Global Victory Conditions

@Vendetta

Thank you for clarifying!

Hi @nishav

I use Factory Limited from the Redesign Thread. I find them to work well.

“FactoryLimited” Air and Naval Bases now cost 12. All captured and newly constructed Minor Factories may only produce Artillery, AAguns, Armor, Mech Infantry, Mobile Infantry, Marines, Elite and Infantry. If a NB is present you may also build Subs, Transports, Escort Carriers and Destroyers. If an AB is present you may also build Fighters and Tac Bombers.

ABs are required to build Fighters, Tac Bombers, Bombers and Air Transports. Bombers and Air Transports may only be built in Factories on originally owned Territories that also have an AB. In addition, Bombers and Air Transports may not be built in the following territories: Kwangtung, Egypt, Norway, Alaska, West India and Korea. May not build at an AB with 3 or more damage.

NBs are required to build all Naval Units. BBs, CVs and CAs may only be built in Territories with originally owned starting Factories. These Territories must also have a NB (Need not be original NB). May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.

So similar to what you’ve suggested. Basically the Big Guns can only be built in original major factories.

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

Thats it right there…a lot of realism is sacrificed for ease of play.
Personally, i think global is complex enough and long enough without this add on. I must admit, it is an interesting and simple mod.

Yes I agree that more VCs needed in PTO and Japan should have to work to get that 1 more VC in the PTO. I do have a VC Capital in Manchuria for my 40 game but with not having 18 inf in area it doesn�t seem to get pressured much.
Singapore is out of the question due to Japan being so strong by islands from G40 game reports. Got to make Japan earn it. Just some thoughts.

Thanks Lars.  I went ahead and took the plunge and ordered the French, Italian, ANZAC and Chinese units from HBG.  I took a look at each power’s starting units and then made an education guess as to what I would need.  They arrived yesterday and I’ve got them all sorted out and ready to go.  Just waiting for the boards to come in and I’ll get a game going.  But good thoughts on the classic units, if I need anything extra all those classic pieces will be coming out of retirement.

:-)

Hi all,

Been a long time reader on the boards, but this is my first time posting! Been an avid AA player and history buff for a long time. Sorry to post here at such a later date, but I wanted to get an opinion.

My take on adding Canada to the game without too much drastic effects on the playability involved a couple of moving parts.

Give Canada the 7 ipc income of the Canadian territories to spend each turn, but that same ipc value still counts towards the UK as well, with the UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Do the same thing for South Africa, giving them both South Africa territories and Rhodesia for a 4 ipc total. Again, UK still controls the money as well, with UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Both Commonwealths still play as part of the UK, buy, move, combat, etc. Essentially just adding 11 ipc income.

To counter this so it’s not unfair to the Axis, do the same thing with Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Slovakia-Hungary on the map of course). Those four powers would have a total of 9 ipc value between them. I figured the extra two ipc’s would have minimal effect.

Essentially all I did was add ipc’s and therefore troop numbers to the game, just forcing them to be used at their respective locales.

My only thought with this was would the immediacy of the minor Axis powers being on the front lines basically effect gameplay on the Eastern Front more so than the added Commonwealth powers would in Africa and Europe? I don’t want to hurt the USSR unfairly.

Any feedback would be great! Glad to finally post and be a part of the community!

5. Atomic Bomb  rolleyes Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

The war would have gone on till 1946. The two bombs dropped changed that. japan figured it could get a negotiated peace if it soiled the beaches of Japan with American blood. The bombs changed that completely. It was also dropped to get political advantage over the Soviets who wanted spoils in Asia and to deny them the same. The bomb was the most important invention of the war and it above all other techs must be represented. Obviously, it would be had to obtain and require alot of research to have. The idea is also to have one tech that changes the game and makes it end. Some games require such an outcome because players sometimes never surrender and Atomic weaponry will finish the stalemate.

And that is exactly what it did.

In some games you can play and not obtain an outcome, while with this technology you are assured that the game will finish up soon. In most games that last of normal duration it wont be developed and thats the charm of it.