Sea zone 126 and Finland

@hengst

Awesome that the Axis won! I have np advice, but I always love seeing game reports! Keep up the good work!

@simon33

They can also take the Denmark, Finland, Holland et al money with this proposal. Also for example, SZ 112 and 126? would be connected to Norway $, making the placement of convoying units more flexible. Youre right that mostly the money will be taken by the proper force, not convoyed, but this proposal increases the value of subs and puts a lot more money on the line. I agree in principle that the convoy zones chosen by the creator are themey and appropriate but its easy to go further and put alot more $$ at risk on the board sea/land.

I put a russian sub down in Game 191 just for fun (it cost me later) and I did successfully blow up both and all possible Normandy/norway money for one turn. What if the baltic was like that? This also goes back to Dave’s idea of splitting the adriatic (so to nerf taranto and divide Italy $$ into two convoy zones)

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).

Thanks Krieghund.

There will be a few “Zeros” in the seazone, but with an attak of 3 or less. :-D

thanks for the responses.  I really appreciate it!

@Funcioneta:

No, India cannot colect income for european territories, even if London has fallen

I know.  I just thought you meant it would be no fun to be “out of the game” or something.

Mexico isn’t worth 3 now, much less back in the 1940s