Wich setup do you use ?

[k-rizma]

Hi everyone,

I’m an old player use to the 1984 version and i’ve just get E40 & P40 tadammm (used 1st Ed)  :-D . And i remembered that this forum exist so i came here for advice on rules, houses rules and strategies.

I’ve read all the topics in the Pacific 1940, Europe 1940 and Global.

It is a little bit like jungle here !!!

There’s a lot of setups (1st, 2nd, alpha 2 and 3) and and cool house rules (vichy France and Canada to name a few).

I want to know wich setup and wich rules you like the most. Please be kind with me and
other new player and post your answer in this format, so i can compil and follow your advice to make a more balanced game. If you want to reffer to an already discuss topic, just put the links in the appropriate section.

Always remember that i have a first edition game !!!

SETUP

Wich setup you take ? Just name it and modifications if you have made some

Exemple : i use alpha 3 setup with minus one french inf in France and one more ANZAC in Egypt.

NATIONALS OBJECTIVES AND POLITICAL SITUATION

Make the set you use plus modifications.

HOUSE RULES

No new ic, Vichy France, Canada, no Tech etc.

If a special rules nas already been discussed, just put the link of the topics.

WHY

Why you play A&AG40 like this and what’s the average game time and the % of axis wins and allies win.

A great Thank to respect the proposed format and to be brief and precise (i want facts not idea, this one will come later  :wink:). This will be easier to make my idea about it and maybe help other new players too.

Also a big thank and cheers to all the people that made this game better and funier year after year !

[knp7765]

Well, here is my 2 cents worth:
SETUP

I have the second edition of Europe 40 and Pacific 40 and we pretty much use the standard OOB setup. If you use Alpha 3 setup for the first edition, I think that is the same. The reason for all the Alpha setups was because the OOB setup from first edition was found to be very unbalanced. So came the Alphas. Each Alpha setup involved certain tweaks to the game to try and balance it out, or in other words give a somewhat equal chance at victory for the Axis and the Allies. There were several Alphas:
Alpha, Alpha +, Alpha +1, Alpha +2, Alpha +3.
I think they finally settled on Alpha +3 and that became the setup for the second edition.

We do use one modification from this setup – Airbases on Gibraltar and Malta. Those were introduced in Alpha +2 but removed in Alpha +3.

NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND POLITICAL SITUATION

No change in the Political Situation. We have added a number of National Objectives:
Germany : + 5 IPCs per turn when an Axis power controls London. (If controlling London and getting the Brits off their back isn’t a German national objective, I don’t know what is)
Russia : + 2 IPCs for each victory city still controlled by the Soviet Union (Except for the Archangel NO, all of Russia’s NOs only apply if they are going offensive against Germany. If Germany is on the offensive against Russia, they will get nothing. Felt it was too harsh on the Russians, especially since the Archangel NO is easily blocked by Germany.)
Russia : + 3 IPCs for each Axis or pro-Axis neutral territory and each pro-Allied or Strict neutral territory that was first occupied by the Axis controlled by the Soviet Union within continental Europe and Scandanavia. (This prevents the nonsense move of Russian units going into Africa and getting 3 IPCs for Ethiopia or Italian Somaliland. Also no Russian infantry hopping on a British transport and taking Sicily or Sardinia. NOs should be somewhat historical.)
Russia : + 3 IPCs for Soviet control of Korea. (Just a little incentive for Russia to act against Japan)
United Kingdom : We removed the NO of 5 IPCs for control of all original territories on the Europe board. (This NO is next to impossible to achieve after round 2) Instead, we added the following for England.

