UK Builds

@Krieghund Understood. Great discussion, and thanks for the background information! I think it speaks to the greatness of the Global 1940 game that, ~10 years after publication, we can still have these types of philosophical debates about it.

Now, we can move on to addressing the flawed rules for AAA units… :grin:

@simon33, certainly the game works with two UK economies and there are lots of things to enjoy about the way that pans out. I’m not saying the game is broken, just discussing alternatives.

One advantage to the unified UK economy that I noticed in the SiredBlood variant is that the Allied player has much more control over their level of risk with respect to Sea Lion and India Crush. Some people (like you?) complain that the UK has to buy 100% infantry on turn 1 to fend off Sea Lion. Other people complain that India is doomed and that the Allies have to make massive, urgent efforts to contain Japan, like maybe a turn 2 Persia factory that pumps out mechs for India. So if you can slosh your economy around, then you can choose which of those two ignominious fates you suffer.

Want to play aggressively in the Atlantic? Build 10 infantry in London and a factory in Egypt; go crazy. Want to play aggressively in the Pacific? Let London go, drop 2 mech + 2 tank in India on each of UK1 and UK2, declare war, and go for a Yunnan stack. It leads to more variety in terms of the opening positions that you can reach, which I like.

That said, I hear you on getting Canadian fighters to Moscow. If you’re not playing with my Supply Crates for lend-lease, and there’s no Sea Lion attack, then Canada could have little or nothing to do.

A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control

I usually never can~~'t~~ afford that much stuff in SA or an airbase because of the sealion threat (for the first two rounds at least).  Gotta buy either 9 Inf or 6 Inf/1 Ftr in London turn 1.  I mentioned fast units in SA after the Sealion threat is waned to get units to Cairo ASAP.

Typical German turn leaves all UK ships save 1 DD, 1 TT in SZ 109 and 1 CRU off Spain left.  Most German players I play buy at least a TT and a SS as part of their first turn buy, which leaves a Sealion visable with a 9-10 TT buy turn 2.

@JimmyHat:

best counter is an easy Sealion.

Agreed, if you built a Carrier with Germany on round 1, and the UK either buys units in S Africa or builds an IC somewhere, the Germans need to go all in on Sea Lion.  As Germany, launch your attack on London on G3 and you should win with acceptable losses.  Situations like these are what Sea Lion is all about :)

@RedHunter:

I have a few problems with all of this as follows…

1. As pointed out the Uk has no reason to declare on Japan…the USA player would kill the brit player if they did that. This would be a case of the allied players not talking to each other. In which case they are going to lose anyway.

2. The USA player can’t be so stupid as to disreguard threats near them, you can’t suprise them really. Again if the USA player is that stupid you don’t need weird tactics to beat them, you can beat them straight up through tactics.

1: You no longer need UK to declare war on Japan. See reply number 32 for explanation. Japan is free to fly over UK territories while neutral. This does not cause a declaration of war, per Krieghund.

2: You no longer need to surprise the US. In fact, it appears that keeping US neutral 3 turns prohibits them from being able to stop this air force move.

Finally, the only player able to stop/impact this, is USSR. They need to shove 12 units to Siberia turn 1, to threaten a take back of Soviet far East. Japan should lose 2 air units and 2 ground units destroying this force on J2. This is not likely, as Japan hasn’t started the game yet, so they would have to “guess” that Japan is going this route and expose a large portion of their starting Eastern forces to a Japanese invasion.

This post is regarding moving the starting Japanese air force to German occupied Alberta. It is not an argument for just America first. It is a discussion for how to always be able to get the air force to the Atlantic. America first may have a lot of problems yet to be resolved. This is one less problem.

Each board’s territories goes to its capital, meaning if its on the Pacific map, it goes to India and the Europe map goes to London.

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It’s basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don’t have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don’t have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.