Condensed 'Bring-me-up-to-speed' information?

I’d rather have cheaper, defenseless transport planes myself.

I think that’s totally reasonable, Midnight_Reaper. You could introduce cheaper air transports into this roster without breaking anything important. My preference is for more expensive air transports because the extra price thematically represents (a) the up-front cost of developing the technology and tactics (nobody has to spend money on researching paratroopers for this roster), and (b) the relatively limited supply of air transport available during World War II. There’s a fun little article below about how most of the American Air Force’s transports were either hastily converted civilian planes, or wooden gliders manufactured in piano factories. If the Americans had to make do with makeshift equipment, you can only imagine what the Italians were using.

https://amcmuseum.org/history/world-war-ii-transport-and-troop-carrier/

Strategically, air transports provide a much deeper threat into enemy territory that requires a much larger garrison. E.g. if you put an assault boat in the English Channel, it threatens Normandy, Holland, Norway, Hanover, and Denmark. If you put an air transport in London, it threatens all of those plus Paris, Marseilles, Gibraltar, Morocco, Milan, Berlin, Poland, Finland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. It’s not that I expect anyone to fly many air transports into a battle to use as fodder; it’s just that spending 12 bucks on one air transport can force your opponent to spend more than 12 bucks on extra defending infantry.

In terms of rules simplicity, I have tried to eliminate the concept of the “defenseless unit” from my unit roster. I find automatic combat losses to be something of a downer, and I’d rather use that spot in the rulebook for a more interesting rule.

All of that said, again, this is mostly personal preference – if you want a $9 defenseless air transport with 4 movement, that’s almost certainly fine.

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Oh yeah, you need to play the game all the way to the bitter end. Don’t let the Axis surrender. You have to smash ALL their precious units and take that capital.

In the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Conan the Barbarian (who was himself quoting Genghis Khan): “Crush enemies…see them driven before you…hear the lamentations of the women.”  In the context of Global 1940, “the lamentations of the women” probably refers to the lady of the house saying “Haven’t you guys finished playing yet?” sometime around 2:00 o’clock on a Sunday morning.

LOL… my drunken games of Classic Edition with 4AM finishes were over years ago, now it’s a 9AM to 9PM time slot (maybe a little longer if ask nicely), but it won’t be long before we’re limited to playing Bridge and Lawn Bowling.

@Der:

Hi Marc -

I put in the possibility of removal of the chips in case the player was faced with a huge attacking force and wanted to withdraw everything but did not want the enemy to capture and use all of his entrenchment. (kind of a scorched earth thing)

I put some entrenchment in the Causasus because on my map Stalingrad is located there. I didn’t put any in Hitler’s Atlantic wall because my map starts in 1942 and the player can always add some later. Plus the German player gets an automatic 3 entrenchment anyway when the Allies try to land from the sea.    Â

Okay, thanks for the clarifications.  About the scorched earth thing, the ideal technique (and I’m just kidding here) would be to wait until the attacking enemy infantry falls into the abandoned entrenchments, then to fill in the trenches by blasting their walls with pre-set charges of TNT.  Sort of killing two birds with one stone.  :-D  In fairness, U.S. troops sometimes used a variation of this technique in the Pacific.  When confronted with a particularly tough dug-in Japanese position that would cost a lot of American casulties to clear by conventional assault methods, the troops would simply use a bulldozer to fill it in or collapse it.

I’m also one who believes National Objectives are an enormous pain and time sink to manage and keep track of for what ultimately is simply extra IPCs. I would much rather they be represented by something like you have suggested, oil refineries. I wish this was an official variant. :)

@techroll42:

That’s really, really not funny

THATS FUNNY!!! (your post is funny)

Next round you always get extra units but because they were the best Attacker/Defender last game they get extra units next turn.

@crusaderiv:

For japan, you can add Chemical weapon.

Japanese used gas and chemical weapon against chinese forces during world war II.

Hi crusadriv,

Maybe I wasn’t being clear. What I’m proposing isn’t making new weapons developments, but taking the existing weapons developments that we know about from the upcoming Global '40 game and preemptively retrofitting them into the Pacific '40 game. That probably still sounds confusing… Ah well.

-MIR