• 5 IPCs for no German submarines in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, excluding sea zones 113, 114, 115 and 100. (the German U-Boat threat was a dire concern for England.)
• 3 IPCs for UK control of ALL Canadian territories.
• 3 IPCs for UK control of Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and Trans-Jordan.
• 3 IPCs for Allied control of Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland and no Axis units in any African territory south of the Sahara and Egypt.
• 3 IPCs for Allied control of Eastern Persia, Persia, NW Persia and Iraq.
  United States : We removed the +10 IPCs for control of Western US, Central US and Eastern US. (It’s almost impossible to deny that NO, too easy money for the US. If Axis manage to deny that NO, the game is pretty much in the bag anyway.) We changed it to the following:
• 1 IPC for US control of each of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Guam, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau Island, Marianas Island, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa. (This still gives the US the option of getting that +10 IPCs and encourages some of the island battles)
  Japan : We altered the NO + 5 IPCs for Axis control of Midway, Wake Island, Guam, Gilbert Islands and Solomon Islands. Now it reads like this:
• 1 IPC for Axis control of each of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Guam, Gilbert Islands and Solomon Islands. (This way it isn’t so impossible for Japan to get something out of this particular NO.)
  Also, we added the following:
• 5 IPCs for Japanese control of ALL the following territories: Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau Islands, Marianas Islands, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa. (This was also to encourage island battles with the US)
• 5 IPCs for Axis control of ALL Chinese territories. (The subjugation of China was a BIG Japanese goal)
• 5 IPCs ONE TIME for destruction of Chinese Flying Tigers fighter. (The Flying Tigers were a thorn in the side of Japan so eliminating them would be a bonus. Since it is a one time bonus and relatively small, it isn’t worth Japan risking a lot of resources to accomplish. Also, it’s up to China to protect their only fighter.)

HOUSE RULES

We have a number of house rules that we experiment with from time to time, but there are four that we use in every game:
HEAVY BOMBERS – If anyone gets this tech, they roll two dice and keep BOTH results, for combat and SBRs.
SUBS vs. DESTROYERS – When we have a naval battle involving subs on one side and destroyers on the other, submarines can submerge AFTER the first round of combat if they survive. Destroyers still cancel the surprise strike and allow aircraft to hit subs in combat.
MECHANIZED INFANTRY – We allow Mechanized Infantry units to blitz unoccupied enemy controlled territories on their own, without having to be paired with a tank.
MID-LEVEL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES – These are factories in between Major and Minor ICs. They can produce 5 units per turn. They cost 20 IPCs and must be build on a territory worth 3 IPCs or more. A minor IC can be upgraded to a Mid-Level IC for 10 IPCs, provided it is in a territory worth 3 IPCs or more. There are NO NEW Major ICs allowed, only the original Major ICs on the board at the start of the game (and the 3 US Major ICs that get converted from Minors upon US entry into the war) are allowed. When a Major is captured, as per rules it is reduced to a Minor IC. The capturing power can upgrade that IC to a Mid-Level if he/she so chooses. If the original owner liberates that territory, he/she can upgrade the IC to a Major IC. That is the only way to get a Major IC after the game has started. If a Mid-Level IC is captured, it is also reduced to a Minor IC and can be upgraded back to a Mid-Level by the capturing power on his/her next turn.

WHY

We play our games in this manner because it’s just the way it suits us. Over the years and over many games we have tried out subtle variations and tinkered with different house rules and the above version is just what seems best suited for us.
I can’t really give a good answer on average game time. We meet at my house and I have a room where I can keep the game setup all the time. We usually get together to play on my nights off from work, which are Monday and Tuesday nights. We will usually set it up and play for roughly 5-6 hours then call it a day, play another 5-6 hours the next day. If the game isn’t finished, we might not get back to it until the following weekend. Also, we play very relaxed. We will talk about stuff, the TV is usually on and we just take our time.
I can tell you usually setup and the first 2 rounds take up the first day. The second day we will probably get 3-4 more rounds played. If the game isn’t finished, we will pick up where we left off next week. Most games for us last around 8-10 rounds or so. I guess I could say a full game of Global 40 takes us roughly 18 hours, but remember, that is at a very relaxed pace and we are not always concentrating right on the game. We feel like that would take the fun out of it if we all pressured everyone to hurry up and do their turns. It’s just our way.
As for win percentages, I would say probably the Axis come out a little ahead, roughly 60-40. It used to be a lot higher for the Axis, but after a number of tweaks to our own games and some of our players gaining experience, things have evened out some. A big part is now we all take turns with different countries so nobody is left always playing either Axis or Allies. That really helps make you think things differently.

Well, I hope this helps you.  Good luck with your gaming experience.

[k-rizma]

Thank you for your answer, it help my head become clean about the game

[k-rizma]

I found the mid IC very cool and to have more NO who give less ipc. So if you have no NO ipc one turn you’re in Deep …

If i understand well, the alphas differents sets of rules, were made between the official 1st and 2nd edition ?

