Clarification on war declarations in the Pacific.

@nishav said in War Bonds:

I know this is errata’d somewhere but for the life if me I can’t track it down. If UK gets War Bonds, us it 1 die split between the 2 economies however UK wishes or is it 1 die for Europe & 1 die for Pac?

How to handle this is covered by the FAQ-sheets:

Q. If the United Kingdom gains the War Bonds breakthrough, which economy gets the IPCs?
A. The IPCs may be divided between the two economies each turn in whichever way the United Kingdom player likes, including all of them to one economy and none of them to the other.

So roll once for the IPC and apply the result as you like.

@Von-Kuulness You are reading the rules correctly.
Your submarine would only have been able to retreat if it had established a valid alternative retreat route during combat movement (in case that had been possible, it depends on the map of course).

Yes, sure.  Its just usually not a good idea (since tacs are poor defenders and are usually being lost without replacement, they need another source of fighters to shine).

Little more clarification on #4–when you liberate a capital (lets use Paris), all of the territory that the allies recaptured from the Axis immediately become French again, blowing off the other Allied markers and all going “blue” except for land that the Axis was holding.  So if we say that the Axis owned Southern France and Syria upon liberation, France’s new income at the end of that turn would be 15, but there would be no building or placement of units until the next round (if they live that long).

As you probably read, the Allies can only “liberate” other Allied land if it has been taken by the Axis first.  The only exception to this is the Dutch territory, and if you read the rules carefully, only ANZAC and UK can activate these, USA cannot.  However, in another twist, all Allied planes can land on these whether they are activated or not.

In practice what this means is that taking Moscow or Paris back just tosses a ton of money back into Axis hands, while taking away the income from USA and UK (primarily) that they fought so hard to liberate.  This creates a problem, because the Allies will actively avoid liberating capitals and handing so much cash to the Axis since in most cases, the Axis can easily recapture the key capital zones and control of it would just trade back and forth.

As a result, one sort of universally accepted house rule is to destroy the money rather than give it to the capturing player, after the first capture.

The Allies rarely benefit from capturing a capital, because the Italy economy is usually decimated before the Allies invade, and if you were able to capture Berlin or Tokyo, that’s usually endgame for the Axis if they don’t want to fight on.

Yep G40 has a big learning curve

True… but if Japan’s choices are destroy the american pacific fleet, destroy the joint indian/chinese army, or destroy the russian army- they probably kill american fleet utterly, buying them several turns of dominance in the sea to systematically win asia.

Yes.

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)