Game of A&A Global 1940 in Christchurch, New Zealand

@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”.

I find Ozteas playable w/o a bid. '39 hasn’t been playtested as much. Japan usually steamrolls china so you may want to give a few guys to China. It doesn’t rally take any longer as the first few turns go pretty fast. You should read the game notes if you haven’t played it.

My group usually uses control markers for 10, especially in stacks that won’t be splitting up anytime soon (like in Moscow)

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.

Cool shit.

@13thguardsriflediv:

Planes were mostly used to attack sz 111, 112, Yugo and France. It is why sz 110 did not get hit. The other seazones west of England and east of Canada were hit by subs. No German fighters landed in southern Italy to help against Taranto which was an oversight.

UK would have thought twice if without the cruiser and facing three fighters. But maybe not, sometimes I like dicey battles (no risk no glory).

If the U.K. pulls that carrier out of the Med. then it can join the Indian fleet to help defend the Indies and if the U.S. is building enough navy in the Pacific the allies can put a lot of pressure on Japan. Japan cannot move south unless they bring a sizeable navy which will leave the home islands open to invasion by the U.S.

A huge thanks for this.  I hadn’t gotten around to making an IPC excel sheet for my group and it looks like I won’t have to thanks to you.  Great job.