Global War 1940 2nd ed.

@FranceNeedsMorePower France only needs a infantry in Normandy.

Okay so I that title sounds kinda clickbait-y and I apologize for that. To get it said and done, no I don’t think France should be scrapped entirely replaced with Britain or something. I just think that as is, it needs way more to be an actual nation worth having a person play if you have a lot of people while still being balanced. So we all know that 99% of the time, France is gonna fall on the first turn to Germany. Maybe they pull some weird new mega brain ultra plan but that’s pretty unlikely. Paris falls, Germany gets cash money and the French are left playing the most minor and conservative support role known to man.
This really sucks for you when you first pick up the game and think maybe there’s gonna be some interesting new faction with special rules like China but instead you’re just a stepping stone. So here’s what I would suggest:

Instead of having just France it be France and a collection of the other minor allied powers in exile. So France, Dutch, Poland, etc. Change Congo to this new faction and place an infantry down there. Maybe one infantry in Indonesia and one in Indo China, an extra fighter in Britain, and maybe a Transport in either the Atlantic or Med.
But that still isn’t really much of an improvement for the player, so similarly to China I would say that the exiled Allies should get some special way of recruiting units. It’d be very small like at the end of every turn roll a die and if you roll a one you can place one infantry down in any territory of yours worth at least one IPC. While I do want to make it more interesting for the exiled Allies player, I don’t want to make them too powerful to significantly hurt the Axis. To counteract this maybe make a few territories they own worth an extra IPC? They won’t be making money once Paris falls and a few more IPCs I think would add up to a rough equivalence. Territories like Normandy, Indochina, Tunis, etc.

I’m not gonna pretend like I’ve actually tested this yet and I’m also fully admitting that I might be accidentally suggesting some horrible completely unbalanced idea that would throw it to the Allies. But this is just a little idea I thought up to try and help make things slightly more fun for the poor French player. Is this a good idea? Am I a big dumb-dumb? (Those are not mutually exclusive.) I really want to know your guys’ thoughts on this before I actually try it or anything I could do to change or fine tune it so please let me know!

@baron-Münchhausen

I reviewed the 2 hits Battleship values to 2.5 multiplier factor.
It is an approximation but this is easier to use this value if you need to assess between two naval fleet during a live game with no AACalc allowed.

It is based on the very even (almost 50%-50% survival equilibrium ) combat between 1 Destroyer @2 and 1 Cruiser @3 against 1 Battleship, 2 hits @4.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=1&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=1&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

1 Destroyer @2 and 1 Cruiser @3
5 pips * 2 hits = 10 pips*hits

1 Battleship, 2 hits @4.
4 pips * 1 BB worth 2.5 hits = 10 pips*hits

Hi Erocco,
these numbers are based on a formula found during Classic time by Dauvio Vann and his friends, then improved and adjusted to better fit the need of Second Edition units. Here is one link in House Rule:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40346.msg1684954#msg1684954

Below, you get the whole formula and a short explanation:

@Baron:

@Dauvio:

It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula P^2*N=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/P^2=N. √(S/N)=P
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.

Now the next formula is (P100)/(C^26)=S
P=POINTS
C=COST
S=STRENGTH OF THE UNIT BASED ON COST
With this formula you can also price units according to their strength. √((P100)/(S6))=C
This formula is for points. (S*(C^2*6))/100=P

For better results for some of these formulas, have all your units cost ten times then what they are. These are some of the VANN FORMULAS I came up 30 years ago.

If you have any questions about these formulas, please ask.

I found how you can get the main part of Vann formula or Baron-Larrymarx according to a specific unit as benchmark.

I took the Fighter A3 D4 C10 and I wanted to convert into Tank A3 D3 C6 as benchmark (Baron-Larrymarx formula).

Then I saw what I did.

Power (of attacking Fighter): A3 * C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) * 1 Hit Point C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) = 1.08
You can reduce this equation because (cost of Tank)(cost of Tank)/ (cost of Fg)*(cost of Fg) is same to
(cost of Tank) IPCs^2 / (cost of Fg) IPCs^2 and give a simple ratio.

C6^2*A3/C10^2 = 1.08
36 squared IPCs 3 Power * 1 Hit /100 squared IPCs = 1.08 PowerHit Point

This explained what is hidden in Baron-Larrymarx formula:
Offence or defence strength factor= 36*Power/Cost^2.

The whole Enigma formula is
Refence unit Cost^2Power of the actual unit1 HP/Cost of the actual unit^2

So, the Basic offence or defence strength factor result (1.08, in this case) is express in Power*Hit Point
1^2*Power (of a given unit)*1 hit/Cost (of this same given unit)^2

And this formula can be adapt according to any benchmark, for instance a 1 IPC unit:
131 hit/10^2 = 0.300

And this is a very small number. That’s why Vann formula:
Strength= (Power100)/(Cost^26)

add an arbitrary 1001/6= 16.667…
So, 16.667131 hit/10^2 = 0.5
And this would provide the Fighter strength attack factor based on an hypothetical benchmark unit of √16.667 = 4.0825 IPCs.
A 5 IPCs revised Tank in Vann formula gives a Strength : 16.66731 hit/5^2 = 2.00 powerhit

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

These numbers means that Destroyer is the most optimized unit for combat to buy for each IPC invested, then it is battleship and finally Cruiser.
Said otherwise, Cruiser is sub-optimal for the cost.
3 DDs C8 A3 D3 (A9 D9, 3 hits) will be stronger than 2 Cruisers C12 A6 D6 (A12 D12, 2 hits) if you can use a Battlecalc to test D10-sided values.

From stronger to weaker for 120 IPCs basis:
15 DDs A3 D3 (A45 D45)
6 BBs A7 D7 (A42 D42)
10 CAs A6 D6 (A60 D60)

If the CPs control Marseille and Constantinople and a chain of tts connecting them why not move Turks to Marseille? The Allies can make the same move in reverse by sea. It’s up to the Allies to block such moves. Remember you can never rail units into combat, only to reinforce contested tts.

The proposal is to counter the Allies domination of the seas, which they usually get after 2 or 3 turns, and means they can move troops virtually immediately to any front.

Yes, the actual combat in WWI was slow and static, but as I mentioned this came about precisely because they could move troops so quickly from the depots to the front lines by rail.

Requiring German infantry to “march” one tt at a time from Berlin to the front lines fatally cripples the CPs in OOB rules. The Allies can easily see where they’re heading and send troops there by sea. In my view rail movement is essential to balance this game.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

I’ve put together a sample card for General “Vinegar Joe” Stillwell, if anyone’s interested.

Its like Tank Blitzing. If the SZ has an enemy token but unoccupied, IN NCM you must stop. Only in combat can you blitz into two empty zones.

The map will look more like a history book showing the control of sea zones. I guess you need more tokens.