I've balanced Global, now 50/50 wins

Hi @LebaneseWarlord

Here is the Taamvann mod

Option taamvan Changes the control of Novgorod, Volgograd, Russia Objective to 3 PUs for Germany. Control of Caucasus is also reduced to 3. Also adds a Fighter to Russia and a Armor to Urals.

taamvan is an experienced player and has had good luck using the above.

It has the advantage of small changes compared to BM, which has a lot but is very popular with experienced players.

Attacking the US first, and early, might not be an awful plan;  my buddy maphead did exactly as you describe in one of our recent games he first took out the US fleet, then the next turn took Hawaii, then fortified it.

However, the problem is that while Hono is a VC, focusing all your efforts there as Japan invites a mighty 100% defensive buy from the now at-war US.  Since Japan has not readied for Calcutta, Sydney, or Siberia, there isn’t a way to achieve the other important strategic goals.  Maphead decided to make a play for Sydney via Hawaii, but a stronger player will have fortified ANZAC too much by J4 to make it takeable without 100% japan commit.

As soon as you pivot, America then takes back Hawaii, since they are dedicating everything to it (and so is Japan in the form of defensive planes etc)

Strategies that try to win the game quickly often take gigantic risks.  Strategies that win the game slowly trade time for risk.

@Don:

Yes, the marker should be at 52 (we usualy check it each round). We don’t include NO’s on the income tracker, we use YG’s card deck.

I guess you’re just tracking income on the board and have other markers to keep track of PUs earned. Otherwise that would be confusing.

@Warwick:

I play Global War '39 from HBG so I have lost a lot of my memory on Global '40 but I do not see how Italy is in trouble. This is most likely due to me forgetting the surrender conditions on Italy.

Once Italy loses control of SZ97 its income is virtually stopped. It’ll still have its African and Mid East income in this case though.

It doesn’t need to lose its capital to become impotent.

@SouthsideCH:

@ColonelCarter:

That assumption is wrong. While Germany starts the scenario controlling those territories, they are still original Russian territories, similar to how the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the games are still original Chinese territories, preventing Japan from building major ICs on anything but Korea.

Then why in the set up instructions does it say put a German control marker on the territory, as well as units? Just a unit on it should be enough. Every time you take an enemy territory do you put a control marker on it? I don’t.

You can play however you want of course. But the rulebook clearly states:

@rulebook:

If you have captured the territory, place your control
marker on the territory and adjust the national production
levels.

While the emblem printed on the map indicates the original controller of the territory
the control marker indicates the the actual controller of the territory - as ColoneCarter pointed out.

There are some rules where the distinction between original and actual controller is of importance.
The 3 IPC bonus for Russia is only one example. The territories you mentioned can never become
“original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls”.
When the scenario begins Germany has already captured some original Russian territories.
If Russia takes them back, they will be original Russian territories under Russian control.

So better avoid confusion.
HTH :-)

@Darby:

Ran into the question

Thought about reducing Bombers vs Naval Units
( I thought hitting on a one was good )
but should they still cost 12?

It did not seem right …but selling them for Tac Bomber or fighter cost seemed wierd
So rather then reducing price I thought about augmenting something else.

Came up with:

Cost: 14
Attack: 4 / 1 vs Naval units
Defense: 1
Range: 6
Takes 1 hit to reduce attack by 2 / and cannot proceed with an SBR
Takes 2 hits to destroy

The whole idea of limiting bombers to a one against ships at sea is to be a little more realistic. With bombers leaving an air base they have seven moves. With the limited number of sea zones on AA maps the bombers destroying fleets in the middle of the ocean just does not work. My thinking is the OOB rules for bombers attacking everything on the map at a four are broken. Just tweaking the rules a little makes the game a little better and no change in the cost is needed. The bomber is still a valuable asset at twelve IPCs.

Nice work sir!

Kwangtung has to be better in most games.  Just something about how far forward the Americans were made me want to get away from them so I could keep killing Chinese also.  Malaya is nice and close to Africa and Australia as well

the 1 fighter and bomber a turn was in reference to my builds, adding to whatever i was already sending. as for starting ya it was 3pm, lol. for me it wasnt my bed time. some of the others still wanted to hit the bars though, japan and i were totally willing to keep going. but the allies surrendered. losing the russians, and all their offensive capabilities kinda did that. as for the russians, they never attacked me, but they just pushed everything up to the front. oh after the game ended i realized that the US had also illegally bought an IC in the Philippines like turn 1. being so focused on Europe i didnt quite catch that though