Strategy Guide Global 1940

@FranceNeedsMorePower

That’s a better idea, especially since Japan is usually somewhat stretched to the limits on their declaration of war on the US.

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

As the War progressed it became apparent to all Major Powers, that Weapons Production needed a significant increase.

The Total War rule reflects the efficiency in production as War materiel were mass produced.

G40 Total War.pdf

@sgt-mclusky I’ve been using those rules with my brother from when it first came out for every game version, up until I got the G40 version back in '17- nowadays I just use the oob rules for destroyers for simplicity purposes!

Until recently, it was only bided for the Axis. But now, in more and more games the Allies get a bid. Let`s see what the best bid option/s for them would be…

I) UK & UK Pacific

Definitely the best Allied nation to give bid to. The ideas are planty, but let`s focus on the best:

1) A sub to Atlantic and/or the Mediterranean

A submarine in the Mediterranean can help strike Italy in sz 97 stronger than usual, but a submarine in the Atlantic can help strike both Italy (sz 95 and sz 96) and Germany.

2) Land unit/s to Alexandria and Egypt

An infantry or artillery to Alexandria and mechanised infantry or tank to Egypt can help strike Tobruk more heavily.
An aa gun in Alexandria or Egypt could be of use too.

3) A fighter or tactical bomber

The ideas are Scotland or Malta. One more fighter at Scotland helps in the defense of sz 109 and sz 111 on G1, and helps in the defense of UK against bombing on later German turns. Also it gives it`s share to the defense against Sea Lion.
The Mediterranean fighter gives UK more options either attacking sea or land Axis units, either defending from them.

4) A transport to Union of South Africa

It helps to move to action the two infantry from Union of South Africa on UK1.

5) An infantry to France

If France bids an infantry there, together with it, it can mean a lot in the defense of Paris.

6) A transport to India

To take Sumatra and/or Celebes, then Iraq, Ethiopia or Italian Somaliland more heavily.

7) A marine to India

The same as in the bid above, just lighter.

II) China

1) An infantry for defense

Best to put to Yunnan, then Hunan, then Chahar, and the least to Anhwe.

2) An infantry and/or artillery for offense

Best to put to Kweichow, Szechwan, Hopei and the least to Suiyuyan.

3) A fighter
Good to have one more for striking Japan more easily. Best to put is to Kweichow.

III) France

1) An infantry to France and/or Normandy Bordeaux

It can help to aid in the defense against eminent G1 attack.

2) A fighter to UK

It can help UK early on on defense, and puts more options for some French attack against lonely Axis land or sea units.

3) A sub to Madagascar

A good escort to the destroyer, can soon be moved to the Shores of Indochina/Indonesia or Mediterranean.

IV) Russia

1) Land units to Eastern Europe border territories

An infantry (or AA gun) to Baltic States/Eastern Poland/Bessarabia to prevent (or back off) an early G1 attack on the Eastern Front.

2) Land units to Eastern Europe offside terittories

An artillery to Novgorod/Belarus/Western Ukraine/Ukraine to counter an early G1 attack.
An option is also a tank to Novgorod/Belarus/Western Ukraine/Ukraine/Archangel to aid in the counter attack.

3) Land units for striking Japan

A mechanised infantry and/or tank to Caucasus and Volgograd.
An artillery or tank to Amur.

IV) ANZAC

1) A marine

If put to Queensland or New Zealand it helps ANZAC to take both Java and Dutch New Guinea on rd 1, and to take both Sumatra and Celebes on rd 2.

2) A transport

The same as in the bid above, just taking those territories more heavily.

3) A land unit to Egypt

An ANZAC artillery or AA gun would be good to have there.

VI) USA

U do not bid with USA. It goes to war late, and does not need anything. If U must, bid a small IC to Alaska  8-)

Thanks SS.  I re-read the report: minor clarification:  It looks like I’m recommending that Britain can’t be attacked at all R1, but actually meant that Italy specifically needs to wait until R2 to attack (preventing the total annihilation of all UK forces from the mediterranean on R1).  Also, I thought there was little the UK could do with these house rules to prevent a takeover if Italy was allowed to attack the UK in R1, but this was assuming Italy could set up their fleet and transports to attack England on R2 with Germany, but skilled Allied players could put naval ships in the path to block Italy from joining in on R2.  With that, I think it’s appropriate to play that Italy can attack the UK on R1… especially since the Italian player only earns 10 IPC’s at start and with no National Objectives, it could be a slow climb to more income if Britain has a chance to maintain it’s fleet and holdings in Africa.

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.)