[Global 1940] Boots in Canada Strategy

Hi Manstein,

Cool stuff. Thanks for sharing:+1:

The problem with 1936 is that Com China is so weak at the start of 1936 that KMT can easily destroy them within two turns and USSR can’t do anything about it since they can’t Lend-Lease due to Com China not boarding USSR.

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!

Retreat and Pursuit Clarifications…

Clarifications…

Not all attacking ships must pursue.  The sea zone is used for 2 separate battles if the defender has scrambled planes to the sea zone. Scrambling planes cannot retreat, and would fight any ships that did not pursue. Any opponent ships that are in the target retreat zone are not included in the combat. After combat, if the target retreat sea zone has no surviving defenders, the attacker has option to occupy with
pursuing ships, even IF the defender retreated twice. If attacking planes have enough MP after their move into the battle sea zone, then the defender might not have enough MP to retreat.
Example: 1 attacking fighter, 1 defending DD.
a) Attacker uses 1 MP to SZ (has 3 MP remaining).
b) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 1 MP remaining).
*) Attacker can choose not to pursue and gets 1 free shot - all combat finished.
c) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 2 MP remaining).
d) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 0 MP remaining).
e) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 1 MP remaining).
f) Defender cannot retreat and x rounds of combat occur (assume defender sunk).
g) Attacker uses 1 MP remaining to return to base or carrier.

Answers to questions…

How many complete combat round is allowed before defender retreat?  The retreat can be immediate, and attacker then chooses to take free shot or pursue.
One as per planes retreat in amphibous assault? Not sure understand question.
Does the second combat round then becomes an all one free shots for the attacker? Yes it would if defender burned another MP to retreat. Unless attacking planes are involved.

If some warships can pursuit, do they get their free shot too, before continuing naval battle with retreating defender?  No, they either pursue OR take free shot on the retreating ships.
Is it possible to flee this second naval combat with another move point? Yes, though if survive, they would only actually be just 1 sea zone away with 0 MP available in their next move.
In this case, there is nothing the attacker can do then, right? Correct (unless planes involved). The defender is burning up his MP from his next turn to just get 1 SZ away.

An example or two can useful to understand multiples cases.  Yes, see example above.
Thanks.

@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.

@empireman:

this is cool! :-D
Just 1 thing: Sweden should not be pro anything

Yeah, there’s a problem with Sweden being pro-Finland….  mainly that the Finns and Swedes had a rather contentious relationship due in part to the fact that Sweden and Russia both vied for control of Finland.  Many of the treaties between Sweden and Russia that resulted from these wars used Finland a a bargaining chip, ceding land to each with little regard for an independent Finnish state.  So yeah…  Finns don’t really like Swedes.

Tangentially, a Swedish historian told a group of us that in a treaty with the Russians from one of the final wars between them there was a clause that if Sweden were to engage in hostilities again against the Russians and they were to lose, Russia would claim all Swedish lands.  He indicated that this was one of the many reasons Sweden maintained neutrality, even when supplying materials to the Axis.