Hello all!

I wanted to share a whacky yet simple change to Global 1940 I’ve had some fun experimenting with recently. I cannot take credit for the idea nor can I recall who should – I only remember it mentioned in passing by another user somewhere on this forum. In any case, it has certainly been an interesting twist in my playgroup and I thought I’d share a few thoughts since trying it out.

Basically, the change is just about the alliances:

Axis:
Germany
Russia
Italy
France

Allies:
Japan
US
UKE/UKP
ANZAC

(No change to turn order)

China is a bit of a wildcard in the handful of times we’ve played this change. We began by keeping China on the Allied side, but maintained the rule limiting movement to within China territories & Burma. However, a Russian invasion of China in this situation is incredibly difficult. Bolstering fast-growing stacks of Chinese infantry with piles of Japanese planes proved an insurmountable problem for the Russian player. It also allowed the Japanese to strike Russian stacks from behind a formidable stack of Chinese defenders, turning bordering Russian territories into deadzones. We figured lifting the no-leaving-China rule would just break the scenario altogether.

The previous two games, however, have placed China as a strict neutral. It’s a little more awkward but definitely more enjoyable. Setup is the same and China will continue to collect income until its final defeat. Purchased infantry are placed in Szechuan or, after it falls, any other territory. It’s not a situation that will last long, not between the invading Russians and Japanese.

Other changes:

All nations begin at war against those of the opposite alliance. There are no National Objectives.

We play this version with all neutrals (strict and friendlies) as strict neutrals. However, neutrals can be invaded individually without triggering the whole bloc. In effect, there is no friendly neutrals ever and all neutrals can be invaded willy-nilly. The DEI are a complication. The chance Axis forces will ever reach them is not good so they are a serious boon to the Allies. We house rule this by reducing their value to 1 IPC each. A bone thrown mostly for ANZAC to boost its otherwise perpetually-low income.

The setup is the same except obviously those French and British jointly-held zones. Our preference is to place the French cruiser in 110 with the rest of the fleet in SZ93 (we have also moved the DD from SZ72 to 93 as well, but thoughts differ on that change). The French fighter and infantry in the UK are moved to France. The British artillery and tank in France is moved to the UK.

And basically that’s it.

To wrap up, I just want to share a few reflections from this simple change. First off, it’s great to finally get to use all those blue pieces. Very fun to see a loaded French carrier staging off of Gibraltar for an offensive against South America.

The Axis are at an economic disadvantage under this scenario but can focus on Africa and neutrals for quick income boosts. Using the nearly same setup as G40 means there’s a lot of positioning in the first few rounds but lots of little battles on the peripheries.

Strategies are vastly different, particularly for the Axis: Russia must now look east and south; Germany quickly becomes a naval power; Italy can focus entirely on Africa; and France can help defend the Med while adding to German naval power in the Atlantic and forays into the Middle East. The Allies are fun, too: the vast majority of the Japanese Navy can spread out to menace the Atlantic and Indian Oceans; America can focus solely eastwards; the UK can consider amphibious assaults on northern Russia, invasions through the Caucasus and Persia; and ANZAC can do, well, whatever it wants.

We also like how different areas of the map come into play. With the free-for-all neutral rule, South America becomes an enticing goal for both alliances. Central America with its canal is hotly contested – we’ve seen the Axis stage a masterful takeover to prevent the Japanese navy from passing through it. Sub-Saharan Africa is also a more active region. And China becomes a meatgrinder of Japanese and Russian forces. We’ve seen India fall to Italy and Russian fleets in the Pacific while UK pours into Southern Russia from the Caucasus and France captures South Africa. Quite different each time we play!

If you’re looking for a G40 scenario that is easy to implement and a big change, I’d suggest giving this one a try. Besides IRL, I’ve played this a couple of times on TripleA using an edited .xml file and the computer alone provides a fun challenge.

Let me know if you’ve tried anything like this before, or feel free to tell me this is all just silly LOL!

It’s a good group (hey Ben, this is Patrick!).

It’d be awesome to get a few more players in the group. Especially from Arkansas!

