Global War 1940 2nd ed.

@crockett36

No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.

@Franklin_Cain The problem with a 6+5 rule is that the Axis are almost always at or near 11 cities after 6 rounds. Germany with a simple crush Russia assault should have Novgorod (Leningrad), France, Germany, Poland + Italy has Rome = 5 with Volgograd as the relatively easy 6th VC. Japan has Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, and with some effort India = 5.

If the Axis don’t have to get those extra cities (8 Europe or 6 Pacific), then they don’t have to extend themselves to get the “last” VC. India is a stretch for Japan, but not terrible if that is all they need. They can afford to lose a few aircraft if they never have to go get Australia or Hawaii. Similarly, the Germans can easily take Volgograd and leave Moscow alone. The Russians don’t have the flexibility to defend both against the Germans so one of them will fall.

Bumping up the number to 7+5 is still putting a lot of pressure on the Allies. The Germans should be able to takedown Moscow by maintaining a good focus in the East. The Allies might be able to defend Egypt and have a sizeable force in the Middle East, but they may not (probably won’t) initially be in a position to takeback Volgograd immediately after the fall of Moscow. So again the Axis “win” without really having to exert themselves. The magic number of 8 was developed after lots of game testing and is a surprisingly good rule.

That all said, changing the VC count is another way (besides the bid) to level the playing field between players of dissimilar abilities. If you wanted to let the newer player take the Axis and lower the VC count, then you could have a competitive game.

@Axisarmpit said in [Global 1940] HELP PLEASE Axis and Allies Global Impasse:

Im not blitzing through a territory with infrastructure, but I am entering a territory with infrastructure as part of my non contact move. Lots of gamers agree variations on their understanding of particular rules?

Right. I understood you were not blitzing. I was using that as an example of logic. Please let me explain.

In your explanation of your House Rule you said “…a non combat movement can take the form of an advance into empty enemy territory…”. Your question then is a territory containing infrastructure empty or not? Therefore:

An armor unit may blitz through empty enemy territories An armor unit may not blitz through a territory containing infrastructure Thus a territory containing infrastructure is not empty

Of course it is your House Rule so you can do anything you want but if you want to follow the logic of the game I would say you cannot advance into an enemy territory containing infrastructure during the Non-combat Phase.

Thats it right there…a lot of realism is sacrificed for ease of play.
Personally, i think global is complex enough and long enough without this add on. I must admit, it is an interesting and simple mod.

Axis gets full advantage in the early turns, this forces them to get more aggression there for no reason for them to use peace as a shield and if I am playing as the allies, I’d rather have them be aggressive at turn 1 than turn 4.

Yes I agree that more VCs needed in PTO and Japan should have to work to get that 1 more VC in the PTO. I do have a VC Capital in Manchuria for my 40 game but with not having 18 inf in area it doesn�t seem to get pressured much.
Singapore is out of the question due to Japan being so strong by islands from G40 game reports. Got to make Japan earn it. Just some thoughts.

Not a problem.  Will do! 👍

Well the proposal was for a single roll for the tech for all nations, not an individual roll for each nation separately. The turn order in this game is fixed, so even though the tech is activated for everyone at the same time, Germany would always get the initial benefit, since they go first in the turn order.

Basically it’s rolled for everyone on G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5. On G 6 autotech shipyards for all is guaranteed.

Auto tech in round 2 would seem the easiest method, but for people who wand to add variety, the shipyards roll per round could provide it. It’s not a luckfest, the results are very predictable, since they mirror exactly a progressive 1d6 throw.

This would be a single die rolled for All nations (at once, together) to activate shipyards for all at the beginning of the round (together). The number which this die hits at is based on the game round.

Round 1 at 1 = 16.666%
Round 2 at 2 = 33.333%
Round 3 at 3 = 50%
Round 4 at 4 = 66.666%
Round 5 at 5 = 83.333%
Round 6 = 100% guaranteed Shipyard tech advance.

So you can see, the odds are no different for individual nations. Everyone is subject to the results of the same roll, it autotechs for everyone at the same time (the beginning of the game round.) This way there is no seeing “who gets it first” only seeing when everyone gets it, or seeing when the naval race begins in earnest for all players. This wouldn’t totally throw out the first round option, it would just drop the odds on it to about 16.67%.

I’m clearly cool with a round 2 auto activate for simplicity, but just wanted to offer another system that involves a roll for those who like to play it that way.  Under rolling conditions the more advantageous shipyards is to Axis per round, the more challenging the roll is. From the 3rd round on its 50/50 or better. In the 6th round, if it wasn’t already activated by then, there is no longer a need to roll, it autotechs for everyone at 100% 1d6 at a 6. Make sense?
So there is variability in the first 5 rounds, but always certainty during the end game. Eventually, after the 5th round, ships will be cheap for everyone, no matter what.