Global 1940 2nd Edition OOB - The Beginner’s Learning Guide
Let’s move from talking about general Warfare Principles to Global 1940 itself. Oh, by the way I am not going to be talking about gambits or odd play. What we want to achieve is consistent play to win as many games as possible. Gambits do not fall into that category because either a) they require the opponent to not have seen the gambit before or react poorly to it to be successful or b) have low overall odds of success. We want to win every time! Not some of the time. In addition, this general overarching discussion is regarding strategy, not tactics.

So, open the Global 1940 Board and what do we see? As usual the Axis have centralized position. The Axis have greater firepower to begin the game. The Axis have the initiative; they will be the ones to determine the overall battlegrounds of the game. The Allies have more territory and money initially. What this means is the Axis will be trying to win the game and the Allies will be doing their best to slow them down, then hopefully stop them, and then push them back for an ultimate Allied victory.

WINNING THE GAME:
There is no argument that the Axis has the advantage in Global 1940 2nd Edition OOB. This is due to two factors.

1. The Axis only need to win on one side of the board to win the game. If we want a balanced game where either faction wins half of the time then the Axis can only have one third of a chance of winning the game on either side of the board. NOTE: It is easier for the Axis to win on the Europe side of the board than on the Pacific side of the board.

2. The Axis have five scenarios that can lead to winning.
   • Germany takes Moscow.
   • Germany takes London.
   • Italy gets big in the Mediterranean.
   • Japan wins in the Pacific.
   • The game develops into a long-term money game and the Axis prevail due to collecting the same or more money than the Allies.

For the Allies to win they must stop the Axis on both sides of the board by stopping all five of their scenarios. Just one is enough for the Axis to win but it takes all five to make the Allies happy.

The key for the Allies is to put more pressure on one side of the board to gain an advantage while stalling the other side of the board. This balancing act is easier said than done. As one of my gaming group members once said, “Axis and Allies is like a balloon; if you push too hard in one area it bulges in another.”

1. GERMANY GOES FOR MOSCOW
   Germany starts with enough units on the board, and quickly gains enough money to buy additional units, that Germany can take down Moscow. Once Moscow falls the Germans push to Egypt and the game is over. Unfortunately, there is no way to stop the Germans from taking Moscow without giving the game to the Axis elsewhere. The key issues for the Allies are a) how long does it take and b) how much does it cost. Losing Moscow does not lose the Allies the game. Losing Moscow too cheaply or too quickly does as it makes the fall of Cairo inevitable. The Allied defense is fourfold. 1) Knowing it is a main target Russia builds and acts accordingly; buying tons of infantry and harboring every unit for the final Moscow battle. 2) Assistance in the form of UK units come to Moscow via the Middle East to delay the inevitable. 3) An Allied fleet reduces German reinforcements aimed for Moscow by attacking the Atlantic Wall. 4) The Allies prepare a defense of the Middle East and Egypt so that once Moscow falls the Axis still cannot win the game. This is the most difficult winning scenario the Allies face.

2. GERMANY GOES FOR LONDON
   Personally, this is the one scenario I love to see the Axis try as the Allies. The reasons being are it is a) a lot easier for the Allies to come back from the fall of London than it is the fall of Moscow and b) unlike Moscow once the Allies see the Germans going for London the Germans have a limited window of Opportunity to take London. Also, it is easier to defend London than Moscow because the Germans need to build and protect their transport fleet to be able to move their ground units against London. The key for the Allies here is not to lose London on the cheap. It must cost the Germans a ton of money and units so even once it falls the Germans are in a weak position because the Bear of Russia is going to come knocking on the door. Surprisingly, once Russia gets into German territory they collect more money than Germany does. Ouch. As long as the Allies do not leave London weak this is not the scenario to worry about.

3. ITALY GETS THE MEDITERRANEAN
   If Italy gains control of the Mediterranean then the Axis will be collecting too much money and will overpower the Allies. This is the easiest way for the Axis to win but luckily it is also the easiest scenario for the Allies to stop. Once UK blows up the Italian fleet in the Med, kills the Italian ground troops in Africa and convoy disrupts SZ97 the Italians are basically removed from the game.

4. JAPAN WINS IN THE PACIFIC
   Though Japan is surrounded by four enemies and has far less income than the four combined Japan can become a monster if left unchecked. For Japan taking India and China is not that difficult. And, as before, the Allied strategy is forcing Japan to spend time and cash accomplishing those goals so that by the time they turn to go for Sydney or Hawaii they are now contained by a large US Fleet.

