June 22, 2025, marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Okinawa. It was the final major land battle for the Western Allies during the war, and saw huge amounts of kamikazes used against Allied ships, the destruction of the Yamato, and huge amounts of casualties on both sides.
The large island would’ve been a crucial staging point for the planned Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands.
Nice find! Thanks for letting me know about this game.
I think your hypothesis is broadly correct.
But I think on a technical and logistical level (not sure about political), it seems to me that it was perfectly possible for the French to mobilize and brings the guns to the front much earlier, before September. This would’ve allowed them to begin attacking almost immediately and shatter the German lines. In retrospect, the French should be at fault for not mobilizing (and preventing the Poles from doing so).
The vast majority of Army Group C divisions were undersized (or even just command headquarters), while only about half of the French ones were deficient in some way (Nafziger’s book also lists the condition of French divisions in September-October 193o).
I got the book online here:
https://www.amazon.com/French-Order-Battle-World-1939-1945/dp/1585450189
In Global 1940 it’s used to fly 4-space aircraft directly from Persia to Moscow. So unlike other games (like 1914 where it, ironically does get a number), it’s actually serves an important purpose in Global 1940.
1 reason why I, at least, usually avoid 109 on turn 1 is that the fighters in both London and Scotland can scramble. So you could end up committing a ton of units to take down a single destroyer and transport. Better for the Germans to take on the tougher ships before they consolidate and become invincible.
It’s easier to capture Spain than Morroco or Gibraltar, as the last 2 would usually require naval landings while Spain can be done overland.
And West Germany and Paris have air bases, so fighters and tactical bombers can hit sea zone 91.
Yeah, I was confused about Imperious Leader’s comment. Thanks for clarifying!
I think it’s generallly a good idea to have cruisers and battleships be too expensive to reflect the real-life cost of building them.
I the name of historical accuracy, I think to simulate the battleships and cruisers already begun before the war, certain nations (mainly the UK and US) can buy 1 battleship and 2-3 cruisers 25% off.
The main trouble with this is that some will also want carriers to be included in this.
I think the anti-aircraft capability to cruisers and battleships doesn’t really make sense for the reasons you describe. I feel that the regular combat capabilities the ships have already reflect their anti-aircraft weaponry, and “[planes] wait[ing] until optimal range to release bombs/torpedoes, while the ships had been firing all throughout the approach” is too small and too tactical for an this game. In Global 1940, I feel one battle could actually be a series of battles (for example, the entire Solomon Islands campaign, despite being composed of dozens of seperate engagements by destroyers and cruisers, would likely simply be represented by some Japanese infantry and ships capturing the territory in 1 turn, then American forces destroying those units and liberating the Islands the next turn).
This is what AndrewAAGamer, one of the best Global 1940 players, said about the Taranto Raid (I think it mostly applies to Europe 1940 as well):
@AndrewAAGamer said in Let's talk the Taranto raid.:
I used to be a big proponent of the Taranto raid, but I am leaning against it recently as I’ve had two games where the German didn’t lose any planes on the counter attack, which was a disaster for the allies. Probably better to do Gibastion as you don’t have to worry that the dice will screw you.
(https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41082/let-s-talk-the-taranto-raid/2)
Here’s what he said about strict neutrals (while this is about Global 1940, 90% of strict neutrals are located on the Europe map, so it mostly applies):
@AndrewAAGamer said in Violate a true neutrals?:
Both sides should be consistently paying careful attention to “Should I go for the Neutrals?” as the game progresses. Looking for the key indicators that show the Player that “Yes, now is the time to attack the Neutrals.”
Typically, there are three reasons to go for the Neutrals:
Axis #1: The Allies have left their SZ91 fleet exposed if the Neutrals are attacked by Italy, specifically Spain, and that allows the Germans to annihilate a large Allied fleet on the cheap.
Allies #1: The game has come to a standstill and neither side may improve their position as the board is deadlocked. By accepting a short-term disadvantage, the Allies will gain a long-term advantage that may swing the game in the Allied favor.
Allies #2: As you mentioned, the Allies are not making sufficient progress in landings on the European coast so they revert to the simpler strategy of landing in Spain.