Is There somewhere and easy comparative between the 1st, alpha (last one made) and 2nd ?

[WILD BILL]

k-rizma as knp stated the Alpha+3 (for 1st ed) is pretty much the equivalent to 2nd edition out of box (OOB). The only difference is that Korea was added to the Russian NAP (Mongolia) rules, and Egypt has 1 fewer English infantry when playing the global game (Egypt gets only 1 UK inf). The map didn’t change much from 1st ed to 2nd ed, so there should be no problem there (I have and use the 1st ed map).

Set-up:
I would start with the rules and set-up for 2nd ed because all the work that went on through the Alpha project led us here. The global game can get overwhelming for new players, and even for some vets that have played classic, revised or anniversary (anniversary being the closest as far as map size, a new Italian power, or newer rules introduced like how transports work now etc….).

I would also suggest playing the Global1942 version developed for tournament play. It starts in 1942, so all powers begin at war (see why below).

Link for Global1942 (note this is the newest version April 2013 with Germany going 5th in the turn order)
http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf

NO’s & House Rules:
I wouldn’t start out using house rules (yours or anyone’s) until your grooup has played several games and determines for itself the direction to go. At that point by all means go crazy and try out some stuff. I think that house rules are just that, rules that work for one house or style of play, but might not work for all. I will say that I like several of knp’s NO’s and his house rules are spot on (we don’t normally play with tech though). Subs could use a boost, and the game seems to miss a mid level IC (India comes to mind). I think I would only allow a mid level IC to be built on an original territory of the power building the complex (don’t want the US building 5 units in Norway) but that’s me and house rules are subject to much scrutiny.

Why:
The Global40 game introduces some new mechanics that will take a bit to get familiar with like air and naval bases, convoy zones, and some tweaks to strategic bombing raids (SBR). A compete understanding of how the political rules work will take some time (maybe a couple games). You may even start a couple games, then restart after 4-5 rounds because of something you missed, or mistakes that will alter the game too much.

I suggested the Global1942 set-up above because it starts with all parties at war (1942). The delay for the US and Russia getting their feet wet can be a turn off to new players. Especially if you end up restarting after a few rounds and the US hasn’t seen any action. This is a different animal though. Another way to avoid some of the political rules and play the global1940 version is to have Japan attack on the first turn, it puts the US at war on their first turn. Some think this is the beat strat for the axis anyway, but it could put a lot of pressure on Germany when the USA gets unleashed early.

Good gaming whichever way you go, thanks WB

[k-rizma]

Thank you wild bill

I usually play A&A or other games 1vs1 with the same old friend.

I Think i will use the 1942 setup if we initiate new players

After your answer and the Knp one, i Think we will go with the 2nd edition + a french infantry in FIC (can’t resolve to let the japan have it for free.  I also like the Nos Knp propose.  Especially with Us and Uk (we changed the Pacific island ipc value in the old version because we like island battle and it is historically accurate).  If my buddy agree with all that.  Since i’m an axis player maybe i will shut up with all that and go with the 1st oob.

Seriously, i will show him some topics here (maybe he will join the forum) and we will décide what we want.

Please continue with advices i found it very helping.

Thanks again.

[knp7765]

@k-rizma:

I found the mid IC very cool and to have more NO who give less ipc. So if you have no NO ipc one turn you’re in Deep …

If i understand well, the alphas differents sets of rules, were made between the official 1st and 2nd edition ?

Is There somewhere and easy comparative between the 1st, alpha (last one made) and 2nd ?

Actually, there wasn’t a lot of rule changing between the Alphas. They seemed to keep tweaking the Mongolian rule a lot and there were some changes with the NOs, but mostly the different Alphas simply involved different starting setups. Sorry I can’t remember them at the moment, but one of the first major differences was in the Pacific side involving Japan’s and the Allied air forces. In the OOB setup for Pacific 1940 1st edition, Japan has a HUGE amount of planes and the Allies were kind of air heavy too. The whole Pacific side seemed too air heavy on both sides. So, one of the first things that the first Alpha did was to cut down the number of planes on the Pacific side. Japan lost 7 and the Allies lost 7 as well between the US, UK and ANZAC.

