Global War 1940 2nd ed.

Yes my thoughts on Paris . Ok will check out the other 2
Thank you

@SS:

PTO Allies
2 Hawaii
2 Manilla
1 L. A.
1 Hong Kong
1 Sydney
1 Calcutta

PTO Axis
3 Tokyo
2 Shanghai
2 Peking
1 Changkhun
2 Saigon

ATO Allies
3 Moscow
3 London
2 Washington
2 Lengingrad
2 Stalingrad
1 Cairo
1 Johannsburg

ATO Axis
3 Berlin
3 Rome
3 Paris
1 Oslo
1 Milan
1 Warsaw

Baron, These are the numbers I’m going with now. I just need to figure out if 28 points or 30 points will work for a win. Axis and Allies have a total of 22 points each at start of game.

I believe a 30 pts Victory conditions will be more satisfying for players.

People will probably better recognize which side is winning then.

28 pts probably not decisive but it can give a hints about which side is ahead if not enough time to reach 30 points.

Let me know if it seems to change somehow the general strategy.
Particularly in PTO.
It is a different minding shifting from Capital control to VCs control Victory conditions.
Not always easy to refocus.

Nice twist to reduce Washington and Los Angeles.
Anyway, they are almost unconquerable, unless making big mistakes.

Starting both at 22 allows you to see if giving the same number to win can work for both.

Maybe it is a great achievement to reach 28 for Allies while not the same for Axis.
Probably, when Allies reaching 28 pts while Axis is 16 points, it means Axis loosing but Axis 28 pts probably Allies are just on the threshold of launching big attacks on Axis.
Economical advantage and time is clearly on Allies side.

Here’s the Chart for the Victory City’s point values. The numbers as you can see are to big. Gonna make them smaller. Plus if I need to change a value for a city after play testing I can just swap out with another numbered magnetic. We started to play and have 1 turn in. Each side starts with 22 points. First one to 30 points wins.

The N. A. 's were rolled for each country before start of game. The US got 3 move carriers and got the first tech on turn one with Jet
Fighters. IT may be a early allies victory ? Not gonna happen !

Finally got  1 test turn in last week. Was gonna play another turn or 2 tonite but player didn’t show so have to wait for more turns. Guys busy do to summer.

Anyway this test game is for victory city point victory conditions. Axis and Allies start with 22 points each. First one to 30 points at end of a turn wins the game. The chart below shows who has control of victory city’s with points. Axis have 27 points now after 2 turns. So right now it comes down to does Germany capture Stalingrad (2) and Cairo (1) to get 3 more victory points to win game or just hold the eastern front and decide now to do sea lion. Take London (3) and hold for win. Or Japan takes Hawaii (2) and Calcutta (1) worth 3 for the victory or just split it between themselves.

Axis very strong early in game. Will see how this goes. May have to change a few city numbers or add more city’s ( which I don’t want to do )  if axis keeps winning.

@Baron:

I believe a 30 pts Victory conditions will be more satisfying for players.

People will probably better recognize which side is winning then.

28 pts probably not decisive but it can give a hints about which side is ahead if not enough time to reach 30 points.

Let me know if it seems to change somehow the general strategy.
Particularly in PTO.
It is a different minding shifting from Capital control to VCs control Victory conditions.
Not always easy to refocus.

Nice twist to reduce Washington and Los Angeles.
Anyway, they are almost unconquerable, unless making big mistakes.

Starting both at 22 allows you to see if giving the same number to win can work for both.

Maybe it is a great achievement to reach 28 for Allies while not the same for Axis.
Probably, when Allies reaching 28 pts while Axis is 16 points, it means Axis loosing but Axis 28 pts probably Allies are just on the threshold of launching big attacks on Axis.
Economical advantage and time is clearly on Allies side.

Baron,

Yes the strategy is different some what and yes you do have to pay more attention now that its victory city points involved.
It seems like the game is a bit easier to play because now you focus a bit more on a certain victory city. But will have to see in the next few turns how much allies can get pressure on axis. My feeling right now from what I see it may be a to easy victory for axis.

Germany is knocking on Stalingrad’s door next turn but winter will be kicking in on turn 4 to give Russian a +1 on defense for inf every round of battle. Plus italy should get Cairo in 2 to 3 turns. But then maybe not.

