have no insight upon the differences between the two editions. But in one of our games ‘Seelöwe’ was successful on G2 due to the errors of the British player in UK1.

There are several players who opt for a attack by Japan on J1. The sinking of the British BB is one argument. Personally I like to attack on J2 or J3 after my invasion forces are in position, so I’m able to capture the ‘treasure islands’ and Malaya in one single turn. (And in most cases one or two British and/or ANZAC transports can be sunk in addition.)

As Germany I prefer to launch ‘Barbarossa’ on my second turn. On G1 capture France, sink as many British ships as possible and weaken Yugoslavia by attacking it for one round of combat and then retreat to Romania (so Italy can finish her off).

well this is interesting.Global game is supposed to start after Dunkirk evacuation jun 4 1940 and before paris falls jun14.Historically,Italy joins war jun 10,so arguably neutral at the beginning of a global game.So perhaps if Germany retreats from Paris G1 and has not landed air or passed through italy ,then Italy is still neutral UK1.
Is Uk allowed to start war with Italy and if so would a Taranto raid spark a similar outrage in Italy that Pearl Hbr sparked in USA?

About cost balance of Elite/Marines, here is a first point:

The 4 IPCs and 7 IPCs Marines unit transportation cost is relatively balance on the long run, when a player can use for a second time some transports.
After the first travel, where it is better for Marines unit, the transportation ratio is reversing toward regular units.

FIRST TRAVEL                                                        / SECOND TRAVEL, same transport
Cost ratio for Regular unit transportation:
3 (transport + Inf + Inf)                                                 3 (Inf + Inf)
3 (7+3+3) = 39 IPCs /6 grounds = 6.5 IPCs/unit  /  3(3+3)= 18 IPCs +39 = 57 IPCs/12= 4.75 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Tnk) + 1 (transport + Inf + Inf)        (4 Inf + 2 Tnk)
2*(7+3+6) + 1*(7+3+3)= 45 /6 units = 7.5 IPCs/unit  /  12 + 12 = 24 IPCs + 45 = 69 IPCs /12 = 5.75 IPCs/unit

Cost ratio for Marines unit transportation:
2 (transport + Inf + Inf + Inf)                                        2 (Inf + Inf + Inf)
2*(7+4+4+4)= 38 /6 units = 6.33 IPCs/unit             /      2*(4+4+4)= 24 IPCs + 38 = 62 IPCs /12 = 5.167 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Inf+ Tnk)                                       2 (Inf + Inf + Tnk)
2*(7+4+4+7)= 44 / 6 units = 7.33 IPcs/unit            /      2*(4+4+7)= 30 IPCs + 44 = 74 IPCs /12 = 6.167 IPCs/unit

So, after a second travel, with the same 12 units the transportation ratio is improving for regular units compared to Marines ones:

for 12 Infs vs 12 Marines Infs =  4.75 vs 5.167 IPCs/unit.

for 8 Infs+ 4 Tnks vs 8 Marines Infs + 4 Marines Tnks = 5.75 vs 6.167 IPCs/unit.

Yea, but its a capital full of civilians hostile to them.