Global 1940 Cold War goes Hot Scenario

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Finished the first game:

2023-8-13-World-War-II-Global-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

The game was certainly unique and spiced up from the original rules. It’s quite biased towards the Axis, with the “cannot move into pro-Allied territories while the Soviets and/or the Americans are neutral” is crippling.

I definitely could’ve been more creative as Japan, but overall it was still a fun and unique game.

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

FBC9643C-5703-4B6B-8E07-557FA9698BAA.jpeg

Nice try, but the problem with house rules is they unbalance the game. Who will buy trannies anymore when you can put infantry on destroyers ? You must then change cost and abilities to the whole shebalong of units, in order to rebalance it, so now you got a brand new game, the A&A Carolina edition.  :-D

just for some historical facts, I happen to know about 2 incidents where infantry used destroyers for transport. First was the amphibious assault on Norway 9. april 1940. A German destroyer with a crew of 360 sailors could take 200 infantry as cargo. For the attack on Narvik, 2000 Austrian infantry that was part of an mountain division, did sail on 10 destroyers, from Germany to Narvik in Northern Norway. Their first problem was they could not make an amphibious assault against a well defended shore. They had to debark at a port like passengers from a liner. And the only reason they succeeded debarking at Narvik was the Norwegian officer in command at Narvik was a pro Hitler Nazi. Their other problem was that all heavy equipement and supply had to come on trannies. So there are no way around a tranny. Their last problem was that after 9 days under deck the fighting spirit was low, so they would need a couple of days to recover. There are a reason the Allies made Landing Crafts for the Normandy invasion. Another issue conserning your game is that an average A&A infantry unit is supposed to represent an army of 100 000 men or something, not 2000 men. A rule like this could work in a tactical level game, but now so much in a grand strategy game like A&A. But with that said, this was actually an optional rule in the A&A Revised edition from 2004.

Oh, and the other example I know is the Dunquirk evacuation after the fall of Belgium, this is also in 1940. The myth says it was a fleet of civilian sailboats, rafts and canoes that lifted 350 000 british infantry from the beach over to UK. The fact is, it was 20 british destroyers that did the job.

So to make a house rule that got a link to the real war, I say a destroyer got the ability to ferry, or bridging, one infantry unit across one or two sea zones in the combat phase only, either as amphibious assaulting an empty enemy territory, or if its not empty let the defender roll a preemptive strike, and if the infantry on the destroyer survive, he can attack. Or for a Dunkirk evac, let one defending infantry retreat via a friendly destroyer, even if this last suggestion is blatantly cheesy

@knp, 3D6 heavies have never been popular. Back in the early nineties we played off and on with them. It’s one of those things where if you have them, you love them if you don’t, well life is hell. I like the 2D6 and seems like most players can live with them especially on the Global scale and sheer number of units on the board.

Personally I liked it better when SBR came out of the player’s bank. People really hate that one and democracy usually rules most of the time when you have a regular group. I understand why people hated that one, however I liked it. It’s one of the things I like about disrupting convoys.

Honestly I love HBG, you can now add a lot of stuff to the game especially when it comes to tech. SPA and TDs are a must.

Anyway your thoughts on mech blitzing and both dice counting for heavies was spot on.

Seems to me like the introduction of China/ANZAC in 1942 would just give Japan free money once they take Australia, since they can’t buy an IC until turn 3 (making 7 IPC per turn) and with no other way to spend money, would just end up with 21 IPC in bank as a gift to Japan for taking Australia.

Ah…way better flashman.
More realistic.

But Iraq must be pro axis at the beginning and should be annexed and or Attack by UK.
Persia = 2 TT. North and south.
North side should be annexed by USSR.
South side by UK.
All Yougoslavia was not pro axis. The Serbian and the Russians were friends
So Yougoslavia = 2 TT.
Croatia and Serbia.

ROMANIA is a problem in that it should still be in control of Bessarabia.  It was the grabbing of this province by Stalin in July that propelled Romania into the Axis camp.
Suggestion: Romania pro-Axis, Bessarabia pro-Allied? 
OR Romania combined is neutral, but invasion of one part by a power makes the other part pro the other alliance.
2 TT:  Romania and Bessarabie. If USSR attack or annexe Bessarabia, this will not declare war against Germany.