USA Income in A&A global 1940

@surfer

Thanks for the advice! Yeah, I really messed up on those British and French bids.

Thanks for the advice regarding the other bid purchases.

@tchenao

Gotcha.

Most players consider the game to be quite unbalanced in favor of the Axis. So the two sides will bid (in terms of IPCs) before the game and the lowest bid team will play the Allies. The bid can be used to place additional units before the game starts.

Sea Lion is definitely a much riskier strategy than just going straight for Moscow. Most people only go through with it if London is not well protected after the first round. A failed Sea Lion is pretty much a game ender.

@AndrewAAGamer said in Global 1940 Rule Question re: scrambling and amphibious assaults:

@Panther said in Global 1940 Rule Question re: scrambling and amphibious assaults:

#3.
The American units only watch the scenery, as friendly powers never attack together. As Britain in your scenario is the attacker, the British transports may retreat, if possible.

In this scenario the transports were already in the SZ so they would not be allowed a retreat. However, if they left the SZ and came back in then they could retreat.

Right, that is the way that makes a retreat “possible”.

@Saber25 said in 1940 Global: Can you place a minor production facility in a territory the same turn you capture it?:

The US has captured Norway, and then the next turn placed a factory. Is it legal for the US to deploy ships into seazone 113, which is inside of the Danish straight? Clearly they could not pass through without holding Denmark itself, but it seems to me that there is no reason that the US could not deploy to that zone for additional pressure on Germany!

You are correct. Since the ship is being built it does not have to pass through any strait. A minor factory in Norway may build up to 3 ships per Turn in either SZ126, SZ125, SZ112 or SZ113 or any combination thereof.

Thank you guys! That is exactly what I was hoping to hear.

Anti-aircraft units are/were embedded with combat commands at varying levels and always go “forward” with the command they fall under during offensive operations.

I think it would have been ok if the rules from the get go permitted an “attack” with AAA.

Going to start a HR rule thread on this.

If by “original” Global 1940 you mean 1st edition, the 1st edition Europe and Pacific FAQs should answer your questions.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes.  You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured.  Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.

As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.

Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned.  The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance.  Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns.  It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.