5. AXIS COLLECTS ENOUGH MONEY TO WIN LONG-TERM
   The final scenario for the Axis comes about when the Allies have performed admirably and have stopped the previous four game winning scenarios. However, the Axis was still able to take enough territory to be close to or even with or, heaven forbid, ahead of the money the Allies are collecting. That is bad news for the Allies. Due to their centralized position and for the most part more efficient use of Land Units and Air Units versus Naval units the Axis do not need to be collecting the same or more than the Allies to win. The Allies need to be ahead by about $10 a Round. If that is the case they are winning a long-term money game and if not, they are losing.

ROLES OF THE POWERS
So, what does each Nation or Power have to do to be successful? What is their role in the game?

AXIS: Win the game by achieving one of their five scenarios…

GERMANY is the main antagonist on the Europe side of the board. It is up to them to win the game. As a land centric Power, with lots of money available to them in the east, typically their goal is to take Moscow and then drive for Egypt. They must defend their coastline from Allied Landings to maintain their income and to deprive the Allies of the opportunity of getting France back into the game. Or even worse losing Berlin.

JAPAN all by herself in the Pacific, will either try to win the game, if the US ignores it too much, or be a constant irritant forcing the US to spend monies in the Pacific that they desperately want to be spending in the Atlantic. While outnumberd Japan can knock out one or two of its weaker opponents and become sizable if the Allies are not careful.

ITALY is the weak sister of Germany. In fact, every true German wishes Italy was just more German territory to feed more income to German Factories and remove the dreaded possibility of Rome falling to the Allies. Normally Italy’s role is reduced to defending German and Italian territory and producing some limited can openers for the march to Moscow and Cairo. It is not unusual for Italy to be doing everything it can just not to be taken. Played correctly by the British Italy should be a non-factor in the game.

ALLIES: Win the game by pressuring one side of the board more than the other to gain an advantage on one side while stalling on the other side…

RUSSIA is the main target of the Axis. Thus, they need to play defensively unless the Germans go for Sealion. The longer Russia lasts, and the more money it collects and puts down in troops, gives the Allies time to gain advantages elsewhere on the board and be ready to repel the Germans once Moscow finally falls.

USA is the key to the game for the Allies. How and where the US spends their money is the difference maker. The US will collect more money than any other Allied Power and unlike every other Allied power its capital is safe from the Axis. Depending on Allied strategy the US will either a) go all out in the Atlantic for a few Turns then turn its full attention towards the Pacific, b) go 100% into the Pacific for many Turns to rout the Japanese and then turn towards Europe or c) have some balance between the two sides of the board.

CHINA is one of the minor Powers that has a lot of importance in the game. Its role is to kill Japanese ground troops. While it cannot stand against a concerted Japanese effort the more troops it kills the harder it is for Japan in the Pacific.

UK EUROPE has the toughest job in the game as it is the closest Power to Germany, is immediately at war with the Axis, and has the most critical initial missions. UK must protect its Capital, knock Italy out of the game, assist Russia in the defense of Moscow, distract Germany and protect the Middle East from Germany after Moscow falls or is turtled. Simple right? Job one, after defending London, is taking Italy out of the game by taking control of the Med, Middle East and Africa. Once that is accomplished it can move on to reinforcing Moscow and start landings on the Atlantic Wall. But Italy comes first! The benefit of playing UK is at least you know what you need to do.

UK PACIFIC Like China there is not a lot India can do to stay alive if Japan focuses on capturing it. India’s mission is to stay alive as long as possible and make any capture of Calcutta a Pyrrhic victory.

ANZAC is the other minor Power that plays a big role. ANZAC is the death by a thousand cuts for Japan. Making them trade the Money Islands and acting as US Fleet blockers. ANZAC’s job is to force Japan to spend money on them so the US can concentrate on getting a superior fleet versus Japan’s.

FRANCE is, well, ummm… does not really have a role in this game except to die on G1.

Remember as the Allies all you are trying to do is slow the Axis down, kill as many of their units as you can, so that when they come for the final push your money advantage overwhelms them.

