Strategic Planner's Improvement and Critique Thread

The combined arms rule (actually called “Commander In Chief”) was in the first edition of Classic but was removed from the second edition of Classic.  Apparently they thought back then that this rule was to easily taken advantage of by Allied players.

The way it worked was:
The US moves “X” units to United Kingdom.  The UK already has a number of units already there.  The US moves a number of transports that can carry all the current US and UK units on United Kingdom to the sea zone adjacent to the territory.
During the Collect Income phase of the US turn, the US and UK players agree to make the US Commander In Chief.  The US player takes a stack of 3 US control markers and places them in United Kingdom.
Then on the UK player’s turn, the UK player does not move any of the units intended for the combined force.  If the UK moves any of it’s units stationed on United Kingdom, they CAN NOT be included in the combined force.
Then on the US player’s next turn, the US player is now free to move any or all units stationed on United Kingdom as long as they DID NOT move during the UK player’s turn.
By the way, this includes UK aircraft if they didn’t move on the UK’s turn.

So, basically, any country’s units that are going to be included in the combined force but are not from the country of the Commander In Chief have to be in the launching territory before the Commanding player is chosen.  It might be a little more complex, but I think this rule could be applied to Global 1940.
For example:  Say England wants to attack a Japanese force in Burma from India.  They want to use a combined force of UK, US, Soviet and ANZAC units.  So on UK Pacific’s turn, UK can move units into India.  On the UK’s Collect Income phase, they get chosen as Commander In Chief.  The Soviet, US and ANZAC forces have to be already in India at this time and those are the ONLY non UK forces that the UK can move next turn.  Even if one of the other countries move more units into India, those new units could NOT be used in the UK’s next turn.
Assuming the UK attacks Burma with the combined force and defeats the Japanese, UK India will get possession of that territory.  Also, I believe the last casualty HAS to belong to the Commander In Chief’s country (in this case, UK).

Ah man… it’s not looking so good. The US fleet off Hawaii looks like it can take you, and in my experience that’s never a good position to be in for Japan. Unfortunately, you have fallen into the trap that is China. For future games, don’t go all in for China until you’ve taken Calcutta. It’s just a huge cesspit that devours Japanese ground units and does nothing to help you win. There are no victory cities there for you to grab, and because there is no capital China is the easiest Allied power to bring back into the game. Also as Japan you want to grab SOME, not necessary all, of the money islands the turn that you go to war. I prefer a J2 DOW and grab Borneo, Kwangtung, and Malaya, as I’m a firm believer of storming Calcutta as soon as you possibly can.

In your current position, I would finish off China since you’re already so deep and there’s very little Chinese units left. I would focus all of my ground efforts in southeast Asia with the ultimate aim of taking Calcutta, and going on the defensive in the Pacific. For me this would mean huddling everything I can into SZ6, with a full scramble waiting to go on Japan itself, and then basically waiting for the opportune moment to strike. You’re definitely in it for the long haul at this point, it may be too late to get the money islands. Good luck!

I see it as an option, but it’s not working. I will do this.

All the rule changes were done to benefit the allies. If you are playing OOB the allies are garbage.
~

taking calcutta is much easier. How is it even possible to defend India?

Even if you are not calcutta oriented and you are just a crazy guy who does whatever, on round 1 you can take anzac if you win a 1 infantry vs 1 infantry battle.

even if you are none of the above drop minors round 2 or 3 and wam bam shazam you have the ground forces necessary to secure all of asia.

J3 anzac is 100% as well. TO do this you have to DoW J1 take west australia. Then J2 fly 13 air units on it. Then J3 bam anzac dead, thanks for playing. (you can get the rest of your air if you feel like dropping an airbase on kwangsi instead of doing the caroline thing).

~

As far as Europe goes. Look at how empty london is. So you defend london. Say bye to Egypt, just give Italy a few rounds.

~

Round 1 hit sz 110, sz 111, sz 112. 1 sub vs 1 destroyer in sz 109. buy dd sub carrier.

You sink a bunch of naval and place sz 112. He can only hit with 6 units, 3 fighter tactical carrier and dd vs sub dd cruiser bship carrier 2 fighter. You are 1 up. Can UK defend itself? Not with Naval.

So he buys 9 infantry.  Flies his stuff in gets the canada dudes in and yet Germany still has 50-61% to defend UK. OK ignore it and go for Russia. Simple.

So what stops Italy from taking Egypt? Unless you pull India air to somaliland and then fly it to Egypt (or pull it to transjordan) you don’t stand a chance. Even if you do, you got like a 1/3 chance of holding.
~

Sure USA makes 30 when at war (25 in 2nd edition), but the only other allied power making NO money is ANZAC.

**Point is OOB can get super stupid super fast or end up being super boring super stalemate. Generally speaking yeah I J1 DOW and yeah I J3 ANZAC or I wait and take calcutta. I prefer ANZAC, easy to defend and it is easier to work to India than to push out later. At first global was super boring and I generally played three rounds (sea lion / calcutta and was done) then when I developed other strategies it was fun for the first couple games, but then I realized OOB pacific was just stupid.

OOB had few strategies and you were almost always better off just going gun ho for the quick win.**

I will also add that if you do not do some sort of all in play as the axis you will lose the game in the long run.

@Young:

www.harisgamedesign.com

Look under the political situation and national objectives in the Alpha+3 forum.

Thats what I said.

@Maddog77:

What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out?  :-D

As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.

Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense

okay works for me…guess i need to read the rule book a little more, doubt it will happen in my games but if it does I know the rule now, thanks again.

@oztea:

Krieg corrected the US one about Normandy/Bordeux

It is supposed to be if the US has it.

Thanks - that’s the kind of thing I was asking for.