@WILD:

NO’s & House Rules:
I wouldn’t start out using house rules (yours or anyone’s) until your grooup has played several games and determines for itself the direction to go. At that point by all means go crazy and try out some stuff. I think that house rules are just that, rules that work for one house or style of play, but might not work for all. I will say that I like several of knp’s NO’s and his house rules are spot on (we don’t normally play with tech though). Subs could use a boost, and the game seems to miss a mid level IC (India comes to mind). I think I would only allow a mid level IC to be built on an original territory of the power building the complex (don’t want the US building 5 units in Norway) but that’s me and house rules are subject to much scrutiny.

Thanks Wild Bill. Glad you like my ideas. As for the Mid-Level IC, we have been tinkering with the idea of reducing India’s IC to a Mid-Level at the start of the game, but we haven’t pulled the trigger on that one just yet. Every time we start to suggest that, whomever is playing UK doesn’t like it so we have just left it a Major for the time being. However, I think we are going to get that change into our games before too much longer. If you are just playing Pacific 40 by itself, then I can see having a Major in Calcutta but for Global 40, it seems a little overkill.

[cyanight]

Wild Bill - When playing 1942 what happens with Monglia since Russia and Japan are at war? Is Mongolia Neutral?

[WILD BILL]

With out getting to far off topic (just a little more back ground to understand the changes made through the Alpha project). Yes one of the highlights of Alpha+1 was the needed reduction of air on the Pacific side (7 planes each for Japan/Allies) to be more in-line with the Euro side. I think the Euro side also got a few air units added in Alpha+2, Alpha+3 (along with other set-up changes).

One of the biggest changes in Alpha+1 was to air bases. In the 1st edition OOB, only island airbases could scramble, and it was unlimited. This seemed wrong for a few reasons. 1st just how many planes could an airbase put in the air with the limited resources of such an island airbase. 2nd by allowing unlimited scramble from an island you could over protect your fleet at sea in the right circumstances. Yea try to knock out the Japanese fleet parked in sz 35 with the Philippines scrambling 10-12 ftrs (lol). 3rd was Japan is considered an island, so it could scramble an unlimited number of air units, but England was not an island by rule so it couldn’t scramble the RAF. Alpha+1 changed it to all air bases can scramble to an adjacent sz, but it was limited to 3 (or less) air units (ftrs/tac). This change limited air cover at sea from islands, and allowed England and other coastal airbases to scramble to adjacent sz’s. As you can imagine, this was a very welcomed change that had a huge impact to the game. Many of the set-up changes made through the Alpha’s were a direct reaction to this change. Where to place starting fleets (because of air def), and some air bases were removed from the set-up that seemed to give one side too much of an edge (like Gibraltar and Malta). Obviously knp didn’t like that change, and house ruled the airbases back on Gib/Malta.

knp, as for the Mid level ICs, like I said I wouldn’t want to allow placement on any 3 IPC territory. USA shouldn’t be able to drop 5-6 units in captured territory IMO (too powerful). I was thinking more that your power could place a second minor IC on its original territory worth 3 IPCs or more. India would start with 2 minor IC’s giving them a production of 6 units (how often could they build more then that). You would also have two complexes to SBR, so maybe one would still have production, or it wouldn’t cost so much to buy out for unit placement. Only a handful of territories would qualify for 2 minor (mid level) IC’s. Germany has a few options but Romania would probably be the best place. Japan on Korea, or Italy on S Italy (Rome). Other then India starting with 2 minors the Allies can’t build a second minor in out laying area’s. They could however rebuild their capitals in stages if say London or Moscow were taken, then liberated.

Anyway, this is off topic, but I thought it important for k-rizma to get some more background that led to the 2nd edition, and to see how outdated 1st edition OOB is.

[WILD BILL]

@cyanight:

Wild Bill - When playing 1942 what happens with Monglia since Russia and Japan are at war? Is Mongolia Neutral?

Maybe I miss spoke, the Mongolian NAP rules for global 1940 carry over to global 1942. When I said every one starts at war, I meant Russia and the US as they have been attacked by Germany and Japan respectfully. Japan and Russia start at war, but not with each other. The Japanese or Russians don’t control any territories of the other at the start. They can declare war and attack each other at any time however, and not effect the Mongolian NAP. Only an invasion of certain territories by one side or the other have an effect on the Mongolian NAP rules (territories that boarder Mongolia, and now Korea is added if Russia invades it). You need to read the newest Mongolian NAP to better understand (it can get a bit confusing).

