Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

I’ve done some searching and didn’t see a similar topic, so apologies if this has already been discussed at length.

But I was wondering about changing win conditions to help balance some of the OOB rules, which I think would also reflect actual political will at the time. Bidding has apparently done well, too, but something about it doesn’t sit right with me.

The win condition for the Axis is the primary issue, as there are scenarios in which Japan wins with Calcutta and Sydney, while Germany is in real distress and London is doing well. It just seems unlikely the Allies would surrender in this case.

Some options I’ve thought of:

since the Allies need to take and hold Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo to win, why not offer the same to the Axis? Take and hold any three of these four: London, DC, San Francisco, Moscow. The Axis already get National Objective bonuses for the other victory cities. The US cities are hard to take, but truly winning in both theaters means this can happen. Most games would probably end in resignation. All capitals of Opponents held: DC, London, Sydney, Moscow (again, forgoing Calcutta as necessary). This would be similar to StarCraft where almost no games actually go to the final destruction of everything and you expect resignation. But for cheeky/BM players, there’s still a total victory condition.

Curious about thoughts on this.

@Krieghund

Oh…

I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???

:disappointed:

Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.

@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.

@the-captain

Due to the fact that whilst most of your rules are historically accurate, their execution I have some problems with. To fix that, I wrote an article on changes to The Captain’s rules:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37504/let-s-make-the-axis-and-allies-global-1940-expansion-rules-even-more-accurate?_=1636385389023

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.

@Imperious:

OK.
Cruisers when they shoot and roll a 1 can force the defender to remove a plane
Cruisers move 3 spaces even if they didn’t come out of port.
Now they are worth the extra 2 IPC.

@Young:

@variance:

Another idea has been that each cruiser would only fire an AA shot at 1 attacking plane.

This is better than 3 shots per ship IMO.

So our Cruisers combine those ideas and get:
1-An attack and a defense @3 + 1 bombard @3,
2-A first round AA @1 against 1 attacking aircraft,
3-Cruisers when they shoot, either on attack or defense, and roll a 1 can force the attacker/defender to remove a plane.

In the game I played, the AA has more of a psychological impact than a real effect.
Indeed, it never destroyed any aircraft. And thus, neither by the AA and even by the “1” roll which force the defender to destroy an aircraft.

But UK bought 3 cruisers, instead of any BB, against German Luftwaffe.

Thanks everybody, those suggestions makes cruiser a more interesting unit that worth buying.

However, it can be a real nuisance for Germany but it may also help protect the Baltic fleet against UK aircrafts: at least, it slightly upgrade the Baltic fleet to better defend against attacking UK planes.

Probably quite a bit, since heavy stacks of infantry can be nuked out of existance instead of slowely killed through attrition.