My thinking here is that as Germany I would like to position my subs by themselves in SZ11 and use the airbase to provide cover against MAP attacks. But if the UK can place the entire Home Fleet into SZ11 alongside the MAP attack and use the fleet to attack scramblers, then scrambling is an unwise choice.

Any fans here in the Natural State? I’m down in the SW corner but willing to travel as well as host!

Any fans here in the Natural State? I’m down in the SW corner but willing to travel as well as host!

Hello all!

I wanted to share a whacky yet simple change to Global 1940 I’ve had some fun experimenting with recently. I cannot take credit for the idea nor can I recall who should – I only remember it mentioned in passing by another user somewhere on this forum. In any case, it has certainly been an interesting twist in my playgroup and I thought I’d share a few thoughts since trying it out.

Basically, the change is just about the alliances:

Axis:
Germany
Russia
Italy
France

Allies:
Japan
US
UKE/UKP
ANZAC

(No change to turn order)

China is a bit of a wildcard in the handful of times we’ve played this change. We began by keeping China on the Allied side, but maintained the rule limiting movement to within China territories & Burma. However, a Russian invasion of China in this situation is incredibly difficult. Bolstering fast-growing stacks of Chinese infantry with piles of Japanese planes proved an insurmountable problem for the Russian player. It also allowed the Japanese to strike Russian stacks from behind a formidable stack of Chinese defenders, turning bordering Russian territories into deadzones. We figured lifting the no-leaving-China rule would just break the scenario altogether.

The previous two games, however, have placed China as a strict neutral. It’s a little more awkward but definitely more enjoyable. Setup is the same and China will continue to collect income until its final defeat. Purchased infantry are placed in Szechuan or, after it falls, any other territory. It’s not a situation that will last long, not between the invading Russians and Japanese.

Other changes:

All nations begin at war against those of the opposite alliance. There are no National Objectives.

We play this version with all neutrals (strict and friendlies) as strict neutrals. However, neutrals can be invaded individually without triggering the whole bloc. In effect, there is no friendly neutrals ever and all neutrals can be invaded willy-nilly. The DEI are a complication. The chance Axis forces will ever reach them is not good so they are a serious boon to the Allies. We house rule this by reducing their value to 1 IPC each. A bone thrown mostly for ANZAC to boost its otherwise perpetually-low income.

The setup is the same except obviously those French and British jointly-held zones. Our preference is to place the French cruiser in 110 with the rest of the fleet in SZ93 (we have also moved the DD from SZ72 to 93 as well, but thoughts differ on that change). The French fighter and infantry in the UK are moved to France. The British artillery and tank in France is moved to the UK.

And basically that’s it.

To wrap up, I just want to share a few reflections from this simple change. First off, it’s great to finally get to use all those blue pieces. Very fun to see a loaded French carrier staging off of Gibraltar for an offensive against South America.

The Axis are at an economic disadvantage under this scenario but can focus on Africa and neutrals for quick income boosts. Using the nearly same setup as G40 means there’s a lot of positioning in the first few rounds but lots of little battles on the peripheries.

Strategies are vastly different, particularly for the Axis: Russia must now look east and south; Germany quickly becomes a naval power; Italy can focus entirely on Africa; and France can help defend the Med while adding to German naval power in the Atlantic and forays into the Middle East. The Allies are fun, too: the vast majority of the Japanese Navy can spread out to menace the Atlantic and Indian Oceans; America can focus solely eastwards; the UK can consider amphibious assaults on northern Russia, invasions through the Caucasus and Persia; and ANZAC can do, well, whatever it wants.

We also like how different areas of the map come into play. With the free-for-all neutral rule, South America becomes an enticing goal for both alliances. Central America with its canal is hotly contested – we’ve seen the Axis stage a masterful takeover to prevent the Japanese navy from passing through it. Sub-Saharan Africa is also a more active region. And China becomes a meatgrinder of Japanese and Russian forces. We’ve seen India fall to Italy and Russian fleets in the Pacific while UK pours into Southern Russia from the Caucasus and France captures South Africa. Quite different each time we play!

If you’re looking for a G40 scenario that is easy to implement and a big change, I’d suggest giving this one a try. Besides IRL, I’ve played this a couple of times on TripleA using an edited .xml file and the computer alone provides a fun challenge.

