Strategy Guide Global 1940

@The-Captain

Awesome ! One of my Favorite parts of G 40 Expansion :)

@all-encompassing-goose

I think this a great idea-I just think it’s too complicated. Make it so the Bulgarian infantry can only move in three territories: Bulgaria, Greece, and Yugoslavia.

I have been reading about your house rules, and you should put them into one giant rulebook like The Captain. Keep up the good work!

@90cent
makes em a little too strong is my guess. Axis already have the edge

My friend and I have been developing some rules for a Free For All on the Global 40 Board. Each country has a special unit and unique national objectives. Here is a rough outline, let me know what you think:

Countries:
Germany - 30 IPCs - Blitzkrieg Ability
Russia - 37 IPCs - Movable Factories & Factories placeable anywhere (movement of 1)
Japan - 26 IPCs - Yamato (24 IPCs, 3 hits to kill, 4 - 4 combat value)
America - 52 IPCs - Marines (4 IPCs, 2 - 2 combat value, +1 attack during amphibious assaults, destroyers & cruisers have can carry 1 each similarly to a transport)
Communist China - 4 IPCs - Cavalry (4 IPCs 2 - 1 combat value, can move two spaces, no blitz)
China - 9 IPCs - Cavalry (4 IPCs 2 - 1 combat value, can move two spaces, no blitz)
United Kingdom - 21 IPCs - Commando (5 IPCs, 2 - 3 combat value, can be paradropped by a bomber in which the first hostile territory the bomber goes over it has to be dropped, or can just be a noncombat)
Italy - 10 IPCs - Armoured Car - (5 IPCs, 3 - 2 combat value, can blitz)
ANZAC - 10 IPCs - Commando
Canada - 7 IPCs - Commando
India/FEC - 17 IPCs - Gurkhas (4 IPCs, 2 - 3 combat value)
France - 19 IPCs - Fortifications (5 IPCs, up to 3 per territory, +5 IPCs for every existing fortification in the territory, enemy armies cannot blitz through and enemy infantry cannot pair with artillery)
Netherlands - 12 IPCs - Colonial Infantry - (3 IPCs, can place in any originally owner territory)
Middle East - 8 IPCs - Jihad - Does not have to wait a turn after declaring war
Nordic States - 5 IPCs - Finnish Winter Soldiers - (3 IPCs, 1 - 3 combat value, no enemy blitz)
South American Federation - 8 IPCs - T-Boats (4 IPCs, can carry 1 unit, 3 movements)

Rules:
Ideally each country is controlled by one player.
All nations begin at peace; war takes 1 turn to declare.
Each country has its own national objectives.
Some units have been changed around with the setups; however, the majority of the setups have remained the same.
If you conquer a country you may choose to puppet a portion of it.
There are no pre-established alliances.
When two nations are at peace they gain a trade bonus.
Countries may form alliances, non-aggression pacts, request military access, declare war, and lend lease.
Oil derricks give the controlling power 1D6 roll of IPCs.

@Partydad do a search on the forums here- there are several groups here that use a variety of well-tested event cards.

Some good ideas here. A few things I’ve done were to have bmbrs hit at 3 unless paired with a ftr. Makes taking solo blockers out more risky and unless used with carrier aircraft, not as powerful with the big range they have.

Also give tacs +1 when paired with inf the same way artillery does. Makes them a lot more popular in my test games.

None of the Prices change. The ftr still has the big hit on D and can boost the bmbr. Also still the cheapest for fodder. Tac boosting the inf is really nice for small counterattacks and is somewhat realistic as well.

So some minor changes but makes for a more balanced air buy as opposed to just going huge with bmbrs imo.

@argothair

An interesting idea, to be sure! But where will we get the new units? Thank you!

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.)