GERMANY 1 (G1)
As I mentioned earlier it is important for the Allies to recognize what the Axis is doing to be able to counter it. Since Germany is the main antagonist here are some prime examples of G1 options:
• 100% ground unit buy for Germany. The Germans are going to go for Moscow on G6, G7 or G8.
• Major IC in Romania. The Germans are going for Moscow on G6.
• Carrier and two transports in SZ112 or SZ113. The Germans are going for Sealion.
• Submarine, destroyer and carrier in SZ112. The Germans may be going for Sealion though more likely they are building a fleet to contest the British and fight for the Med. This is more a long-term strategy than a short-term strategy.

TAKING YOUR TURN
Here are the four steps to consider when you prepare to take your Turn:

1. First and foremost, always look to see if your capital is safe. What can the enemy do to you this Turn and the next Turn? No matter how important some other objective is if you fail to protect your capital you just messed up.
2. Are there one or more VIP areas that must be taken or protected to protect my capital down the road or to achieve my main objective?
3. As part of my main objective what can I do to the enemy and what do I need to buy to accomplish it?
4. Are there any attacks of opportunity that, while not part of my main objective, assist me in accomplishing my main objective? As tempting as it may be, any attack that does not assist in accomplishing your main objective, should be ignored.

THE BID
As discussed, the Axis has the advantage in Global 1940 2nd Edition OOB; significantly. How much of a bid the Allies receive is up to each Player’s desire to be the Axis or the Allies. Whatever amount the bid is, it should be used to accomplish the Allied goals of slowing the Axis down and making life more difficult for the Axis and to assist the Allies in accomplishing their own goals. Bids should be used to:

• Protect the British Fleet – as I already said ships cost a lot and saving ships means not having to buy them later. Protecting the UK fleet not only makes it easier for the British to fight for the Med and make Atlantic Wall landings later it also protects London. Any bid placement should include a fighter for Scotland and a submarine for either SZ 111 or SZ 110. (Mandatory)
• Taking Italy out of the game is job #1 and a submarine in SZ 98 to maximize Taranto assists in that. (Mandatory)
• Ground troops for taking out Italian units in Africa or a transport in SZ 71 to do the same.
• Submarine or destroyer in SZ 91 to defend the UK cruiser and assist in the attack on SZ 96.
• Submarine in SZ 106 to defend the UK destroyer and transport.
• Infantry in India/West India/Burma to bolster defense. Or a mechanized infantry in Burma to threaten FIC on UK1 if the Japanese do a J1 declaration of war.
• Submarine in SZ 62 to protect the transport.
• Infantry in Russia to defend Moscow.
• An artillery in Amur to pin more Japanese troops in Manchuria.
• (EDIT 3/25/2026 Add Yunnan as follows) Stopping Japan cold in Asia using Russian planes flying to Yunnan on R1. Russian Fighter for Russia and Chinese Infantry for Yunnan (Mandatory)

I hope you learned something reading this paper. The goal was to highlight key points regarding how to play Global 1940 that will help you win more games.

ADDENDUM #1

The Neutrals

If, or when to, activate the Neutrals, is a very big part of any OOB Global 1940 game. While it does not happen in every game, it certainly happens enough to prove that it is an important dynamic to the game.

Both sides should be consistently paying careful attention to “Should I go for the Neutrals?” as the game progresses. Looking for the key indicators that show the Player that “Yes, now is the time to attack the Neutrals.”

Typically, there are three reasons to go for the Neutrals:

• Axis #1: The Allies have left their SZ91 fleet exposed if the Neutrals are attacked by Italy, specifically Spain, and that allows the Germans to annihilate a large Allied fleet on the cheap.
• Allies #1: The game has come to a standstill and neither side may improve their position as the board is deadlocked. By accepting a short-term disadvantage, the Allies will gain a long-term advantage that may swing the game in the Allied favor.
• Allies #2: As you mentioned, the Allies are not making sufficient progress in landings on the European coast so they revert to the simpler strategy of landing in Spain.

Normally, it is the Allies who are attacking the Neutrals and typically they will set up such an attack by being prepared to hit Spain (USA), Portugal (USA), Venezuela (USA), Saudi Arabia (UK) and Turkey (UK) all on the same Turn. In later Turns Chile plus Argentina (USA) and Angola plus Mozambique (UK) are taken. Typically, killing these 28 infantries results in about 11-13 Allied losses or about $36 worth of troops on average.

