Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@barnee

So the Allies won in the end.

Great game report! I enjoyed reading it.

Made a few more changes. Removed 3 inf from allies on setup in Asia.
Made FIC worth 3 instead of 2.
Cauraucus now worth 4 instead of 5. Russia income back to 24. from 25.

We played another game but ended it on turn 4. Axis not being able to get that 12 city.
But of course more play is needed.

I can post updated map if somebody wants to see it.

@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!

Just yesterday I read a chapter on Madagascar in Chruchill’s series, The Second World War: The Hinge of Fate.

I don’t know if you can credit this victory to the effectiveness of marines.  Chruchill considered the operation a great success because of excellent planning and execution.  Using a far superior force against a weak colony composed of Vichy, African natives, and even Frenchmen who disliked Vichy was almost a sure win from the start.

Yes, marines are effective, but they are basically regular troops extensively trained for certain situations.

Any well-trained handful of men could have done the same job given the same circumstances.

I do not want to discredits the marines, but there is no reason why they should be counted separate or special compared to other infantry divisions.

@CWO:

Cruiser sculpts are actually fairly easy to distinguish from destroyer sculpts because the destoyer sculpts nearly all have transom sterns, which means that the back part of the ship is square or, in a couple of cases, rounded.  The cruisers have cruiser sterns, which are pointed.  (The first version of the German Hipper-class cruiser had a transom stern, but it was changed to a cruiser stern later.)

This is a good point.  The ‘flat’ stern of the Destroyers is a distinguishing feature except in the case of Russia, whose Cruiser also has a transom stern.  You’re right, I mean – to the discerning eye, the pieces are certainly distinguishable.  Our play style, however, is usually more on the ‘pushing plastic’ side.  We want to keep it fast and fun and the Crusiers have been by far the biggest source of confusion all the times that we’ve played.

@knp, 3D6 heavies have never been popular. Back in the early nineties we played off and on with them. It’s one of those things where if you have them, you love them if you don’t, well life is hell. I like the 2D6 and seems like most players can live with them especially on the Global scale and sheer number of units on the board.

Personally I liked it better when SBR came out of the player’s bank. People really hate that one and democracy usually rules most of the time when you have a regular group. I understand why people hated that one, however I liked it. It’s one of the things I like about disrupting convoys.

Honestly I love HBG, you can now add a lot of stuff to the game especially when it comes to tech. SPA and TDs are a must.

Anyway your thoughts on mech blitzing and both dice counting for heavies was spot on.

Lol no I think you misunderstood me. I ment do you think we could make rules for a game like this even if it never happened. Like I said you could just commit small numbers and pieces to the game.