Global 1940 Cold War goes Hot Scenario

@FranceNeedsMorePower good point

@crockett36

No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.

@taamvan Nope. Its Deathheads map he came out with right around 1st AA50 edition came out. 2008 or 9 I believe.

He did get ideas from AAE AAP. Had his own Mods with using AA50 rules if they applied. D6.

I changed a ton of stuff to it and made it a D12 system. Game reports are in House Rules thread under 1940 Global War 2nd Edition if your interested in looking at.

Honestly The 2 young good players I have went at it in Europe the whole game. Said it was the best game for them as far as historic effects. Convoy raiding SBRing back and forth and UKUS did there NA combine attack one time in game and got Paris back. Germany had UK down to 26 icps with raiding and some Africa stuff but US got on board and finally got UK back to 50 icps in income. Also what hurt UK early was there Tacs and destroyers could not get dice hits on the Wolf Packs. Epic.
UK even had there NA Sub Hunters for whole game and Got a +1 for Tac bombers against lone subs and still missed a bunch.
Also only 1-1 for figs hitting surfaced subs with a destroyer. 5 subs Vs 2 Destroyers can only scramble 2 figs.
You also got to have the Sub being able to submerge after Tac bomber attack and even with a destroyer present. Then you give Destroyer a depth Charge drop attack.

Map pics in the thread i posted.

@CWO:

@taamvan:

I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.

The British government may not have had an actual “backup plan”, in terms of something serious and concrete and specific.  My impression is that Britain’s civilian and military leaders were focussed on preventing an invasion in the first place, and on defeating it if it did actually occur, and that they were sufficiently confident that they could accomplish one or the other of those goals that they didn’t need to give any detailed consideration to what to do if Britain ended up facing defeat.  Hitler, similarly, didn’t give serious consideration to invading Britain until he was forced to admit that Britain wasn’t going to come to terms with him after the defeat of France.

It’s quite possible that British government considered the possibility of setting up a government-in-exile in Canada (or elsewhere), but “considering the possibility” isn’t the same thing as preparing a functional contingency plan.  And in fact, there would have been two good reasons NOT to work on such a functional plan.  First, it would have taken up time and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, even if it only amounted to a small number of staff.  More importantly, preparing such a plan – even in secret – would have been politically very dangerous.  Churchill had famously been proclaiming in the House of Commons that “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”  If word had somewhow reached the public that the same Churchill was secretly preparing plans to decamp to Canada, it would have had two very serious negative effects: it would have told the public that Churchill believed that Britain genuinely risked being conquered by Nazi Germany (which would have been very bad for morale) and it would have convinced people that Churchill was hypocritical on a monumental scale (which would have ended his political career).  It would also have destabilized the British government, which was the last thing Britain needed at that time.

No, I completely understand why Churchhill did that, he was a very ballsy man and someone who was needed for UK but you’d still think you want some kind of back up just in case. I am sure his staff and the Royal Family would AT LEAST retreat to Ireland if need be.

Hi Erocco,
these numbers are based on a formula found during Classic time by Dauvio Vann and his friends, then improved and adjusted to better fit the need of Second Edition units. Here is one link in House Rule:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40346.msg1684954#msg1684954

Below, you get the whole formula and a short explanation:

@Baron:

@Dauvio:

It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula P^2*N=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/P^2=N. √(S/N)=P
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.

Now the next formula is (P100)/(C^26)=S
P=POINTS
C=COST
S=STRENGTH OF THE UNIT BASED ON COST
With this formula you can also price units according to their strength. √((P100)/(S6))=C
This formula is for points. (S*(C^2*6))/100=P

For better results for some of these formulas, have all your units cost ten times then what they are. These are some of the VANN FORMULAS I came up 30 years ago.

If you have any questions about these formulas, please ask.

I found how you can get the main part of Vann formula or Baron-Larrymarx according to a specific unit as benchmark.

I took the Fighter A3 D4 C10 and I wanted to convert into Tank A3 D3 C6 as benchmark (Baron-Larrymarx formula).

Then I saw what I did.

Power (of attacking Fighter): A3 * C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) * 1 Hit Point C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) = 1.08
You can reduce this equation because (cost of Tank)(cost of Tank)/ (cost of Fg)*(cost of Fg) is same to
(cost of Tank) IPCs^2 / (cost of Fg) IPCs^2 and give a simple ratio.

C6^2*A3/C10^2 = 1.08
36 squared IPCs 3 Power * 1 Hit /100 squared IPCs = 1.08 PowerHit Point

This explained what is hidden in Baron-Larrymarx formula:
Offence or defence strength factor= 36*Power/Cost^2.

The whole Enigma formula is
Refence unit Cost^2Power of the actual unit1 HP/Cost of the actual unit^2

So, the Basic offence or defence strength factor result (1.08, in this case) is express in Power*Hit Point
1^2*Power (of a given unit)*1 hit/Cost (of this same given unit)^2

And this formula can be adapt according to any benchmark, for instance a 1 IPC unit:
131 hit/10^2 = 0.300

And this is a very small number. That’s why Vann formula:
Strength= (Power100)/(Cost^26)

add an arbitrary 1001/6= 16.667…
So, 16.667131 hit/10^2 = 0.5
And this would provide the Fighter strength attack factor based on an hypothetical benchmark unit of √16.667 = 4.0825 IPCs.
A 5 IPCs revised Tank in Vann formula gives a Strength : 16.66731 hit/5^2 = 2.00 powerhit

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

These numbers means that Destroyer is the most optimized unit for combat to buy for each IPC invested, then it is battleship and finally Cruiser.
Said otherwise, Cruiser is sub-optimal for the cost.
3 DDs C8 A3 D3 (A9 D9, 3 hits) will be stronger than 2 Cruisers C12 A6 D6 (A12 D12, 2 hits) if you can use a Battlecalc to test D10-sided values.

From stronger to weaker for 120 IPCs basis:
15 DDs A3 D3 (A45 D45)
6 BBs A7 D7 (A42 D42)
10 CAs A6 D6 (A60 D60)

Deleted my prior post…I put it in the wrong forum!  :oops:

:-o
  Yes Admiral,
I suppose that would be better.
I also think that these ‘House Rules’ of mine would liven up even an AA Revised game as well.
    Crazy Ivan  :roll:

No please post what you got then everybody can jump in and discuss it.

If you can post a link to pictures of the map with pieces it will help convey the idea better.

just post a link for it.