Why is surrender not an option in the original game?

What I was talking about is that Russia has more muscle in this set-up then in G40. They can be more aggressive and can help defend the Chinese wall and/or the Middle east against the Japanese once India falls (things they don’t get to do much in G40).

@Gargantua:

@Paksos:

Never played 2nd ed. What’s the difference in the Mongolia rule?

I’m up for 2nd ed though if you are game, Gargantua……

Let’s Rock.

I need to “practice” my axis strategies.

So do I  :-D

If by “original” Global 1940 you mean 1st edition, the 1st edition Europe and Pacific FAQs should answer your questions.

I like to buy atleast one tank one artillery one plane (varies on which one) and one sub each turn as germany and the rest goes to infantry

this is just a generic buy

I dont know if this is off on another subject but I wanted to post the results from this weekend……    the Axis have another victory!  Barbarossa on G3. They had better rolls at most of the key battles  A couple of different rolls at a few of the key battles and It would have been diff.    Especially in sea zone 6 for me, Oh well what can ya do. Next time It will be different

Mark: We will be starting the game around 9 or so this morning, so I will let you know how it goes. I usually spend some time going through various scenarios in my head and speculating as to which side should have the greater advantage when doing changes like this. Without really looking at the board, I am thinking it will be the Allies, because for one their are many more of them so they stand to gain more by teaming up/attacking the Axis at the same time. Furthermore, one of the 3 Axis players (Japan) can’t really use this advantage, b/c they are pretty much isolated.

With that in mind, I am considering weakening the Allies a bit and see how it pans out. One idea I have is reducing the major IC in India to a minor, and adding another minor IC in West India as well. I will probably also add a couple extra infantry in India to start out with too. This will allow India to serve as a legitimate garrison for the UK, with allowing them to dominate…at least thats the plan.

I am considering this approach b/c I believe the Allies will dominate the Atlantic, and Germany will be hard pressed against a combined US/UK invasion plus Russia breathing down their necks, so my thinking is that by weakening India’s offensive capabilities a bit, Japan will be able to pressure Russia more from the east, thus making up for the imbalance in the west.

Like I said, this will take some time to get down, but I think the two-turn system will be worth it in the end. I really wish A&A would move to this system in the first place, as I know many that use it, or would like to use it.

Let me know your thoughts!..

Well you admit to Bad Play on the part of U.K. so the case is closed.  Regardless of what had to go right for the Germans.

And no, resources don’t HAVE to be built to deal with the Japanese Navy, but the reality is 100% of the USA’s income is going into the atlantic, thereby relieving NO pressure on Germany.

A Jap navy with transports off the east coast of the U.S. or threatening australia however, would divert that 100%.  Sending a useless navy to South America was a poor decision in this game. Hinsight or not.

Well the U.S. didn’t exactly jump to war with Germany lol.

I was being a little off the cuff with the turn 20 crack.  I could live with turn 4 or 6 also.  Either would simulate a 1942 or 1943 U.S. declaration of war.

Just want to give the Japanese some reason to attack Hawaii like FDR did.  If the Japanese waited until January 42 to attack I be the Arizona would still have been sitting there.