Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@general-5-stars said in [Global 1940] Funny How...:

We play Uk 1 inf or art can use the hump from Assam to Yunnan if China controls Yunnan.

You could have roll a 1 and it blocks the piece based on lost planes.

Or a 2 blocks it like all limits said. Think using a bomber plane is to much. Just lose the 6 icps.

Come on. Test test test.

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

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.

@CWO:

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

If you just using A&A Pacific, 1940 (2nd Edit.) as a “Stand Alone” game only, and using this as a “Special House Rule” scenario it wouldn’t be problematic and would make this interesting for the folllowing reasons - By the rulebook, the U.S. and Japan are not a war yet until Japan attacks first (which would be stupid to do outright) and if this is played in the “House Rules”, Japan may place their all of their units in the Sea and Land zone of Kiangsu Province. HOWEVER, they DO NOT recieve the IPC for it until either ALL American Forces in China (the 4th Marine Regiment and the Yangtze River Patrol at Shanghai) are either evacuated out of China and headed towards either the Philippine Islands (which both actually did do in 1941) or eastward towards Hawaii or one of the outlaying Island outposts before war is declared or Japan decides to “sneak attack” and goes after the American Forces in China and wins, that is when they finally recieve the IPC for the Province. Until then NOTHING, it would be a “Eyeball to Eyeball” scenario in the “Special House Rules” to see who blinks first. And thanks for reminding me about the AVG (the Flying Tigers") in China, i will definitely add them in the “House Rules” as well.

Just an idea, never tried this but it should work: put the “collect income” phase form the end to the beginning of the turn. Right now the rule book tells, that you have to collect income at the end of the turn, where you receive money for all countries you just conquered. It’s the widest expansion of your force in a certain round and for that reason associated with a “maximum income”. In the course of the round, when the other parties start their combat moves you probably lose previously conquered terrain and hence IPCs you just have “earned” in your turn of the round. Starting a turn with the collect income phase would let you earn less money a turn in comparison to the collect income phase at the end of the turn. Eventually that’s the logic behind the idea:

rules: collect income at the the end - widest expansion - maximum income - more units could be bought - prolongation of battles -more time invested
idea:  collect income at the beginning - smallest expansion - only minimum income -less unit could be bought - shortening of battles due to less resources - less time invested.

Anzac, in reality, could only defend itself versus an eventually over-extended Japan pushing south. 6 IPCs will build just enough Inf to survive. I dont recall Anzac invading anywhere except into New Guinea whereas Canada at 11 IPCs could build Inf & Transports to do what it actually did, re-inforce United Kingdom bedises have its own beach & army on D Day. Boring maybe but definitely more realistic to what happened & a mark of a good simulation is to be as realistic as possible. The designers put a Canadian emblem on the board - too bad they didn`t distinguish the Canadian forces that should be on the board (like the Anzac) & possibly provide some control markers, as well.

@adam.hall:

@skinny1:

I found a pack of these at a Dollar General store. They were on sale for 25% off so with tax the pack of 4 cost $.80. Thanks for the tip. I can’t wait to paint these and add them to my games.

Good to hear you tracked some down; are they exactly the same? Paint 'em up and post some photos.  :-)

Yeah, they are the same. Package was a little different but the pieces are the same.

I agree.  The decreased cost of FIGs in Revised made BOMs less important than they were in Classic.

In Classic, you could add 33% to attack power for just 3 IPC (25%) increase in cost… a good deal.  In Revised the BOM is still 33% more attack power, but is now 50% more in cost, AND one less unit…  a BAD deal.