Posts made by AndrewAAGamer

Thank you for the suggestion.  I have posted in the FAQ area per your advice.

Yesterday in a game of Global 1940 2nd Edition (1942 scenario) the British strafed Iraq on UK1 to weaken it so the Russians would have an easier time of taking it on R2.  The question came up as to the political status of Iraq as far as could Italian aircraft now land in Iraq since it had been attacked.  The rules (below) seem to be unclear since at first they say that Iraq “immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it” and then say that “the territory remains uncontrolled” and is treated like a friendly neutral.

Our take was that if it is still “uncontrolled” then Italian aircraft cannot land there.  We also tested it on TripleA and TripleA would not allow us to land planes there so we agreed that for that one game we would rule they could not but since we know TripleA is not always correct we wanted an official answer for future games.

Thank you in advance for answering our question.

From the Global 1940 Second Edition Rules:
_When a neutral territory is invaded, it is no longer considered neutral and immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it.

If the attack upon the formerly neutral territory is unsuccessful (the territory is not captured), any remaining defending units stay in the territory but cannot move. The territory remains uncontrolled (place a national control marker on it face down to indicate its new status), but units from the side it is now allied with can move into it and take control of it and its remaining units in the same way as if it were a friendly neutral._

Yesterday in a game of Global 1940 2nd Edition (1942 scenario) the British strafed Iraq on UK1 to weaken it so the Russians would have an easier time of taking it on R2.  The question came up as to the political status of Iraq as far as could Italian aircraft now land in Iraq since it had been attacked.  The rules (below) seem to be unclear since at first they say that Iraq “immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it” and then say that “the territory remains uncontrolled” and is treated like a friendly neutral.

Our take was that if it is still “uncontrolled” then Italian aircraft cannot land there.  We also tested it on TripleA and TripleA would not allow us to land planes there so we agreed that for that one game we would rule they could not but since we know TripleA is not always correct we wanted an official answer for future games.

Thank you in advance for answering our question.

From the Global 1940 Second Edition Rules:
When a neutral territory is invaded, it is no longer considered neutral and immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it.
If the attack upon the formerly neutral territory is unsuccessful (the territory is not captured), any remaining defending units stay in the territory but cannot move. The territory remains uncontrolled (place a national control marker on it face down to indicate its new status), but units from the side it is now allied with can move into it and take control of it and its remaining units in the same way as if it were a friendly neutral.

Of course trying to get extra units to defend Western US is really all based on NOT having the extra $30 one-time bonus which is the official rule change.  Without the bonus the best the Allies can do is get the attack down to a 55% chance of success.

With the new One-time Bonus of $30 the easiest thing to do now is simply attack the Japanese landings in British Columbia.

With $49 the US buys 6 artillery and 4 tanks on US2.  When the Japanese land 24 troops in British Columbia, only 1 being a tank, the US has a 92% chance of taking/clearing it.

That, I guess, depends where the Japanese fleet is.  According to the strategy as laid out the Japanese move to SZ14 on J1, SZ8 (Aleutians) on J2 and SZ1 (Canada) on J3.  On US1 the US carrier hides with the US battleship in SZ10, behind a wall of blockers, with 2 planes plus 3 more planes that can scramble (making it very safe from a 6 plane Japanese attack), moves to SZ30 (Johnston) on US2 out of range of the Japanese fighters where the UK and ANZAC fighter subsequently land on it.

If the Japanese Navy is in a different spot they could reach the carrier but that would mean splitting their fleet and exposing one part of it to attack by US, UK and ANZAC forces as part of it must stay with the transports or they will be sunk.

I just recently heard about this $30 Official Rule Change and did some research that I posted on the Larry Harris Website.  Even without the $30 there is a way to get the Japanese attack of Western USA down to 75% for sure and most likely 55%.  Still high enough that some Players would still try it.

Here is how you would get more UK and ANZAC units into the defense of the USA with or without the $30.
US moves carrier to SZ30 (Johnston Islands)
UK buys a bomber and flies it to Queensland then USA
UK flies India fighter to Northern Territory, then to US carrier then to USA
ANZAC builds a fighter then flies it to US carrier then to USA
ANZAC takes infantry and AA gun from Australia and moves to Hawaii then USA

With the 2 extra fighters and bomber the 97% result lowers to 75%.  If the ANZAC infantry and AA gun can get there then the result drops to 55%.

The Allies do need to bring the house to Hawaii by Turn 2 so they can sink the Japanese fleet if the Japanese try and block SZ10 from the ANZAC transport to get the last two units into the fray. Luckily that is a non-combat move and ANZAC goes last. Since the Japanese Player has to protect the 12 transports in SZ1 there is not enough Japanese defensive force to protect against a US/UK/ANZAC attack in both Sea Zones. If they abandon SZ12 then without transports the Japanese will have a more difficult time winning the game after the US falls; though I am sure they still could win.  I have not play-tested out that scenario.

Of course with the $30 one-time bonus the US can now buy enough units on Turn 2 to make the Japanese attack a mere 28% even without the 2 ANZAC land units.

Our gaming group has come to the conclusion that some bid is needed to balance the game for the Allies.  In reading through the posts it seems to me that the general consensus is that the Allies need a bid of about 9-12.

My questions are:

1. Is a bid of 9-12 the current and reasonable amount?  As we will not want to bid for a particular side, we will set a certain bid point for each game and then let people choose which side they want to be as some Players enjoy playing particular Powers.  So what is a fair bid?

2. Is this bid added as starting income to be spent on Turn 1?

3. Is this bid added as units and money such as the Revised FIDA bid?

4. Is this bid added as units on the board with remainders as starting money?

5. For any units placed on the board are there any restrictions?  For example:
       a) Must have a unit already in the territory / sea zone?
       b) May not place more than X number of units?

I would appreciate your kind thoughts and comments.  Thank you…