Let me know if you’ve tried anything like this before, or feel free to tell me this is all just silly LOL!

@insanehoshi Ah, these are all very good points. Especially regarding the need for a defending unit to allow scrambling. Thank you, I’ll take this as a rested case.

@insanehoshi Thank you, that definitely simplifies the scenario. But - at the risk of coming across extremely pedantic - in this case what are those other units actually attacking besides what’s for all purposes an empty SZ since they cannot engage those subs? Can ships attack what is effectively an empty SZ?

If the UK says the combat action those ships are performing is a naval blockade, the rules prohibit scrambling aircraft from participating in more than one battle, if I understand correctly (at least, they can’t both scramble and defend their originating landzone). So in this case they could seemingly choose to scramble either against the MAP attack or the naval blockade, but not both?

Forgive me I may be completely off the mark on some or all of this!

And my apologies guys if I come across argumentative, just mentally torn on what the rules allow here. Plus it feels extra frustrating in a solo game to position my German subs forward just to find out on my UK turn that I’ve likely only fed those subs to the lion! LOL

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Thank you for taking the time to reply, I will go with this answer even though I’m still scratching my head a little on the role those UK surface ships are playing in the MAP battle. I have found submarine warfare/MAP/convoy raiding to be both among the most nuanced and interesting aspects of the game. I’ve lurked this forum on numerous occasions to clarify the exact rules in a situation and expect I will do so many times in the future! :joy:

My thinking here is that as Germany I would like to position my subs by themselves in SZ11 and use the airbase to provide cover against MAP attacks. But if the UK can place the entire Home Fleet into SZ11 alongside the MAP attack and use the fleet to attack scramblers, then scrambling is an unwise choice.

Thanks for the replies!

@vondox In line with your thinking (perhaps), I do not feel UK’s additional ships can roll against the scrambling fighters as they are not technically making a combat move, correct? They are only accompanying the MAP fighter+DD in their battle against the two subs. And I believe the rules only allow scrambling against enemy forces performing combat in an adjacent SZ or landzone.

But… then my response as the UK player would be to state the accompanying surface fleet is blockading West Germany’s naval facilities in SZ11, which technically is a combat action, yes?

If so, then would those two combat actions (blockading port and MAP+DD attack against subs) be considered separate and thereby allow the scrambling aircraft to decide in which battle to defend? Instead of being forced to defend both?

@HBG-GW-Enthusiast So you suggest that German scramblers would have to defend against the entire UK force? I can see this as well but with a little more faith as the UK ships (besides the pairing DD) are not participating in the battle German fighters are defending against.

For what it’s worth, I am playing this game solo (the game is new to me and I have no one willing to play haha) so either way I won’t be too upset!

Thanks in advance for any help y’all can provide!

I have a question about MAP and scrambling aircraft defenders. This issue came up during a current game so I will lay out the scenario:

UK performs a MAP attack with a carrier-based fighter from the English Channel alongside a paired destroyer to SZ11 off of Western Germany (forgive me if I incorrectly label seazones, I am not near the board at this moment) to attack two German subs.

The question is, can Germany scramble aircraft from Western Germany into this seazone to help defend the subs?

Follow-up question: Everything above is the same, except UK sends in multiple other surface warships into SZ11. They cannot participate in the MAP+destroyer attack on the two submarines. If Germany is able to scramble fighters into the seazone, must those scramblers also defend against these additional UK ships although they are prohibited from joining the attack against the German subs?

Playing our first game of 1936 and currently on Turn 3. CCP and Japanese have formed a de facto alliance of convenience to bring an early end to the KMT.

Of course, these two players are not within an alliance as per the game structure, but they have agreed not to attack each other for the time being. A question has come up, however: can the CCP give Japanese forces permission to combat move or non-combat move through its territories in order to attack KMT holdings on Japan’s current or future turn? And, if so, would this also allow Japanese use of railroads through CCP territory?

Thanks for your help and my apologies if this answer is well-documented and just missed by us!

It’s a good group (hey Ben, this is Patrick!).

It’d be awesome to get a few more players in the group. Especially from Arkansas!