Update tomorrow finally.

After turn 3.

After turn 4.

Well Germany only needs 2 points to get to 30 points and win. Calcutta is only worth 1 point so axis need to get Stalingrad worth 2 points or another 1 point victory city.
With Italy’s help they may get Stalingrad in later rounds. Japan just needs to hold the main land victory city’s and the Philliphines.
Germany holding there own in the Atlantic Sea for now.
Only 2 countries have tech. US has Jet Figs, Paratroopers and Japan has Radar
That is very low for this game so far.

Baron,

With testing this with victory city points, it seems like you need to do less in game some what where Japan just needs to play defense and Germany/Italy just needs 3 victory city’s (Leningrad, Stalingrad and Cairo) for a win. Thought it would be more offense. There is plenty of attacks but seems like a bit more defense for Axis. For the Allies seems to be the same.

It may be better with what Black Elk and you are doing with more victory city’s with points. Gives you more options to attack and defend more victory city points. Maybe your 40 victory city’s with points is way better. I’m not changing this game though.

Tell you the truth I feel its better for Germany to take London ( worth 3 ) instead of going for Stalingrad ( worth 2) and Cairo ( worth 1 ). Just keep enough Italy in Africa and have them send more troops to Leningrad for defense. Will see.

Thanks  for this report.
Keep on roll’in.
I’m buried under work.
But still keeping an eye into this Vc conditions.

Yep. Work

The allies gave the victory to the axis. Stalingrad going down next turn and Germany will be able to hold till the end of there next turn. That gave the axis 30 points for a win. So as far as the axis not having to take Moscow and London they are still able to win the game.
UK US didn’t buy any destroyers really in the Atlantic to stop the Wolf Packs !  US spent to much in the Pacific. Seems like the game on the Atlantic side comes down to taking Stalingrad with Cairo or Sea Lion to get London thats worth 3 victory points and Germany holding all there victory city points. Now with a more buy in the Atlantic for allies may have changed things. We don’t know yet so we are starting a new test game next weekend. We have to see if 24 victory city’s with points is enough in game.

We have to see if it just doesn’t come down to the same thing every game for Germany. With the NA’s and Tech with a bigger push by allies  should change things up so I don’t need to add more victory city points to game.

I know Black Elk and Baron I believe are designing a new 40 OOB game with at least 40 victory city’s with points.

Funny thing is we only ended up with 4 techs for all the countries. Normally its about 8 to 12 in a game total.

Japan basically just has to hold the Philliphines and there main land victory city’s. They also don’t need Calcutta to win as axis. Even though the FEC can build capital ships UK left the Med to go to India and that made the Italians navy come through the Canal and forced the FEC navy to attack but they should of just stayed in India with all there navy.

So on the Pacific side its most important to get all allies together as fast as possible and try to get the Islands back and the Philliphines.
I don’t know if making Calcutta worth 2 points instead of 1 makes a different as far as an easier load of Germany. But with Japan just kinda hanging out will make the Pacific better for more of an aggressive  Allies ?

I’ll probably add the attacking and defending AAA gun.

One thing I can say is that multiple VCs with various victory points is quite uneasy to catch up on the fly.

Four months earlier I was far more focused on this kind of issue. But now, it is kind of relearning all of it to provide a pertinent advice.

This was one good reason for a 1 VC= 1 Victory point basis.

Once this said, do you bring some kind of bonus IPCs or else for capturing an enemy’s VC?

Your first impression is that your actual VC rule turned Axis into a more defensive stance?

If the case, it means you need to put more points into harder to get Allies VC, maybe?

Is that why you would increase Calcutta to 2 points?

@SS:

@SS:

PTO Allies
2 Hawaii
2 Manilla
1 L. A.
1 Hong Kong
1 Sydney
**1 Calcutta  **

PTO Axis
3 Tokyo
2 Shanghai
2 Peking
1 Changkhun
2 Saigon

ATO Allies
3 Moscow
3 London
2 Washington
2 Leningrad
2 Stalingrad
1 Cairo
1 Johannsburg

ATO Axis
3 Berlin
3 Rome
3 Paris
1 Oslo
1 Milan
1 Warsaw

Baron, These are the numbers I’m going with now. I just need to figure out if 28 points or 30 points will work for a win. Axis and Allies have a total of 22 points each at start of game.

