Pershing vs Tiger (Heavy tanks)

@fat-belly-general

I really like this idea, as it allows even in a three player game to have two players as the Axis.

The test went very well. As expected only Russia and Germany built heavy tanks in numbers. Neither America nor ANZAC built any in the first 9 turns of the game. Limiting them to one per territory ensured that they didn’t dominate the game but did add an extra element of strategy. I’ll edit my original post to reflect the changes and to add this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8K4Vo5lORA&feature=youtu.be

I think the Mongolian rule should be changed. I can see an USSR player taking 30 ICP and just using it against Germany. Change it to any Soviet territory that becomes attacked by Japan, every single Mongolian territory has two infantry and joins USSR and each territory is worth 1 ICP which gets added to USSR.

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

About AntiSubWeapon and Mission,
I have a different idea than:

The sub rule we are trying now is 2-1-2 unit as in 1940G OOB but each DD that is declared a sub hunter rolls a die and sinks the sub on a one and locates on a two.
Located or detected subs can then be attacked by CAs or additional DDs.
If sub survives first round of combat then it defends at one or submerges.

When DD are on attack vs Subs, I will let the OOB DD A2 ASW as usual for getting a hit.
If any DD roll “1” or “2” it is a hit, or if roll a"3" then Planes can attack located subs.

If all DDs roll only “4” or higher, then no planes can attack subs, since no DD detected them, however they can still hit any other units in the sea-zone.

I find interesting to let the defending subs to submerge instead of taking defensive roll.
I would rather let this submerge possibility only if all DDs roll “4” or higher.

This will have the effect of drastically reduce the odds to find Subs by 50% instead of an automatic finding. And it gives an increasing importance on having much more than a single DD for ASW.

I will not forbid cruiser from attacking Subs since I already agree to forbid attacking BB vs subs.
It will let cruiser somekind of specific effectiveness vs subs that don’t have BB.

However, Cruiser would not block the subs from submerge, instead of defending.

No, but I didn’t make a pig’s arse of the Russian Revolution rules.

This last post pushed it over the edge.

Its only a dream.  :-(