• '22 '19 '18

    Balance Global 1940 with one rule! Go!

    I will read this thread on my YouTube channel. For those so inclined, include the approximate bid your suggestion would equal.

    My own ideas include:

    Lower the standard for technological success (5 and 6s, anniversary token system)

    France goes first! 19 at least.

    Anzac goes first! 29 at least.

    Replace the 18 Russians out east with Mechanized infantry. 18 at least.

    Boost US income by 20/turn. The Pacific versions have a greater US income.

    Ten Russian infantry in the west.

    Others have suggested:

    Kill the political rules.

    Kill the National objectives.

    Russia goes first. Like in classic.

    Tankograd in NOV. A factory, worth 2 I assume, 1 fighter and two tanks. (It’s a stretch to call that one rule, but fun stuff.) 34 at least.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4IUQ917BVpb9Pkw0y3WSSg Allied headquarters: Helping you fix the balance and flavor Europe Pacific Global 1940.

  • 2023 '22 '21


    What about making Normandy-Bordeaux an Allied friendly neutral? The Allies could still produce there even after Paris is freed.

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Make Mongolia Pro-Russia like it should be. Russia can go into it to activate Mongolians.
    Has to be the Capital.
    Mongolians can only move with in there territories.
    If Japan attacks, the Mongolians become Russia and can move out.
    If Russia attacks Mongolians which they shouldn’t then they become strict neutrals and Russia losses any income and pieces.
    Place 3 Russian inf in each territory of Amur, Sakha and Buryatia.
    Put the other 9 inf in Moscow.

    Attacking territories touching Mongolia have no more affect.

  • '22 '19 '18

    Thought of a new one: nations can destroy their own facilities boom

  • '22 '19 '18

    @crockett36 So this is scorched earth. Say 2 units must be employed in sabotaging each facility for one turn.

  • Moved from Axis & Allies Global 1940 by  Panther Panther 
  • '22 '19 '18

    Thanks Panther!

  • '19 '17 '16

    @martin said in [Global 1940] One rule to balance it?:


    What about making Normandy-Bordeaux an Allied friendly neutral? The Allies could still produce there even after Paris is freed.

    This has been implemented although I doubt it will be balanced just with this change: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39268/global-1940-parisian-rebalance/1

  • '22


    All those suggestions at first glance seem to make the game way too unbalanced in favour of the Allies.

    I think the game is balanced as it is.

  • '22 '19 '18


    I think yours is the minority report currently.

  • '22


    Well, the Axis do win every single time. I play against myself.

  • '22 '19 '18

    Have you read Victor Davis Hanson? Second World Wars. Best book on WW2. Really fine analysis. He says that instead of building the yamato they could have put to see like 80 destroyers. He says the Axis had a penchant for gigantism (V2, super tiger, yamato) and that it didn’t help them in the long run.

    if you’d like to play someone, i’m available.

  • '22


    Whilst I haven’t read the book, I am aware of those conclusions.

    I agree that the Axis top leadership was horribly incompetent.

    Still, I have a soft spot for Yamato.

    I personally believe that I could have won as Japan if I replaced Yamamoto and knew everything I do now (hindsight).

  • '22



  • '22


    One book I did read said that whilst the ME 262 and the V2 pointed to the future of war, they were of little use in their first versions.

    They came too soon, and it shows with all the shortcomings for boht of those technologies.

    Germany could not afford to invest in radical new ideas for warfare which may not see the light of day when their economy was already strained fighting a two front war, where most of the fighting was done on the Eastern Front, where none of the new weapons were ever deployed.

    Only the US could afford to make such giant leaps during wartime, culmination in nuclear weapons.

  • '22 '19 '18


    Do you know how to set the game up?

    I forget where i read about the mid level officer corps that demanded war and killed any moderates that opposed them. Would you have started the war?

    The Funny thing is that by the 70s and 80s they were achieving ends that war failed to bring about.

  • '22


    I’m pretending I’m the dictator of the navy. Still gotta deal with the army but no internal opposition.

    Yeah, goodfor Japan.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @superbattleshipyamato said in [Global 1940] One rule to balance it?:

    I personally believe that I could have won as Japan if I replaced Yamamoto and knew everything I do now (hindsight).

    I think once the bombs fell on pearl harbour there was no path to victory for Japan.

    Sure with hindsight Japan could have fought better, most notably not fighting coral Sea properly and the plane flying the number 5 line at the battle of midway failing to sight the us fleet inexplicably.

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    @simon33 said in [[Global 1940] One rule to balance it?]

    I personally believe that I could have won as Japan if I replaced Yamamoto and knew everything I do now (hindsight).

    I’m sure you do lol

  • '22


    Here’s a complete loadown on my plans:

    Launch a third wave at Enterprise. It was close to Pearl Harbor so I had a good chance of sinking it.

    Change the codes.

    Don’t invade the Solomons or New Guinea. Forget beating Australia, you’re just overextending yourself. This would free up a huge amount of men that can make more of a difference in Burma or island fighting, where they might be more well supplied.

    Turn every island into Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Combined with the troops freed, this will slow the American advance down.

    Do a convoy system. Scrap Shinano, Ibuki, Yamato 4, and Oyodo. The most important thing is getting rid of submarine production. Use those resources to invest 117 C class escorts and 17 D-class escorts.

    Simulation rules. I assume that not only will I know what happens in history, but what the US will do, meaning I cannot be surprised (super major advantage).

