A Beginners Guide to A&A Global 1940 2nd Edition

@panther Oh, sorry I misunderstood you. It was just my error. I didn’t know about or see that category. Again, I’m sorry.

TripleaA lobby is seeing a lot of bids between 16-24 on average? In LL I agree with what’s been said, I really am starting to come to the conclusion that even mid-20s makes it a very tough match for Allies. I am not surprised the league is going higher than that. But I really do think you need to guage the skill level of your opponent. If you get a newbie in your triplea lobby, maybe cut them a break. It’s the somewhat experienced guys that always throw me, strong for about 3-5 rounds but then don’t really have any mid-game strategy experieince. It’s hard to know how much to bid in those cases too.

But anyway, back to what units are getting bought: Subs/DDs around the Med for UK. Sometimes fighters for UK (Scotland, Malta). Other threads have answered this question as well, from recent memory: Inf in Yunnan for example, and ground units in africa.

Less often variations: Russia bomber, UK transport in South Africa. UK sub in Malaya. I’ve also seen Subs in the north atlantic.

Some people dump a bunch of ground units in Russia. Whether or not that actually does anything I doubt.

I am also going to take this opportunity to plug this thread about Bids and bid rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35874/allied-bids-what-are-the-common-rules-on-placement … I do so to personally recommend not allowing facilities for bids.

Thanks for the tips and suggestions guys. I am really trying to find ways to reduce the overall time of the game since 8-15 hours is a tough sell when trying to find more players. We usually don’t even wait till all the necessary victory cities are captured either. We basically can tell once the game is lost for either side.

Perhaps having a timer on the Purchase and Combat Move phase as well as make a hard end date at the end of Turn 7 or 8 would make things go quicker? I think playing a setup where Russia and America are already in the war could speed things up too.

@Gamerman01:

Getting the money when taking a capital is as old as A&A itself, so what, about 35 years?

Never a good reason if it’s the only reason.

I’m still not sure that this aspect of the tech discussion belongs here since it is more about a house rule but I mentioned how we have developed a progressive valued chart  for the techs but I didn’t give the limitations of attaining the tech.  A tech die is three (3) IPC’s every tern a player wants to roll for a tech.  A neutral nation can roll one die only per rounf thatthey are neutral.  That is three IPC’s per round.  If a tech has a R&D value of 25, it may take a nation at least 5 rounds to develop that tech.  That is at least 15 IPC’s in order to develop a tech.  A nation that is war may invest in three dice (9IPC’s) per rounf in order to develop three different tech.'s at a time.  They can not be applied to a single tech but must be spread over the three techs to be develpoed.  It can get expensive but the thought process is this; a country will invest in R&D to develop a specific technology.  It will not just through money at a problem and randomly hope to get a good result….governments maybe but not gamers.  If and when we play with technology, I prefer this R&D chart.  The Anniversary/Global chart and dice costs can definately thow the balance of the game off.  Last game I played of global 1940, theAmerican player shelled out alot of IPC’s on tech.  It put his production behind and the other allied player had to really hold on for the US to catch up but the US player was able to develop long range heavy bombers and cheaper ships.  It was devostating to the the axis player (me) because he then went dark skies on the axis and it became a war of attrition that I could not repulse effectively.  I have to take this moment to say I love Narvik.  Direct and to the point.  Tech is fun sometimes but there is alot to just playing the game.

@CWO:

@Whitshadw:

Again I love the idea but the way they set it up looks like a 8 year old picked the colors and the map needs a incredible update.

I have a copy of Superpowers, and frankly the only thing about it that I really like are the little white missile sculpts, which I use as A&A atomic bombs.  (I put them horizontally in small plastic stands that I pulled from a different game.)  There are just eight of them, and considering that they came as part of a whole game with lots of other sculpts (none of which I use), this reflects nicely the rarity and high cost of WWII atomic weapons.

Back around the 1980s or so, there was a WWIII-themed global game called Supremacy.  It had some cool features, but it eventually faded from the scene, apparently because of two flaws: a simplistic economic model that could easily be manipulated, and a tendency to “go nuclear” that would end the game (the same kind of problem mentioned by rjpeters).

Funny. I too pretty much bought the game for parts originally and I thought of using the map for my own game idea.

It’s per turn.

Quebec IC is important if British hold UK but they cannot buy boats near to Englan d(because of Kriegsmarine). In that case UK must buy the canadian navy … if not, the other IC is at SAF, and I doubt that any boats built there can aid in Europe