The gain in income for the Allies is $15 a Turn. The Axis will usually gain 8 infantries from Switzerland (2) and Sweden (6), or $24 worth of troops, and $3 a Turn in income from Sweden. That means the total initial loss for the Allies is 60 TUV. ($36 in troops killed plus $24 of infantries gained by the Axis). Compare this to the $12 per Turn increase in income and you can see it takes about 5 Turns for the Allies to recoup their initial losses and start making gains from their strategic decision.

Therefore, as long as the initial loss of 11-13 troops does not prove to be a large detriment to the Allied cause, and the Allies can last at least those 5 Turns, then making the attack on the Neutrals makes sense.

By the way, you will notice I did not include Afghanistan as usually the Axis are not able to gain those 4 troops because either they can never liberate them or the Allies kill them at a loss of usually 1 ground unit.

Finally, I did not include Mongolia as per Krieghund’s ruling below, unless Mongolia is directly attacked by Russia any other attacks on the Strict Neutrals do not effect the Mongolian status.

@Krieghund said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Concerning the Mongolian situation after an allied invasion of other strict neutrals, I find the rules a little unclear.

As Mongolia only becomes pro-Axis when attacked by the Soviet Union, in the case where another Strict Neutral is attacked by another Allied power, Mongolia remains a Strict Neutral. This means that an attack on a Strict Neutral other than Mongolia by an Allied power other than the Soviet Union has no effect whatsoever on the relationship between Mongolia, the Soviet Union, and Japan. As a result, the answers to your questions under those circumstances are the same as they would be if no Strict Neutrals had been attacked at all.

(Thank you to @surfer for pointing me to Krieghund’s ruling that I included above.)

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

I am already in awe that @AndrewAAGamer owns and/or works at a proper board gaming store, or one of his older brothers let him use it as a prop, not sure yet

That is my gaming room. It helps to be older and have bought the games over a long time when the first came out.

Congratulations farmboy!

Okay, the first thing I want to say is everything was intentional. Matt and Larry had a great base to start with but as we play tested, we found we had to change a great many of the parameters to make the game work.

Game Flavor: One of the main goals was to make the focus of the game a land campaign which was heavily influenced by logistics aka supply.

Broken Strategy: We soon found out that the players wanted to fight for the Med. By controlling the Med, it denied the opponent any reinforcements so he who controlled the Med won. We were having epic sea battles and a water-based arms race between the combatants. Since we did not want this to be a sea battle game, but a land battle game, that is where the limits on the number of sea units came from.

Broken Strategy: Another problem we discovered was air power was too powerful. One of the play testers invested heavily in axis fighters and bombers to take Cairo. Since none of us could figure out a counter to that strategy that is when we decided to also limit the number of air units in the game.

Only land units can be chipped out and now you know why.

Broken Strategy: Originally, there were more convoy zones, for example Tobruk had one. We found that, once Tobruk was taken by the Axis, that made it too easy for the Axis to bring up reinforcements quickly and overwhelm Cairo’s defense so we removed it. The whole idea was we wanted there to be a logistics problem for both the Axis and the Allies to fight over Cairo.

As for game balance we had to constantly make revisions as we improved our strategies:

• The stacking limits of Tunis and Cairo are directly related to how many units we decided it would be necessary to have a reasonable chance of holding. Originally, those territories had much lower stacking limits.
• The number of reinforcements coming through the Suez Canal. That was adjusted multiple times until we felt we had the right balance that Cairo had a chance to hold against an axis Rush versus giving them too many units to push the Axis back easily. This was determined by multiple playthroughs were Cairo first fell and fell again and then after revisions couldn’t be taken at all so more revisions were needed.
• The stacking limit of Malta was brought up as a solution to the problem of the British simply stacking it with so many units the Axis dared not attack it and limiting the number of supply tokens available to the island to force a need for constant resupply. We wanted it to be difficult, but not impossible, to keep Malta supplied to get their income booster.

I think every unit had a change made to it either by cost or abilities. For example, we would increase the attack firepower of a unit and then play test it to see if it was too powerful. (BTW, we purposefully made the German 88 gun a great weapon to match historically its capabilities but had to be careful it was not too powerful.)

How scout cars worked, how targeting worked and which units received it was constantly changed. One, Broken Strategy was to bomb the heck out of supply so we had to change how many units had the ability to target supply and how often to remove that strategy.