Maybe this should be change to a 10 points win, to reach 32 VC points?

So, instead of Cairo, going London or Moscow would work for a 10 points win.

Or, if taking Cairo and Stalingrad, Japan needs to get Hawaii (2 pts) so Axis reach 32 points (+10 VC points).

You can still revise to lower Axis to 20 points and keep Allies to 22 points. Keeping 30 VC points as the target goal.

For example:
Axis: Paris may worth 2 points and Saigon 1 point.

@Baron:

One thing I can say is that multiple VCs with various victory points is quite uneasy to catch up on the fly.

Four months earlier I was far more focused on this kind of issue. But now, it is kind of relearning all of it to provide a pertinent advice.

This was one good reason for a 1 VC= 1 Victory point basis.

Once this said, do you bring some kind of bonus IPCs or else for capturing an enemy’s VC?

NO

Your first impression is that your actual VC rule turned Axis into a more defensive stance?

YES

If the case, it means you need to put more points into harder to get Allies VC, maybe?

MAYBE

Is that why you would increase Calcutta to 2 points?

NO. Just a thought to force Japan to take it but I did want Axis not have to take it to win but that may change. Don’t know yet .

@SS:

@SS:

PTO Allies
2 Hawaii
2 Manilla
1 L. A.
1 Hong Kong
1 Sydney
**1 Calcutta **

PTO Axis
3 Tokyo
2 Shanghai
2 Peking
1 Changkhun
2 Saigon

ATO Allies
3 Moscow
3 London
2 Washington
2 Lengingrad
2 Stalingrad
1 Cairo
1 Johannsburg

ATO Axis
3 Berlin
3 Rome
3 Paris
1 Oslo
1 Milan
1 Warsaw

Baron, These are the numbers I’m going with now. I just need to figure out if 28 points or 30 points will work for a win. Axis and Allies have a total of 22 points each at start of game.

Maybe you have to write down the various combination of VCs you consider Axis must hold to win.
Then do the same for Allies, then you can revised numbers for VCs.

If you find that Calcutta is too boring, boost Sydney instead.
I would give it 3 points since it is as important partner to Allies as Rome for Italy and Axis.
And, from logistic POV, it is much harder to capture than Calcutta.

Maybe this can be incentive for Japan going all out in south Pacific?

I changed 2 VC points. Have 2 options and am going with the 1st option.

1. Manilla from 2 to 1
   Calcutta from 1 to 2

2. Lengingrad from 2 to 1
   Calcutta from 1 to 2

If Japan loses Manilla (1) then Italy would need to get Johannasburg (1) or Germany needs to get Moscow (3) or London (3) for win or if Japan loses Manilla (1) and Calcutta (2)  then Germany would need Moscow (3) or London (3) for a win.
This will make the axis pretty much need to stay on offense and way less defense.
Granted Japan needs defense for Manilla but also offense for Calcutta and Germany would need the same thing for Milan and Moscow or London.

Sydney has like 10 inf on setup so thats out of the question for changing from VCP1 to VCP2 or VCP3.

2 test games ago Japan didn’t get Calcutta so that will make things very interesting now for the axis. If allies get some king of landing in Normandy and VC Milon (1) that will make Italy abandon any thought of getting Johannsburg and have to help Germany defend in Europe and that will take a bunch of pressure off Russia.

Besides this game gives you also a good option of going for sea lion and maybe a early victory because if Germany gets London Japan would just need Calcutta. So I really like these changes now.

I think the 1st option change is best for now.

Seems the simplest thing to do.

Does Sydney is often conquered in your game?

I thought it was harder  to capture than Calcutta.

If I’m right, it means you scripting Japan toward India. An Australian South push would be much less interesting then.

@Baron:

Seems the simplest thing to do.

YES

Does Sydney is often conquered in your game?

NEVER

I thought it was harder  to capture than Calcutta.

Yes but I think Japan would be out of position to much and trying to take Sydney with 20 inf be impossible. FEC would get to huge on ground. But will keep it in mind. May have to reduce inf setup in Sydney.

If I’m right, it means you scripting Japan toward India. An Australian South push would be much less interesting then.

YES I believe Japan would lose the game going after Sydney.