Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@all-encompassing-goose

Okay then. I would rather the Axis win, so…

@sweetchops27 Sorry mods for necroposting again but this is gorgeous 🤤 In my Atlantic Battlefront 1940 Map, I have very similar convoy boxes to yours (which is cool!) Your large text is neat but the font is a little too wacky. The darker sea color is a nice addition like A&A Zombies, I thought about adding it to mine but I don’t think it’s exactly practical. Anyways, I give it a 4.8/5.

My map (which I haven’t worked on in a few weeks) only takes place in the European side of the map (with no South America) for practical reasons. I hope that whenever it is printed, it isn’t too big and the nation economies are balanced and the setup is okay :>

@taamvan Nope. Its Deathheads map he came out with right around 1st AA50 edition came out. 2008 or 9 I believe.

He did get ideas from AAE AAP. Had his own Mods with using AA50 rules if they applied. D6.

I changed a ton of stuff to it and made it a D12 system. Game reports are in House Rules thread under 1940 Global War 2nd Edition if your interested in looking at.

Honestly The 2 young good players I have went at it in Europe the whole game. Said it was the best game for them as far as historic effects. Convoy raiding SBRing back and forth and UKUS did there NA combine attack one time in game and got Paris back. Germany had UK down to 26 icps with raiding and some Africa stuff but US got on board and finally got UK back to 50 icps in income. Also what hurt UK early was there Tacs and destroyers could not get dice hits on the Wolf Packs. Epic.
UK even had there NA Sub Hunters for whole game and Got a +1 for Tac bombers against lone subs and still missed a bunch.
Also only 1-1 for figs hitting surfaced subs with a destroyer. 5 subs Vs 2 Destroyers can only scramble 2 figs.
You also got to have the Sub being able to submerge after Tac bomber attack and even with a destroyer present. Then you give Destroyer a depth Charge drop attack.

Map pics in the thread i posted.

There was a bit of discussion recently over here…

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=42496.0

…about what the victory conditions ought to represent from a realistic viewpoint.

It is more realistic to move warships from one SZ to another.
But, would you retreat more than 1 TT to repair your Tank?
(Land movement are much slower and falling back damaged Tanks while staying in position with Art and Inf make such delay an issue. You also have to compare between planes for the cost. Aircraft mobility and versatility is way more interesting than 2 hits units which have to return to IC for repair.)

IMO, it is easier to consider that such unit are repaired right on place with spare parts.

A different procedure I suggested a while ago is that you can only repair one and have to pick a damaged Tank as casualty before allocating a hit to damage another Tank.

So, instead of 10 Tanks staying on battle until the 11th hits.
A second hits eliminates a first Tank.
This becomes far less effective, but it is easier to follow a single damaged Tank per stack.

However, I did not search on how to calculate such way of allocating damage.

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

This sounds interesting!  Can’t wait to see the final product.

Ah…way better flashman.
More realistic.

But Iraq must be pro axis at the beginning and should be annexed and or Attack by UK.
Persia = 2 TT. North and south.
North side should be annexed by USSR.
South side by UK.
All Yougoslavia was not pro axis. The Serbian and the Russians were friends
So Yougoslavia = 2 TT.
Croatia and Serbia.

ROMANIA is a problem in that it should still be in control of Bessarabia.  It was the grabbing of this province by Stalin in July that propelled Romania into the Axis camp.
Suggestion: Romania pro-Axis, Bessarabia pro-Allied? 
OR Romania combined is neutral, but invasion of one part by a power makes the other part pro the other alliance.
2 TT:  Romania and Bessarabie. If USSR attack or annexe Bessarabia, this will not declare war against Germany.