How the US entered the war and how the US convoy zones worked was changed multiple times too.

In essence, every aspect of the game as you see it now was brought about by multiple testers playing hundreds of games to test its balance. I am pleased you like the game and feel it is the most balanced Axis & Allies game out there. I do to.

In my Seattle face to face gaming group we started out with no bids for G40 OOB initially and quickly determined the Axis was favored. I remember the very first Bid I took as the Allies was $6. Over time, as the Axis continued to win most games, the Bid slowly rose. We went from $9-12 to $18-20 and then into the $20s. As the Axis continued to win we went up into the $30s. It took a number of years but we eventually kept rising into the $40’s, $50s and finally all the way up to $60. In fact, I remember giving one Bid of $63 to be the Axis and lost. It was at this point we decided that $60 was a fair Bid and we played multiple games with both sides winning which seemed to acknowledge our Bidding system was accurate.

Due to Covid we had to stop playing and that is when I started playing here and I willingly gave out bids of $60 to be the Axis. I won my first 10 games and people were astounded I could win giving $60. Them JDOW did something no one had ever done before. He used the Bid to Stack Yunnan and it was devastatingly effective.

As others copied the strategy, it took losing a few additional games to get it through my stubborn head but, I have come to realize that play, the “Yunnan Stack” has forced the Bid to be reduced. The Bid is now probably around $40 to $50 depending on if you like to play the Axis or Allies.

As for reasoning, here is my two cents. It is easier for the Axis to win is they only have to win on one side of the board. I think initially, the Axis play in the Pacific was too tentative; giving the Allies much needed time to gather their forces and strength. Then COW came up with the J1 DOW which was a real game changer. It puts Japan into the game immediately and forces the Allied Player to try and balance the US forces as efficiently as possible to stop both the Germans and Japan. That is not easy to do.

The Yunnan Stack removes the J1 DOW from the game. Thus Japan is not as much of a threat as before so the Allies need less of a Bid to still win.

Throwing in my 2 cents here, even though it is not my game, since this is being discussed in an open forum.

As I said in my thesis, the less experienced player should play more risky to beat top opponents. Since @axis-dominion you are so good, your opponent really has to go for that low risk battle to beat you so you should not be surprised or upset when he does go for it and gets lucky. If he does not play risky he is probably going to lose 100% of the time so going for a 30% battle to win the game is way more than he could win if he didn’t play risky.

BTW, I will point out that a 30% battle is not that risky. You are barely winning more than 2 times to every 1 times he wins.

Also, that -32 is the AVERAGE TUV result. Therefore, it is assuming you win 7 times to his 3 times. For a more accurate view of the possible ramifications if your opponent gets lucky, as @Stucifer referred to, you should look at when he wins the number of units he has left over. Then compare his TUV loss without losing those units versus you losing all your units and you will see the result is vastly different than the average TUV loss.

Finally, in my opinion, if you two do decide to play on and change any results it should only be for fun. The game should absolutely be recorded as a win for @peirce as far as League Play is concerned. He took the risk and it paid off. He should not be punished by being a nice guy and having his good luck reversed. I doubt anyone would be asking for any changes if it failed miserably.

@aequitas-et-veritas said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

A.) It will be a 50/50 chance each time, b/c either you won or you lost.
B) even if you play as much as possible without taking risks, if your opponent makes a risky move, doesn’t this call off your whole riskfree playstyle and awareness??

Good questions… Thank you for contributing.

A) It is only a 50-50 chance if the Players are of equal caliber. The stronger Player is always going to win more than 50% of the games. Thus the stronger Player does not need to take as many risks and the weaker Player does have to take risks to win.

B) That depends. If you are the stronger Player than you may still be able to play conservatively even if the other Player is succeeding in risky attacks. Case in point. I had a face to face AA50 game where our Opponents had a dramatically aggressive G1. They attacked Egypt and every Allied fleet they could get their hands on. None of the battles were greater than 65% and one of them was under 50% yet they won them all. Our Allied position was frankly terrible. Germany was going to swoop through Africa and there was no Allied fleet to do anything about it for multiple Turns. Our team huddled and since it was the very beginning of the game, and night, my partners wanted to concede and start over so we could play at least one game where we might win. I disagreed. My point was the reason they had such an aggressive opening was because they knew we were the better team. Thus they will either a) make a mistake down the road that we can take advantage of or b) they will continue to make very risky attacks and eventually the dice will turn against them. So we continued and I was correct. They made a strategic error the very next Turn and the following Turn had two risky battles go against them so by the beginning of Turn 4 we were right back in the game and eventually won. So we did not have to play risky because we were better than them.