Normally, it is the Allies who are attacking the Neutrals and typically they will set up such an attack by being prepared to hit Spain (USA), Portugal (USA), Venezuela (USA), Saudi Arabia (UK) and Turkey (UK) all on the same Turn. In later Turns Chile plus Argentina (USA) and Angola plus Mozambique (UK) are taken. Typically, killing these 28 infantries results in about 11-13 Allied losses or about $36 worth of troops.The gain in income for the Allies is $15 a Turn. The Axis will usually gain 8 infantries from Switzerland and Sweden, or $24 worth of troops, and $3 a Turn in income from Sweden. That means the total initial loss for the Allies is 60 TUV. (36 troops killed plus 24 infantries gained Axis). Compare this to the $12 swing in income and you can see it take about 5 Turns for the Allies to recoup their initial losses and start making gains from their strategic decision.
As long as the Allies can last those 5 Turns then making the attack makes sense.
BTW, you will notice I did not include Afghanistan as usually the Axis are not able to gain those 4 troops because either they can never liberate them or the Allies kill them at a loss of usually 1 ground unit.
So to specifically answer your question… YES it makes sense depending on the circumstances.
(https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41838/violate-a-true-neutrals/2)
I’m confused. I don’t understand. Can you please clarify? Thank you!
It works, but it depends on Allied players not realizing how dumb retaking Paris is in this scenario.
It might have merit in a G1 attack on the Soviets since Germany really needs land units in other areas besides France.
Agreed. I didn’t mean giving more units to the Allies though, I meant replacing a British infantry piece with an ANZAC/French infantry piece
I’m not sure how important being able to threaten sea zone 91 from Spain is. Strategic bombers in Western Germany or Paris with a functional air base can reach the zone (yeah, they’ll have to land in Normandy-Bordeaux, but it’s not hard to stack land units there and if you’re destroying transports in 91 you won’t have much of a threat anyway).
I generally think attacking strict neutrals are a terrible idea, especially since the Axis have far fewer resources than the Western Allies. Turkey’s a tough nut and attacking it means you’ll have to take Sweden to preserve your national objective, and it’s easy for the Allies to activate the African and South American neutrals. Spain and Portugal are extremely dangerous in the hands of the Allies (and it’s pretty easy for them get their hands on those territories).
I agree with you assessment of facilities. Naval bases in Greece and Norway work well.
I must confess that one reason I probably do minor industrial complexes in the Middle East rather than South Africa-Persia shucking is that spamming units in industrial complexes just requires a lot less organazation and planning. I’ll also mention though that when I say the UK is “cash-strapped”, I don’t mean because they spent a lot of money on industrial complexes but because having so many complexes incentivizes you to use them to the max and build a lot of cheap units rather than a few expensive units (as is the case with investing in any complex).
I apologize. I was thinking of Germany in Global 1940 games, and I forgot how tough the Axis have it in the game until you reminded me. Sorry.
Here’s a list of games I played by myself where Germany was unable to gain enough momentum, as well as one where the Axis did win:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41133/how-to-win-as-the-axis
As I see it, Germany was able (with a bit of luck) to conquer the Soviet Union because they moved quickly and used mechanized infantry and tanks to cut deep. In my experience Germany has a pretty limited time window, so they have to do everything they can to move quickly. As you can see, what I did was that I had the slow movers move northwards (since they were closer to the capital) and bottled the Soviets up in Moscow via Bryansk. I believe that the game demonstrated that Germany’s mostly mechanized infantry builds were necessary to keep the momentum and have a large enough forces to pin the Soviets and move through the Caucusus, the Middle East and Africa. Italian support, both in distracting the Westenr Allies and helping out a little on the Eastern Front, was crucial. Italy’s main job, though, was to simply bulk up on infantry and artillery and deadzone the Western Front so Germany could do its thing.
2024-8-29-World-War-II-Europe-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg
Edit:
I’ll also add that when I do Middle Earth, the UK doesn’t do a lot in the Atlantic. Maybe 1 or 2 transports to move the units from Canada and Scotland, but that’s about it.
This always confused me, since it seems like it was always intended for it to be usable.