Europe map

@Oyvind:

Could someone explain the “bid” in the first question?

It is a way of evening up the playing field when it is generally considered that one side has an advantage over the other. Using this as an example:

@Colt45:

Personally, i take Axis with a 3 bid otherwise il take Allies.

Colt45 554 has said that they’ll take Axis if they are given a bid of 3. This means that at the start of the game before the first turn they either get to put down units to the value of their bid, 3, in any of their territories, or accept 3 bonus IPC into one of their countries for spending at a later time.

In a general bidding arrangement, the opponent would have the opportunity to take the Axis for a bid of 2 if they thought they could win with that and that process repeats until a bid has been determined and teams are set.

A bid of 3 is considered a pretty well balanced game. I believe the current bid for 1940 Global is sitting between 20-30 for the Allies. We can read into that that people think that playing the game without bids leads to many more Axis wins than Allied wins by evenly matched players.

@Cesc.1987:

So if I play a single Europe 40 or Pacific 40 game I must use the setup that is on top of the faction’s boxes.
If I play a global 40 game I must use the Global 40 setup alpha 3.9 version, correct?

Not really, Alpha3.9 is way outdated, as it was the predecessor of the official Global 2nd edition ruleset.

@rulebook:

Global Rules

…
Set up units as shown on the setup charts found in Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940. Additionally, place the following units:
Amur: 6 Soviet Infantry
Sakha: 6 Soviet Infantry and 2 Soviet AAA
Buryatia: 6 Soviet Infantry
Egypt: 2 ANZAC Infantry (also, remove 1 United Kingdom infantry)

…

The powers start with the following IPC income levels and treasuries:
Power  Starting Income
Germany  30
Soviet Union  37
Japan  26
United States  52
China  12
United Kingdom - Europe  28
United Kingdom - Pacific  17
Italy  10
ANZAC  10
France  19

HTH :-)

thanks!

Fine, so I can choose between both versions. thanks a lot fot the anserwers!

@ozimek1:

Nice idea. Don’t you think Mexico should border Central US?

Actually, I’ve just made a different variant.  Unlike the last version, this one uses only direct connections, without the need for some board-to-board crossovers to take two moves.

The positioning of Mexico was a problem that kept bothering me because, at first glance, it looks like the two halves of the country can simply click together because they’re the same size.  Then I compared the Global 1940 map to the Anniversary Edition map and I realized that, in Global, a vertical strip is missing from the middle of North America (which helps to explain why British Columbia and Ontario practically touch each other).  So the fact that the two halves of Mexico look as if they are connectable is just an illusion.  That’s why, in the new variant I made, I decided to extend the border of SZ 10 all the way to the land spur at the bottom left of Southeast Mexico: because there’s a missing strip of land between the two boards.  It’s a better match with the official rules too.

Comparing Global with the Anniversary map also highlighted for me just how big the difference is in the scales between the two halves of North America in Global.  Another thing I found surprising when I compared the maps was that the Global rules say that SZ 51 is adjacent to SZ 64, 65, and 66.  SZ 51 only takes up about 20% of the height of the map, while SZ 64, 65 and 66 add up to about 45% of the height of the map, so the Global rules connect two boards in a way that implies a huge height difference between the two sides.  In the new variant I made, I disconnected SZ 51 from SZ 64, so that the height difference wouldn’t be quite so extreme.

Alternate Wraparoud North.jpg
Alternate Warparound South.jpg

It doesn’t really matter to me if the US is a match because I would not think of playing a game like that, however it would be cool to see it from that view.

Yeah but you are trying to just throw a bunch of random countries together to create some kind of Frankenstein country just so that there will be enough IPC’s to make it viable. It is not very realistic and furthermore, we don’t need any more powers.

I know, but now it is impossible for the axis to win without taking Cairo (unless they invade UK, US). Also, the middle easts income is now a factor and UK would be limping without Middle East/Africa income. Italy would also be earning 40+.