On the other hand I have been in games where the caliber of the Players was about the same and my Opponent started making risky attacks and was successful and you are correct. I had to change from my conservative strategy and start making risky attacks to try and stay in the game. For example while personally I would never like to attack Moscow with anything less than an 80% chance of victory against a really good Player I would go all the way down to 60% because after all, against a really good Player winning 60% of the time is a good thing. In fact if you are playing the best of the best winning 51% of the time is all it takes to be happy.

The point I am trying to make in my article is if you do not have to make a risky attack to win; why make it? I never said risky attacks were bad; many times they are necessary. I said do not make them if you do not have to.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of the lifetime tracking to have any decay in it. If a person needs some time off why should their lifetime ranking be affected? Or, even if they stopped playing entirely, why wouldn’t we want their history to stay unaffected so we could go - “wow, look how good xxx was when he/she played here.”

I am all for a separate yearly ranking that would determine playoff position and of course affect the lifetime ranking.

The best thing I like about his system, as a high ranking player, is there is no detriment to playing anyone from any tier. Yes, there is a gigantic risk to your score if you lose, but there is no penalty to your score, just because you played somebody in a lower tier. I think everyone being able to play everyone will be good for the community.

@shkoboo said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:

@gamerman01 As a passionate player of AAA over years, let me give you my opinion on this - Not only that this is not a sneaky tctics, but this looks like an exploit in rules that is ruining your whole game mehanics turning one perfect balanced and before all game of STRATEGY in a game of ‘oversights’. Sneaky tactic is when I am planing in round for example 5 how to win something in round 8. In placing Ansac fighters on US carrier, I’m counting that my oponent: wont reckognise them, make mistake in counting movements…etc And this is all basic - not brilliant nor sneaky.
And is ruining game - You are not giving more options - you are making confusion!
Hope this willbe removed in next version.
(carryed plans must have less moves, according on host carrier movement)
(we already homeruled this in our boardgame sessions)
all the best

• Does this scenario make the game more complicated - yes.
• Does it provide greater options for attack - yes.
• Does it require a Player to determine where an Allied plane might be able to go - yes.
• Does that break the game - no.

Adding complexity to the game while keeping the game mechanics simple is one of the beauties of Global. The more nuances a game has the more likely the higher skilled Player is going to win. Keeping a game “simple” means the luck factor is going to be an ever greater determining factor.

There are a myriad of items that create complexity and nuance in the game.

• Italy being a can opener for Germany.
• USA being a can opener for UK and ANZAC.
• UK and ANZAC planes on USA carriers.
• UK troops on US transports.
• Being able to land fighters and tacticals on newly built carriers.
• Being able to declare war on the Neutrals.
• Being able to attack from multiple areas and retreat to one area.

All of these are capabilities that can be taken advantage of by a superior player. That does not make them game-breakers, that makes them strategy scenarios that everyone should try and learn, comprehend and master to become a better Player.

@Stucifer
Hmm, that looks really familiar. :)

However, OPEN GLASSES ON THE TABLE!?!?!?! What are you thinking???

Congratulations on winning it all Adam!

I would like to suggest an implementation of a three-step policy that will provide clean unedited game files to our opponents, remove confusing undo moves, remove any doubt that our opponents are possibly cheating us with lost game files, and make it easy for people to perform their edits and still provide clean unedited files to their opponents.

Virtually all of us only post the game End Turn. I admit to that too. When I have previously seen one or two other players post their combat move, I have always thought… why? Unless they are asking for OOL or scramble instructions of course.

But what I realize now if we do not want to be in the position of being accused of being a big fat liar and tremendous cheat, we should ALWAYS POST THE COMBAT MOVE before rolling!!!

Hear me out. This three-step habit that we should develop would ALWAYS provide our opponent with a clean TRANSPARENT file that has no way of being deceptively used to advance our cause.

• 1. Post the Combat Move
• 2. Save to local right after combat is rolled
• 3. Post the End Turn

This POST, SAVE, POST policy would remove edits, remove all of the confusing “undo move” details and remove any concern that a lost game file was a way to correct an error during a Turn.

