Strategy Guide Global 1940

@general-6-stars Yes, I would like to see that.

are you still looking, cuz im in port charlotte florida, and i live 1940 global

As part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 & 1943 House Rules Expansion, Naval Mines are being play testet during the 2023 Autumn & Winter Axis & Allies gaming season.

Final results will be posted here.

Feel free to play test on your own. Rules are attached below.

Captain

1. G40 Naval Mines.pdf

@imperious-leader said in Global 1940 Fixed Units Variants:

@gen-manstein right, just off the top of my head.Baron M. could collaborate

Barons to busy. We don’t need his collaborate.

I edited the Tacs in list.
Is there still a bid ?
BB & CR shore shot at 11 and 9 ?
How many table top games have you played ?

@Lil-Blue-Spider I understand what you mean. Just one thing to add on… the capital ship ability is clearly outlined in most A&A rule books. It states that this ship may take TWO hits. And on that note; technically you could negotiate whatever you want. I will edit House rules a bit for them to makes sense. Like wait three turns to use a territory if you ceded that territory, etc. Thanks for the comment!

@master4709:

SS, that is an interesting idea with naval and air bases. What made you decide to not be able to purchase any during the game and limit 3 movement to non-combat only? Can they still be damaged by SBR?

The idea was for strategy and forcing the 1 extra turn for combat. Im not a big fan of bases but everybody else likes them. Yes the Air and Naval bases can be SBRed. Airbases still can scramble 3 planes for naval battles. Plus get the +1 move.

Are railways needed for a map this big for the USA and USSR?

For me we use the railway for Russia, US and Burma road. 2 Inf or 1 inf 1 Art can move 2 spaces ( Russia move 3 if they get there NA ) only per turn. The railroad is marked on my map.

I think I will add the convoy zone boxes to the map.

Yes I would too. Germany needs these boxes for game more.

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.)