[Global 40] Grand Strategy Game Mode

@barnee

So the Allies won in the end.

Great game report! I enjoyed reading it.

@all-encompassing-goose

I think this a great idea-I just think it’s too complicated. Make it so the Bulgarian infantry can only move in three territories: Bulgaria, Greece, and Yugoslavia.

I have been reading about your house rules, and you should put them into one giant rulebook like The Captain. Keep up the good work!

@gen-manstein yea i’d almost go at it the other way and make the CAs and fast BBs go 3. But that will create it’s own issues. Besides 19 knots is over 20 mph anyway

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

Hi @blaze-the-action-junkie

This is an interesting way of getting more tech rolls as well

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/13543/research-facilities-and-infrastructure-simple-rule-additions

As the two game boards are combined there may be anomalies, especially for the UK player.
I thought (& think) the UK player has two ‘Treasuries’.
In addition, the ‘Commonwealth’ (the UK ‘emigrant colonies’) deserves it’s own three ‘Treasuries’.
The other GP starting income totals are due to the ‘historical notes’ on Germany & the USSR.
As to the USA points - it is suggested there should be one & one only Territory value for each space on the board.

@CWO:

@taamvan:

I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.

The British government may not have had an actual “backup plan”, in terms of something serious and concrete and specific.  My impression is that Britain’s civilian and military leaders were focussed on preventing an invasion in the first place, and on defeating it if it did actually occur, and that they were sufficiently confident that they could accomplish one or the other of those goals that they didn’t need to give any detailed consideration to what to do if Britain ended up facing defeat.  Hitler, similarly, didn’t give serious consideration to invading Britain until he was forced to admit that Britain wasn’t going to come to terms with him after the defeat of France.

It’s quite possible that British government considered the possibility of setting up a government-in-exile in Canada (or elsewhere), but “considering the possibility” isn’t the same thing as preparing a functional contingency plan.  And in fact, there would have been two good reasons NOT to work on such a functional plan.  First, it would have taken up time and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, even if it only amounted to a small number of staff.  More importantly, preparing such a plan – even in secret – would have been politically very dangerous.  Churchill had famously been proclaiming in the House of Commons that “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”  If word had somewhow reached the public that the same Churchill was secretly preparing plans to decamp to Canada, it would have had two very serious negative effects: it would have told the public that Churchill believed that Britain genuinely risked being conquered by Nazi Germany (which would have been very bad for morale) and it would have convinced people that Churchill was hypocritical on a monumental scale (which would have ended his political career).  It would also have destabilized the British government, which was the last thing Britain needed at that time.

No, I completely understand why Churchhill did that, he was a very ballsy man and someone who was needed for UK but you’d still think you want some kind of back up just in case. I am sure his staff and the Royal Family would AT LEAST retreat to Ireland if need be.

@Carolina:

I tend to take a historical slant, so thinking mainly of Iwo and Malta - but you would be correct where A&A powers are all treated equally and have the same capabilities.  Its a house rule - adjust and use as you wish.  I do like your China comment - will put some thought into that.

Another way to depict Iwo and Malta higher defense per soldier implied is simply that a single Inf unit represent pretty much less soldiers compared to European land units.
So this Inf worth the same combat value than 10x soldiers per unit in Russian battle field.
So no need to change from OOB.