[Global 1940] First round no combat. Theory to alternate bid

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I now think a similar idea could apply to Finland.

Its 4 infantry can only move in the following territories:

Finland
Vyborg
Karelia
Norway
Sweden (not if the Axis are at war with the strict neutrals)

@Krieghund

Oh…

I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???

:disappointed:

Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.

@the-duke

You just load em up onto your Soviet Black Sea Navy. The one with the Battleship.

Also slowly working on making my own pieces and designs for my new resin printer. I’m going to open up an online store for new pieces, boards, rules, and other items in the near future.

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;

The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected. There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here). The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest. I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space  reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

@Charles-de-Gaulle said in Global 1939 (simple alternate setup for 1940 2nd.Edition):

(This version has been supersede by Version 3.  Please proceed here for the latest dedicated setup.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41080.0)

Global 1939

Try this link to find the Version 3 of this alternate setup: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30608/global-europe-pacific-1939-for-1940-2nd-editon

This is an alternate setup for those of you who have 1940 2nd Edition.  It brings the start date to September 1939 only implementing a few special rules.  If you would like to play the Europe or Pacific side alone, go to
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38589.0
Questions and comments are welcome!  
                          de Gaulle

Try this link to find the Version 3 of the Europe / Pacific setup: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28154/simple-1939-setup-variant-for-global-1940

I hope this helps!

-Midnight_Reaper