[Global 1940] 2nd Revised Setup For France

@shadowhawk said in [Global 1940] Changing AA in the game:

Well atm they are free hps. After the pre-combat shots they dont do anything in the fight except take a hit. So as a defender unless its clear im winning the first hits go to the AA, they are dead weight at this point.

When they can return fire every round against planes ( might want to keep the @1 because they target units ) then it might give the defender a reasonable choice.

I agree. I thought when you said that you were referring to the version with your house rules, not the out of box version.

IMO they represent flak88 batteries, a bit more specialised AA guns then the divisional version but a lot weaker then the static stuff that defends ports/airfields and the likes.

Agreed.

Re: Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris

We’ve played this version four times now, and it definitely is tilted towards the Allies. The US is simply too powerful, and Japan has no chance with the US getting 65-70+ income every turn. While it’s still our favorite, there are some challenges. Our thoughts:

I agree with the assessment that the USSR can knock out 1-2 territories right off the bat. This is similar to the traditional A&A, but Germany doesn’t have the forces to respond in any forceful way to retake anything. USSR is starting with 21+ infantry across the 3-territory front, and Germany can’t get its forces there fast enough. The USSR creates strongholds in Kaliningrad and Ukraine and churns out 10-12 infantry or 6 tanks that immediately come into play. The possible solution for this is for Germany to put a minor IC closer to the front for balance.

Germany has no chance to get transports out of the North Sea due to Britain’s fighter advantage. With France’s help, you would need to get 4+ destroyers/cruisers to protect the transports if you’re trying to go to Iceland and then to Canada/US. The key is to have sub packs hunting any transports that cross, and quick. Once the US takes Gibraltar (which it should do in R1), it becomes a fighter landing factory where they can spawn across the Atlantic and then pound Italy.

The US is just too powerful. The winning path we’ve seen is for the US to make 5-6 fighters per turn and fly them to the Hawaiian islands, then eventually take Wake and Midway. From there, it’s only a matter of time. Japan simply can’t put enough forces to fight through the fighters to get Hawaii, Midway and the islands to the south. The 15 bonus just for having the US each turn is too much. If Germany/Italy can put pressure on the US (which we have seen and done), it can help, but it’s really hard. Italy needs to get income fast, which means going hard and fast after Egypt and the consolidated forces there.

Our Allied player did a very interesting thing by putting a factory in Egypt along with an air base, which made it almost impregnable. Getting Africa quickly is perhaps the least understood key to the war - it allows Italy to prevent ships from coming through the canal and lets them pressure the US. Italy HAS to hold TransJordan to prevent UK ships from crossing the canal. I can’t emphasize enough how important a role plays in helping take pressure off of the UK, which can…

Build up an infantry fortress in India which is impossible to take - UNLESS you build a minor IC on R1 in Malaya. Why Malaya (which is much harder to defend)? Because, under the rules, it can be upgraded to a MAJOR IC - producing 10 units per turn - so India can be overwhelmed. The challenge is that Malaya can be hit (and taken) with the British naval forces attached to India. However, if Japan can do it, they can then turn its attention to…

ANZAC - becomes an income suck very quickly for Japan by grabbing the East Indies. Getting Japan to take out India is probably the most important thing the Axis can do. It frees Japan to focus on island defense and ANZAC. If ANZAC starts getting fighters, they become a transport-hunting force which simply can’t be countered. Otherwise, ANAC spawns a transport and 1-2 infantry per turn that can grab IPC-rich islands. The way I’ve countered this is to flood the Pacific with subs everywhere, which will pick off any unattended transport immediately.

Germany - Has to focus on numbers to overwhelm Russia while hoping that the UK doesn’t undertake strategic bombing raids, which Germany should do anyway to minimize the UK’s strength. The USSR has been able to assemble 25-30 tanks in the last three games, and only an error by the Allied player which allowed me to grab Russia for a turn helped even the balance. I have found that blasting the UK’s IC into dust slows things down a lot.

All in all, a very solid game, but it needs some tweaks so the Axis have a chance.

@general-spengler said in [Global 1940] Units Expansion Set:

Also if anyone has thoughts on the values (particularly cost) and if they seem balanced that would be good info as well.

Good action here. Global 40 House Rules has Escort CVs at C 9. I figured at 10, you’d just buy a 2 hit Fleet CV at 16 instead, although Italy or ANZAC might still buy one. There’s also an option that gives them ASW ability as well to encourage buys.

board 3659 has them moving only 1 +1 w/NB. In my tests Italy buys them and sometimes ANZAC, but not really anybody else. I just test against myself though. I still like them and think they’re a cool unit.

The Conscripts are A0 D1 C2 max build of 8. Can conquer empty TTYs though. They get spammed otherwise. I think with your limit of 2 per turn and using the Recruitment Centers are good ideas to limit that though as well as not being able to attack.

I always stick em in the front line and use them as bullet stoppers lol. Russia really likes em.

These could be added to the House Rules Mod for triplea if you want. Idk if you use triplea or not, but it’s real good for testing stuff from a time standpoint even if you prefer the physical board.

Once again, Good Action : )

@the-captain

Due to the fact that whilst most of your rules are historically accurate, their execution I have some problems with. To fix that, I wrote an article on changes to The Captain’s rules:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37504/let-s-make-the-axis-and-allies-global-1940-expansion-rules-even-more-accurate?_=1636385389023

@sweetchops27 Sorry mods for necroposting again but this is gorgeous 🤤 In my Atlantic Battlefront 1940 Map, I have very similar convoy boxes to yours (which is cool!) Your large text is neat but the font is a little too wacky. The darker sea color is a nice addition like A&A Zombies, I thought about adding it to mine but I don’t think it’s exactly practical. Anyways, I give it a 4.8/5.

My map (which I haven’t worked on in a few weeks) only takes place in the European side of the map (with no South America) for practical reasons. I hope that whenever it is printed, it isn’t too big and the nation economies are balanced and the setup is okay :>

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.)

Why is Uk 23 and also Can I use this rule for Canada on 1940 2nd?