Naval Changes

We expect to release the latest Global 1940 Expansion Rule: Naval Task Force Commander no later than 16th December 2025.

This rule concerns:

More will follow soon…

The Captain

I find it odd that a single unit can be used to stop an army of 50 divisions. Given that a single turn can make the difference because your enemy can stop you cold with a lone infantry, I was wondering if a small tweak would be interesting.

The tweak would be that units contesting a territory can only “hold up” 3 times as many units on the enemy side, allowing said enemy to move “through” and continue the attack in other areas.

For example, if the attacking side has 20 land divisions and the defense has 3, the attacker could choose to move “through” with up to 11 units (being forced to leave 3*3 = 9 divisions to fight) and attack an area behind the enemy lines or to the side. To do this, the attacker would be forced to commit to an assault on the 3 divisions; it can’t just move through without fighting them.

The number could be tweaked and there’s probably a ton of ramifications I haven’t thought about, so feel free to point out pros and cons. I just feel that stopping gigantic armies with minimal forces is very advantageous for the defender, which is usually the Allies. Giving the opportunity to move troops around would make for more aggressive and interesting plays. It would force the defender to choose to either sacrifice more armies for the delaying actions or just plain retreat and give that space entirely.

Let me know how you would implement this !

I was hoping you’d post these!

I agree on 2nd version - very doubtful.  As to the tourney rules, I have found the 2 movement factor rule to greatly change how the game is played - not a fan.

This sounds like an interesting idea, but why just BBs and cruisers?

It’s simple, yet a bit more sensical than what we have now: In any turn you wish to attack strict neutrals, you have the option of “buying off” any remaining ones so that they stay neutral.

Case in point: Germany wishes to attack Sweden, but obviously doesn’t want to turn Spain or Turkey against them. To keep them as strict neutrals, Germany must pay 2 + 2 (the IPC values of each territory).

If it wants to include Afg. and Saudi Arabia, then 2 + 2 + 2 + (say a min of 1 IPC, for those territories with no IPC values).

These territories would also stay strictly neutral in the event of an Allied attack (although perhaps that can be debatable). Also, the IPC costs themselves: perhaps double the tt value would be better, but those are, of course, details.

Thoughts?

Well, you could ask what the point is for any house rules.  In this case it is added realism, if you refer to my initial post.

Keeping a consistent combat value as much as possible is better.
What about this?
StB
Attack 2
Defense 1
Gets +2A if starting from an Air Base against land units.
Cost 12

TacB
Attack 4
Defense 3
No more combined arms.
Cost 11
(This is the true bomber against enemy units.)