Now, losing a legitimate game file occurs in multiple ways which put us in the position of having to recreate the game file.

• The game freezes at any time.
• The dice roller freezes the game.
• Our computer freezes or reboots.

What we want is an environment that if any of these game file issues occurs our opponent can trust 100% that we are not simply turning the computer off on our own to try and take advantage by recreating the game file. Plus provide clean game files to our opponents allowing them to easily verify what we did and move on to their Turn.

Okay – here we go.

• I purchase my units and start my CM phase. If we lose the current game we just start over with our opponents Posted game file.

• I purchase my units, perform my CM phase, POST the game file and then start rolling combat. If we lose the game file during rolling, we then recreate the file using the EXACT same combat moves that were in the CM posted file. This prevents someone, who is in the middle of rolling multiple combats, from going “Crap, I forgot to bring in this unit into the battle, or I forgot to make that attack, or I forgot to do that walk in.” Without having a posted CM game file, we do not know FOR SURE that our opponent is not making changes to his combat move to enhance his position. I am not saying anyone is doing this – but the loophole exists for corruption. With the posted CM file, we know what all the declared combats were so there is no way for your opponent to benefit by turning off the game during combat. If the game does legitimately freeze during combat rolling, we have the CM post, plus the dice e-mails, to recreate everything that occurred up to the game freezing.

• I purchase my units, perform my CM phase, POST the game file and then start rolling combat. I then save the game to my computer and do my NCM moves, place my units and POST the End Turn file. If we lose the game file at any point after rolling combat, we just load the after rolling save file and start over. It is impossible to take advantage of a lost game file. And, of course, at any time before rolling combat or before posting we have a clean save game file we can use if you want to make changes. For example, I begin placing my units and realize I should have moved a unit in NCM that I forgot to move. I simply reload the after combat save game file, redo my moves as I want. I get my fix, without making an edit, and then send my opponent a clean game file.

This POST CM, SAVE, POST END TURN three step policy would make it easier for our opponents to check our Turn and provide them with 100% confidence that there is no cheating going on. This is a habit we can all develop. We are not going to be perfect, far from it, early on but over time we can get the habit down to improve everyone’s gaming experience and guarantee the legitimacy of the gaming experience.

I would suggest we implement this policy site wide. Thank you.

Thank you for the ruling @gamerman01 !!!

@BobbaRossa said in 2025 OOB Playoff Final AndrewAAGamer (L+51) bs BobbaRossa (X):

@AndrewAAGamer said in 2025 OOB Playoff Final AndrewAAGamer (L+51) bs BobbaRossa (X):

No scramble in SZ 111.

Submerge orders are needed as well since I do not have a destroyer present.

Thanks, yeah, I missed that. Please submerge the sub.

No scramble in SZ 111.

Thank you @Panther for a very detailed explanation!

I have downloaded the 2.7 file, thank you for the link!

@BobbaRossa

a) When I received your e-mail showing that you are using 2.7 I checked @Panther posts about the latest stable version. According to his latest post https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35438/triplea-2-x-new-stable-has-been-released/18 2.6 is stable, assuming you don’t need the lobby feature, 2.7 is not mentioned. I then went to check Triplea on their website and only 2.5 seems to be available. Not sure how you got 2.7 or how to get even 2.6 now as it seems they removed it as neither are stable.

I have referenced @Panther to assist in this. Panther, please confirm what is the latest stable version and please include a link to the proper download. Thank you in advance!

If 2.7 is the latest version then I will load it and use the game file already sent. If not, then either you can load 2.6 and send me a new game file OR just send me your dice rolling e-mail, that I already suggested you send me, and I will create the game file.

b) Since you are unwilling to agree the bump is invalid, even though I have no map to view and told you that within 24 hours, I am asking for a Moderator to give us a decision whether it is valid or not. I will, of course, abide by his decision. @gamerman01

This is an invalid bump.

• I responded to your original game save file within 24 hours; well within the 72 hour bump rule telling you I was unable to open the file.

• Until you present me with a file that I am able to open the game has not started, thus, the bump rule does not even apply yet.

Please present to me a game save file I can open. Or, since this bump implies you are not planning on sending me a different save game file, please send me your dice rolling e-mail and I will create a new save game file for you.

Thank you…

I am unable to open the game file.

I am on…

Thank you for the game!