1940 Global: 1st turn, 3 players = Having fun

Our group has played with India and UK as seperate parts of the Commonwealth (Global 39 has the FEC {Far East Command} and the uk seperate}).  The allies have to work together and nt compete against each other.  The ANZAC player already has to share the DEI with India if either of them are going to have any real income to work with.  India and UK can work together as seperate players.

AS for the thread, build destroyers in Canada to hunt subs to work on your NO (no German Uboats in the Atlantic).  Also, bomg Germany in West Germany, Paris, Normandy…where ever you can hit them.  You may not be able to ivade effectively by yourself but you can harrass the German player enough that he has to pay attention to the Uk as well as smash the Soviets.  Landings in Norway and fortifying it takes away from Germany and opens another route to aid the Soviets.  Securing the Northern flank can help Leningrad or if need be retake it for the Soviets.  Zhukov44 was right.  Don’t lose Cairo.  Trops build in South Africa of tanks and mechs can help hold Cairo and even destroy the North African Italian army.  A IC build in Cairo, once secured will help limmit Italy and secure a route for US troops the attack the soft underside of Europe (usually not that well defended by the axis).  One last thing is hold Gibraltor if possible.  Building and air base there and sending some fighters can make US entry into the med so much easier.  It also  allows allied ships into the med to keep the Italians from their Med naval NO if the British med navy didn’t fare so well.

@majikforce:

Wow I really like this idea.  My only concern would be that early on the US would probably be under time limit a lot (depending on when they are brought in to the war) Would that extra income swing things too much one way?  I don’t know but it sounds like a cool idea to explore.  I think we are gonna go straight time limits to start with and get feedback from everybody and then maybe experiment with the par idea.  Thanks for the ideas!

Rather than a one-size-fits-all model, you could set up tables that give different pars for different countries at different stages of the game.  In competition chess, I believe, players must make x number of moves per hour during the initial stages of the game, but are then given more time per move past a certain point.  The principle would be similar here, reflecting such factors as the wartime vs. peacetime status of some powers, the more marginal role in the game of some countries (like France and China), and Britain’s split global economy.

the best Sydney strike I have seen is when Japan takes West Aus, lands planes on it next round, and sacks Sydney the round after.

Is there a Pacific map like this?

Will these ever be updated for second edition?  They are too great to be forgotten.

It could facilitate blind games, which are loads of fun but currently very tedious and time-consuming.  (I’ve played one on AAR)

blind games=basically you can’t see the units in enemy territory, except perhaps in the ones adjacent to your own.  for now it takes 2 separate boards and one non-player person willing to be the moderator to keep the boards synced.

I’ve been lurking on the boards for a good while now and been trying to figure out different strategies that would make the game fun. I’ve only played a half game and against myself at that. I’m still in the middle of that game and I’ve noticed the following thoughts:

It seems like Germany almost always has to build a CV, a TT, and likely a sub. I feels like if one doesn’t then the Taranto attack will occur and Italy will be in a bad position.

As a tangent: What comprises this Taranto attack and what does it attack exactly? I see that 4-5 air and sea units are available to attack the Italy navy, but is the intention to simply kill both italy navies or just the western one? Likely I think it means smiting the Italy BB because that really hurts Italy in Africa.

Otherwise, the above attack really hurts Italy to the point where it has a hard time competing effectively. I realize this is intended but it almost forces the G1 player to always invest in a sea and destroy the British navy if they want Italy to grow quickly. An effective sea force is necessary to even add the treat of Sealion as Germany can toss down 10 AP the next turn and smash England G3. If Germany ignores sea units then England can do other things like do the Taranto attack and build units in South Africa. All things bad for Italy.

The thing only reason I could see to ignore the above is if one plans a G2 attack on Russia and use plane to wipe out France while moving units east enmasse. (I would suggest killing the British APs though). It does seem like Germany’s first turn feel scripted but maybe I’m not thinking outside of the box.
–----

Regarding the 18 USSR units in eastern Russia. It seems to me that its best choice is to pull back near Yakut and hold position there. If one stacks the units in Siberia or the one to west of Siberia then it can be trapped by a move north with the Manchurian army (which ironically is even stronger in Alpha). A counter attack by those 18 units is going to get them wiped out and and if no matter where that stack goes unless it retreated back on the first turn then it’s likely dead (if that’s what Japan wants to spend it’s resources on)

Mind this is Global and I don’t see much benefit for Japan attack any earlier than J2 or J3.

I like the game quite a bit otherwise though will be interested to see if there will be a need for a Alpha setup for AAE40 too.

I have posted a new R1. Lets play the game!

All that is needed to destroy the RN is the Luftwaffe for one turn when they do not have that much else to do. The Germans losses are limited to a few subs and a plane or two. It is a bit extreme but i understand why it might be needed for balance.