    Fight better at Midway. No codes broken means that the US will send Saratoga and Lexington (along with Hornet and Yorktown) to Midway. No Coral Sea means Zuiho, Shokaku, and Zuikaku. Can’t bring the carriers from the Aleutians since I need the army’s support.

    Once I win, I’ll destroy Midway’s bases and just leave. No need to invade it. That’ll be a big blow, I don’t have the burden to supply Midway yet I took down the island’s bases.

    Create a good pilot program. I’m not wasting those pilots a little bit at a time in the island hopping campaigns. I’ll keep the elite pilots home to train carrier pilots until the carriers operate again.

    Don’t fight a war of attrition. Instead of losing your destroyers and cruisers in small battles which don’t mean anything, hoard your major warships for three big battles and let the escort ships do the routine work.

    Help Germany. I can’t sway the Europe a lot, but I can give important information, like telling them that Operation Mincemeat’s deception and that the Allies will land in Normandy. Telling Germany their codes are broken will go a really long way. This will cause more Allied ships and resources expended in Europe, at the benefit of Japan.

    Blockade the Soviet Union. Just sending 9 destroyers to blockade Vladivostok is an insane impact. 8 million tons of Lend Lease supplies went through there. More supplies can go through the other routes, but probably not all of it. This will weaken the Soviets and the Lend Lease supplies the Allies kept (along with the withdrawal of Allied ships from the Pacific) means the WesternAllies will control more of Europe, a good thing

    Also, no codes broken means I can destroy the entire Eastern Fleet, taking a bunch of ships from Europe.

    So far it’s all going to plan. Why can it all go to plan? Well I’m the creator of this simulation so I can control it. 🙂

  • '22


    Also, even though I’m inexperienced with multiplayer games, I’m always nervous about playing the Axis.

    I just feel like you’re more likely to lose, because of how the strategies line up with history.

    If the Allies want to win, just do what they did historically.

    But all the Axis strategies feel more risky in my mind, since they’re all new and untested (compared to history).

    G1: What the heck man! Hitler historically wanted to attack the Soviets in the fall after defeating France! Only after the generals persuaded him did Hitler postpone it, due to seasonal constraints. As much as the game ignores it, the logistical base was even worse at the time.

    G2, 3, and 4: People just don’t learn from history. Germany definitely made the war a lot harder for themselves by attacking the Soviets. Don’t do it.

    My usual strategy for Germany (now that I’ve discredited Sealion) is to take Africa and the Middle East then fortify the border and keep many reserves to do a Manstein style backhand blow. The Western Allies may not support the Soviets as much.

    J1, 2, and 3: Attacking the US is so, so stupid. Let the US declare war to demoralise the public.

    I just prepare positions for a maximum effort jump southward when the time comes whilst beating up China and the Soviets.

    Do you think these conclusions are correct or am I thinking too much about history?

  • '22 '19 '18


    Let’s first establish this as a military simulation with zero moral component. Let’s also establish that only the Japanese have hindsight since a number of allied blunders could be avoided by said super power.

    The main argument against the AnA simulation being historical is that 1. Without much allied support the soviets turned the Germans back in 41. I believe the g officer who surrendered at Stalingrad foresaw this. Operation blue was weaker than Barbarossa as I recall but by then lend leasee was a major factor. This is not accurately represented on global.

    More later.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @SuperbattleshipYamato I can’t see the plan for actual victory anywhere in there.

  • '22


    Yes, only I have hindsight. Otherwise, Japan loses.

    Japan needed a lot going for them to have a small chance of winning, and with the kind of leadership they had, there was zero chance.

  • '22


    Are you talking about the game or the simulation?

    Well, let me show you how the simulation played out in my head:

    Midway, 1942. Without American foresight and broken codes, the US reacts with four fleet carriers (Enterprise sunk soon after the strike at Pearl Harbor, as explained earlier). History shows that Japan at this time could still prepare and launch a strike earlier than the US. US loses all four carriers, Japan loses Shoho, Zuiho crippled, and Akagi and Kaga damaged. The last three carriers survive but are repaired in 1943.

    August 1943, Aleutian Islands. As Japan did not invade the Solomons or New Guinea, the Allies attempt to retake the Aleutian Islands instead. More on that later, but simultaneously, the Japanese invade the

    August 1943, Java. Concurrently the Australians (with US naval and air support) attempt to invade Java. Thanks to my insane simulation rules, I know this so I convince the army to send a maximum of forces to the expected invasion areas. Meanwhile, IJAAS and IJNAS aircraft go in fierce battles with the 5th Ai Force. This is the Allied equivalent of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. A bunch of Allied ships are sunk, but the Australians land in Java. Whilst gaining a little ground and setting up an airfield, a combined Japanese land offensive and fierce air support barely pushes the Australians out. Japanese air attacks sink more ships and a mutually destructive engagement between remaining Allied ships and 1 Mutuski class destroyer and 2 Yugumo class destroyers finishes of remaining Allied warships. The Australian transports make it home, however.

    As you can see, it’s been taking insane good luck and simulation rules just to make it this far.

    Could it have happened historically? No. Did the Japanese have a chance of winning with the leaders they had? No. They’re totally incompetent on most levels.

    Just treat my stuff as fiction, like Guns of the South.

  • '22 '19 '18

    @superbattleshipyamato okay. Did you have relatives in the war?

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 6
  • 12
  • 10
  • 27
  • 21
  • 11
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys