Playing Oztea's 1941 Global this Weekend

I figure there aren’t too many things classified as Islands that would have air bases so far away as to make them invulnerable to shore bombardment. The air fields on Guadalcanal and Wake island certainly got hit and both Hickam and Pearl could be hit from the sea. By definition, this ability assumes no defenders. Even a single scrambling fighter or defending destroyer nullifies the ability.

Rule set we are currently playing by
.IMG_20201119_190421912.jpg

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

@Transports - I did some test battles.  I think it is better to leave transports on the OOB system where they have to be chosen last.  Otherwise, they will just become meat-shields to protect BB’s (when empty).  Or, they will become too high-value targets when full.

For my personal playing system and House Rules set, I’m just going to have transports be able to be targeted when a TAC rolls a “1”, otherwise they must still be targeted until last.

Also, @Baron.  I accidentally hit -1 instead of +1 on one of your posts on this topic thread!  Sorry about that!  It has been corrected.  :-D

About VC IPCs bonus,
do you think it could be an interesting reward if a conqueror of a not initially owned VC received a +6 bonus IPCs only at the start of his next turn and as long as he holds it a complete round of play?
So this reward comes only after you kept it for a whole turn.
As long as the Victory City is exchange back and forth there is no reward.

If a lost VC is reconquered, it should be a one time +6 bonus to the one Nation which fought back to retrieve it, not the original owner.
For instance, UK captures Leningrad and the IPCs from territory goes to the Russian player,
while UK gets the one time 6 IPCs bonus if Leningrad is still kept in Allies hands at the beginning of UK’s next turn.
Of course, if it is Russia who retrieve Leningrad, Russia will also get his one time extra bonus on his next turn.
We can apply the same mechanics and bonus for Capital Cities.
There is no need to add a higher reward since you already get the opponent’s money.

So this will be a separate IPCs distribution from all others regular and NO calculations.
VC would be treated differently compared to other ordinary conquered territories.

And players will be waiting with expectations to see if they can hold the VC till their next turn to get their rewards.
This will somehow put the emphasis on Victory Cities.
And it gives time to the opponents to not let go a VC too easily since the stakes are high.
It is a 6 IPCs bonus because it is easier to spent right away to not disturb a well prepared buying strategy if at the last minute the bonus is lost.
You can buy 2 Infs or 1 Tank or 1 Sub.
What do you guys think about this? Still a too high reward?

Maybe it should be just a 4 IPCs bonus? especially if playing 1942.2.
So you can at least buy right away an additional Artillery.

What could be unbalancing is UK putting a minor in Egypt (and/or Iraq) UK1, even with a sealion feign UK could still put a minor in Iraq or Egypt with little to no repercussions.
If Germany doesn’t threaten Sealion (Or DOW Russia) G1, UK could put a minor in both Egypt and Iraq and an Airbase in Egypt, and still plop a couple INF in UK or India. (Sounds powerful)

The thing is, in G40 enhanced this rule change is along with adding all of Canada and the 2 South African territories to ANZAC (creating the Common Wealth Dominions).
This takes away some UK income (10IPCs), thus reducing the impact of a single UK economy, thus reducing the overall impact on game balance.

Would just need testing.
And speaking of, im looking at some time off work coming up, and will be testing alot of G40 enhanced out.
And A F2F game during thanksgiving, in which id like to play atleast a preliminary version of G40 enhanced.

I like the concept, but it’s way to much work…

Just playing Global as it is is hard enough for most people.  Let alone including supply managment.

I have play tested a revised artillery unit with improved defence capabillity. When an infantry defends along with an artillery, the infantry’s defens increases to 3. Artillery do still support infantry on attack. Remember that the artillery unit we have today were made when the armour unit still defended on a 2, in A&A Europe.

Artillery was mostly a defensive unit during WWII and proved to be the basic weapon of fighting tanks. However, in A&A, it is usually only used as an offensive unit, mainly to give large infantry formations more punch, not for anti-tank defences or counter-battery fire upon enemy artillery. The task of destroying enemy tanks and artillery batteries can also fall to attack aircraft, but unless they are already on patrol overhead, they are usually not quick enough to save friendly forces from damage. More often, ground-based counter-battery fire would suppress the enemy artillery batteries and force them to move, while aircraft would follow up later with a strike to destroy the rest of the enemy artillery.

Once Germany had been thrown on to the defensive in WWII the burden of combat shifted away from aircraft and tanks to the infantry and artillery. This were not because the former were not needed but rather their short supply forced reliance on the latter. However Germany had a shortage of artillery and therefore carried severe penalties. The inabillity to conduct effective large-scale counter-battery operations,as well as the loss of air superiority, was primary cause of German failure in both the West and the East. The early hopes of victory through mobility were replaced by an insatiable demand for the firepower of artillery.