Japan can declare war and take territories like Kazak, Novo, Soviet Far East, Siberia, and Sakha w/o triggering the Mongolians (and they normally do). Russia can fight for those same territories w/o affecting the NAP, and also fight the Japanese in China, on Russian soil, or Mid East as long as they don’t attack a Japanese held Chinese territory that borders Mongolia (like Manchuria or others that border Mongolia).

In a Nut shell if the Japanese attack Amur or any other Russian territory that borders Mongolia it triggers the 6 Mongolian inf. When Japan attacks a trigger territory you immediately place Russian control markers on all Mongolian territories, and Russian inf are placed on the map for the shaded neutral Mongolians (do this on Japans turn). BTW Japan can not attack a trigger territory, and a Mongolian territory at the same time (well they could but that would flip all the other true neutrals to the other side as well as the Mongolians). Normally if Japan is going to attack a trigger territory they will have units in place to kill most of the new Russian units on Japans next turn at which point the Japanese can invade Mongolia because it is Russian territory. Russia will get a chance to move her new units on her turn (well placed Japanese mech/air can chase them down).

On the other hand, if the Russians break the NAP by attacking Korea or a Japanese held territory that borders Mongolia like Manchuria (or any other former Chinese territory held by Japan that boarders Mongolia) the Mongolians won’t join the Russians. So if the Russians break the NAP, then the Japanese are free to invade the Russian territories that border Mongolia w/o worrying about the Mongolians becoming Russian. The Mongols would remain true neutral and stay out of the war unless there is an assault on other true neutrals, or Mongolia itself. There are some other weird scenario’s that can happen if say the US, or Germans get into the region, but I’ve already went future off track then intended lol.

[cyanight]

WildBill - thanks so much for the in depth answer to Mongolian neutrality.  With the G42 rules I must have missed that it does not put Japan and Russia at war with each other at the start of the game.  That then makes perfect sense why the Mongolian rule still applies.

KNP - love your house rules especially the one concerning the Flying Tigers.  Its very similar to one of our house rules.  We did something similar to the following Battleships (IOWA, KING GEORGE V , YAMATO, BISMARK, LITTORIO).  On our painted set we have these 5 battleships enlarged.  If you sink one you get 2 ipcs.  We added them for looks then it became like a prestige thing.  Sea zone 110 became a concern because of the King George as well as sacrificing the German’s Bismark.  We also have the MARAT - Russian Battleship and RICHELIEU French Battleship but they never get used.

[k-rizma]

Thanks WB for the A&A history crash course, it put me up to date  :-)

No offense but can we get Back to the main topic now ? I’m curious about what others have to say about it.

[knp7765]

@cyanight:

WildBill - thanks so much for the in depth answer to Mongolian neutrality.  With the G42 rules I must have missed that it does not put Japan and Russia at war with each other at the start of the game.  That then makes perfect sense why the Mongolian rule still applies. Â

KNP - love your house rules especially the one concerning the Flying Tigers.  Its very similar to one of our house rules.  We did something similar to the following Battleships (IOWA, KING GEORGE V , YAMATO, BISMARK, LITTORIO).  On our painted set we have these 5 battleships enlarged.  If you sink one you get 2 ipcs.  We added them for looks then it became like a prestige thing.  Sea zone 110 became a concern because of the King George as well as sacrificing the German’s Bismark.  We also have the MARAT - Russian Battleship and RICHELIEU French Battleship but they never get used.

That’s an interesting HR you have with the battleships. Have you ever played A&A Guadalcanal? It’s USA vs. Japan and you play for victory points. The first to reach 15 wins the game. The main way you get victory points is by how many undamaged airfields you have but you also get 1 victory point for sinking a capital ship (battleship or carrier). Your HR reminded me of that.
Just curious, how much bigger are the named battleships? I got a set of 1/2400 scale battleships that might fit the bill. They are quite a bit bigger than the board game pieces, but could still work on the G40 board I think.

[k-rizma]

I just start a game alone to understand the game mechanics and explain it to my friends when we will play.

