Global 1940 Cold War goes Hot Scenario

Re: Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

Global 1940 July 4th 2024 Game (start) report #4
(4th day of play on 11/3)

Global 1940 with Expansion Rules & the following optional rules:
Rockets
Heavy Bombers
Seafire fighter planes
Jet Fighters
Japanese Destroyers
King Tiger & SS Heavy Tanks

Agreed a win can happen through Economic Victory or Axis capturing victory cities per the original Global 1940 rules.

Germany - Josh S
Japan - Alex M
UK - Pat H
Russia - mkgionet
USA - Mike K
Report from Japan’s turn in Late 1947 (round 16) USA turn of Late 1949 (round 20)
Longest game I’ve ever played!

First I need to admit that I’m a bonehead! We were all so excited that the game finally ended that we immediately started cleaning up and I neglected to take any pictures - Ugh!

1947
If folks remember, the Allies looked to be in a dire situation at the end of the last report with Germany having pushed most enemy troops out of its territory and poised to make a powerful advance into Russia, while Japan firmly had 5 Victory Cities in hand and was in a position to retake the 6th city. Us Allied players held our breath while Japan took their turn, hoping that the massive US fleet surrounding Japan would focus Japan’s attention more than retaking and holding the 6th Victory City (Shanghai). Tick, tick, tick, tick, pieces move, tick, tick, tick, more pieces move…

YES! Indeed, the fleet around Japan caused him to ignore thinking much about Shanghai and, as we hoped, he committed the majority of his military power to eliminating this fleet. Between games I took a long hard look at the board and realized that if Japan used his 7 strategic bombers on the mainland, with his mainland ground troops, he could not only retake Shanghai, but likely eliminate all of the Chinese infantry to retake Anhwe and place ground troops in Shantung so that USA’s tank army would be blocked from getting to/liberating Shanghai. Thus causing the Axis to hold 6 Victory Cities and win. Thankfully Japan didn’t see this. He did retake Shanghai, but left Anhwe untouched.

The Allies make preparations to retake Hawaii and the Philippines. Japans troops are now primarily concentrated in southeast Asia, India, and Japan.

The US continues to get hammered by German Wolf Packs on the east coast, losing 20+ IPC. However, the Tank Army on the Asia mainland rolls in to retake Shanghai, while China has an income around 20 and continues placing significant amounts of infantry on the board.

UK strengthens Persia & Finland & holds West India.

1948

Taking Barnee’s advice (thank you) the US finally purchases an air base and fighters for Central America. Works like a charm with the wolf packs scattering and being chased down and mostly destroyed by fighters.

Anzac momentarily captures the Philippines before Japan quickly recaptures it. Japan retakes Korea and invades nearby Russian territories. Clearly, the new Axis plan is to focus on attacking Russia on both sides.

Hawaii is easily recaptured and the USA prepares to move troops north to Alaska so they can retaliate against the Japanese invasion of Russia.

UK continues to strengthen Persia and lands paratroopers in various German territories.

Germany makes a massive attack to retake Finland and Leningrad, but then pulls back in order to attack Russia’s Army Group with 2 tank armies and a plethora of ground troops. Russia is able to retake Leningrad and continue reforming armies that are pushed along to the front lines. Russia isn’t able to recapture Finland, but is able to kill off the few remaining troops that had succeeded in taking it back for Germany.

1949 - A Pivotal year!

Germany purchases several transports and a super heavy battleship. It looks like they may be preparing to invade London. They do leave a few territories vulnerable on the front lines with Russia though, allowing a Russian Tank Army to get behind the front lines and on Berlin’s doorstep. Not a real threat to Germany, but it’s a target they’ll need to attack.

USA navy in place in Alaska, ready to come liberate Russian territories from the Japanese invasion.

Japan builds a major industrial complex in Korea and focuses on producing troops there. They pull some troops out of India in order to combat the growing number of Chinese forces, which ends up being a crucial mistake. In a very even battle the UK takes a gamble and goes all in on attacking India. With solid rolling it results in a UK victory! Even better, Anzac takes Burma and Japan has no way to retake India anytime soon. Other territories on the mainland south and west of Shanghai are also taken from the Japanese.

The USA is about to launch their Alaskan fleet over to the Soviet Far East when the Allies see a golden opportunity. Off the coast of Japan are a few transports, (3) Aircraft Carriers, and (6) Carrier Fighters. Even better, all ground troops (even the AA gun) have been moved out of Japan over to Korea and the mainland. The only thing left in Japan are (4) Strategic Bombers. The USA seizes this opportunity and attacks Japan for the 2cd time and scores a victory! At this point the Axis surrender. The Allies have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat!

A very long, but very enjoyable game with lots of twists and turns. The Victory Cities really add an interesting element to the game. I think we’ll be taking a long break before our next game!

@general-5-stars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq9hEmdJIno

@90cent
makes em a little too strong is my guess. Axis already have the edge

Some good ideas here. A few things I’ve done were to have bmbrs hit at 3 unless paired with a ftr. Makes taking solo blockers out more risky and unless used with carrier aircraft, not as powerful with the big range they have.

Also give tacs +1 when paired with inf the same way artillery does. Makes them a lot more popular in my test games.

None of the Prices change. The ftr still has the big hit on D and can boost the bmbr. Also still the cheapest for fodder. Tac boosting the inf is really nice for small counterattacks and is somewhat realistic as well.

So some minor changes but makes for a more balanced air buy as opposed to just going huge with bmbrs imo.

@barney:

wow ! Nice looking map SS

yea Baron I was thinking EP /Belarus junction for the east border, west one would be correct. I don’t think it would change anything though. Just a visual thing. Pretty cool how you did that though : )

Thanks goes to IL. Its his 2005 WW2 map.

@oztea:

I like this idea a lot. I had a similar idea a while back, wherein to win you had to get to a certain number of points. 2 points for each capital, 1 point for each non capital VC, and 1 point for each National Objective you satisfied this turn.

You calculate the axis total, and the allied total.

Lets spit ball, the axis wins if they have 20 points at then end of turns 1-5
or they win if they have 18 points at the end of turns 6-10
or they win if they have 16 points at the end of any turn after 11 they win.

The Allies would win if the axis falls below 10 points at the end of turns 1-5.
Or if they fall below 12 points at the end of turn 6-10
Or if they fall below 14 points at the end of any turn after 11.

I’m gonna have to digest this and see how the math works in different situations, regardless… it’s great to hear from someone that believes in the points per city formula, and I really like the idea of points for objectives as well.

I’ll be able to post set up this weekend any comments on it will help

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)