I finished the first round. Germany has taken France, Normandy, yougoslavia and bulgaria, wipe out  most of the UK fleet (Uk has taken Back Normandy).  Italy wipe out all of the UK mediteranean fleet and take alexandria (Uk take it Back). Japan advance in China and put all the fleet in the same Sz.

In turn two Sea Lion will surely work and also Calcutta and Egypt And barbarossa will begin.  The way i see the game, the axis must made the most possible damage before Us comes to war. If USA make Germany and Italy goes backward while URSS resist, than it is some for the Axis.  If USA is innefective, the axis win.  All is playing in Europe, in Pacific, USA just have to resist at Honolulu while Anzac do the same at Sydney.

Am I right or in the left field ?

[ChocolatePancake]

In my experience, you are correct about the Pacific. USA just needs to spend enough there to keep Japan from taking Hawaii or Sydney.

On the Europe side, Germany shouldn’t be able to take London on turn 2 ever unless the UK player just abandons it. To even have a chance, Germany would have to build all transports on turn 1, and then UK could just easily build max infantry in London, not move any units out, move the Scotland units in and Germany would have little or no chance of taking it.

In the Mediterranean, usually the UK destroys most of Italy’s fleet before Italy has a chance to use it. Sometimes they get lucky and are able to destroy the rest of the UK fleet on their turn, but usually it seems to require Germany to help finish off the UK fleet.

Generally though, yes, if the USA is unwise and ineffective, then the Allies will usually lose. If they invest nothing in either the Pacific or Europe sides, the Axis should be able to win fairly easily on that side most of the time.

[knp7765]

I disagree. I think the best way for the Allies to win is for the US to spend mostly (not ALL, but most) in the Pacific and pound Japan good. The US has to eliminate the Japanese Navy and corner them on their island. With SBRs and convoy raiding, Japan will be having less and less money to spend. India/China/Russia should be able to get Japan under control on the mainland and ANZAC can retake the DEI, thus starving Japan of precious IPCs. The US doesn’t even need to invade Japan, just hold it there making little to no money and Japan will be effectively neutralized. Then the US can start spending in the Atlantic big time.
If done right, UK and Russia should be able to hold of Germany/Italy long enough for the US to show up in force, probably knock Italy out and then all three will squeeze Germany into nothingness.

If US goes heavy in Europe from the start, yeah it will be rough on Germany/Italy but Japan will grow too huge to stop in time.

[ghr2]

This basically teeters on how well UK can do vs Italy.

[ChocolatePancake]

A strategy of spending most of the USA’s money to kill Japan can certainly work, I’ve just found that it isn’t usually necessary.
A lot really does depend on what Germany/Italy do and how well the UK can bottle up Italy.

If Germany goes G1, and Japan waits until, say, round 3, I’ve found that spending heavily in the Atlantic can be very effective. It really depends on what the Axis does as to how I decide to allocate the USA money.

[knp7765]

@ChocolatePancake:

A strategy of spending most of the USA’s money to kill Japan can certainly work, I’ve just found that it isn’t usually necessary.
A lot really does depend on what Germany/Italy do and how well the UK can bottle up Italy.

If Germany goes G1, and Japan waits until, say, round 3, I’ve found that spending heavily in the Atlantic can be very effective. It really depends on what the Axis does as to how I decide to allocate the USA money.

You mean if Germany attacks Russia G1? In my opinion, that would be silly for Germany. Their front forces would be too weak and Russia could chop them to bits R2. Then Germany would have to rely on a stronger second wave that might be too far behind.
If Japan waits until round 3 to drag the US into the war, then that will be 2 rounds that the US can’t do anything on either side. However, if the US does build up a lot in the Atlantic on those first 2 rounds, you are right. Once they enter the war they can bring a lot over to Europe all in one clump while using the existing Pacific fleet to at least keep Japan at bay.

This brings up a question for me. When playing the US, if you decide to go heavy Atlantic, Which of the following do you think is the better strategy for the US and it’s big opening movement?
1 - Go to Gibraltar, then go after Italy.
2 - Go to Gibraltar, then go to Normandy or Southern France.
3 - Go to Gibraltar, then sail up to Norway.
4 - Go to Gibraltar, then try an attack on West Germany.
5 - Get everything over to stage in England. (assuming no Sealion)

[ghr2]

6 - Go to Gibraltar, see how the axis responds.