Global 1940 2nd Edition OOB - The Beginner’s Learning Guide
Let’s move from talking about general Warfare Principles to Global 1940 itself. Oh, by the way I am not going to be talking about gambits or odd play. What we want to achieve is consistent play to win as many games as possible. Gambits do not fall into that category because either a) they require the opponent to not have seen the gambit before or react poorly to it to be successful or b) have low overall odds of success. We want to win every time! Not some of the time. In addition, this general overarching discussion is regarding strategy, not tactics.

So, open the Global 1940 Board and what do we see? As usual the Axis have centralized position. The Axis have greater firepower to begin the game. The Axis have the initiative; they will be the ones to determine the overall battlegrounds of the game. The Allies have more territory and money initially. What this means is the Axis will be trying to win the game and the Allies will be doing their best to slow them down, then hopefully stop them, and then push them back for an ultimate Allied victory.

WINNING THE GAME:
There is no argument that the Axis has the advantage in Global 1940 2nd Edition OOB. This is due to two factors.

1. The Axis only need to win on one side of the board to win the game. If we want a balanced game where either faction wins half of the time then the Axis can only have one third of a chance of winning the game on either side of the board. NOTE: It is easier for the Axis to win on the Europe side of the board than on the Pacific side of the board.

2. The Axis have five scenarios that can lead to winning.
   • Germany takes Moscow.
   • Germany takes London.
   • Italy gets big in the Mediterranean.
   • Japan wins in the Pacific.
   • The game develops into a long-term money game and the Axis prevail due to collecting the same or more money than the Allies.

For the Allies to win they must stop the Axis on both sides of the board by stopping all five of their scenarios. Just one is enough for the Axis to win but it takes all five to make the Allies happy.

The key for the Allies is to put more pressure on one side of the board to gain an advantage while stalling the other side of the board. This balancing act is easier said than done. As one of my gaming group members once said, “Axis and Allies is like a balloon; if you push too hard in one area it bulges in another.”

1. GERMANY GOES FOR MOSCOW
   Germany starts with enough units on the board, and quickly gains enough money to buy additional units, that Germany can take down Moscow. Once Moscow falls the Germans push to Egypt and the game is over. Unfortunately, there is no way to stop the Germans from taking Moscow without giving the game to the Axis elsewhere. The key issues for the Allies are a) how long does it take and b) how much does it cost. Losing Moscow does not lose the Allies the game. Losing Moscow too cheaply or too quickly does as it makes the fall of Cairo inevitable. The Allied defense is fourfold. 1) Knowing it is a main target Russia builds and acts accordingly; buying tons of infantry and harboring every unit for the final Moscow battle. 2) Assistance in the form of UK units come to Moscow via the Middle East to delay the inevitable. 3) An Allied fleet reduces German reinforcements aimed for Moscow by attacking the Atlantic Wall. 4) The Allies prepare a defense of the Middle East and Egypt so that once Moscow falls the Axis still cannot win the game. This is the most difficult winning scenario the Allies face.

2. GERMANY GOES FOR LONDON
   Personally, this is the one scenario I love to see the Axis try as the Allies. The reasons being are it is a) a lot easier for the Allies to come back from the fall of London than it is the fall of Moscow and b) unlike Moscow once the Allies see the Germans going for London the Germans have a limited window of Opportunity to take London. Also, it is easier to defend London than Moscow because the Germans need to build and protect their transport fleet to be able to move their ground units against London. The key for the Allies here is not to lose London on the cheap. It must cost the Germans a ton of money and units so even once it falls the Germans are in a weak position because the Bear of Russia is going to come knocking on the door. Surprisingly, once Russia gets into German territory they collect more money than Germany does. Ouch. As long as the Allies do not leave London weak this is not the scenario to worry about.

3. ITALY GETS THE MEDITERRANEAN
   If Italy gains control of the Mediterranean then the Axis will be collecting too much money and will overpower the Allies. This is the easiest way for the Axis to win but luckily it is also the easiest scenario for the Allies to stop. Once UK blows up the Italian fleet in the Med, kills the Italian ground troops in Africa and convoy disrupts SZ97 the Italians are basically removed from the game.

4. JAPAN WINS IN THE PACIFIC
   Though Japan is surrounded by four enemies and has far less income than the four combined Japan can become a monster if left unchecked. For Japan taking India and China is not that difficult. And, as before, the Allied strategy is forcing Japan to spend time and cash accomplishing those goals so that by the time they turn to go for Sydney or Hawaii they are now contained by a large US Fleet.

5. AXIS COLLECTS ENOUGH MONEY TO WIN LONG-TERM
   The final scenario for the Axis comes about when the Allies have performed admirably and have stopped the previous four game winning scenarios. However, the Axis was still able to take enough territory to be close to or even with or, heaven forbid, ahead of the money the Allies are collecting. That is bad news for the Allies. Due to their centralized position and for the most part more efficient use of Land Units and Air Units versus Naval units the Axis do not need to be collecting the same or more than the Allies to win. The Allies need to be ahead by about $10 a Round. If that is the case they are winning a long-term money game and if not, they are losing.

ROLES OF THE POWERS
So, what does each Nation or Power have to do to be successful? What is their role in the game?

AXIS: Win the game by achieving one of their five scenarios…

GERMANY is the main antagonist on the Europe side of the board. It is up to them to win the game. As a land centric Power, with lots of money available to them in the east, typically their goal is to take Moscow and then drive for Egypt. They must defend their coastline from Allied Landings to maintain their income and to deprive the Allies of the opportunity of getting France back into the game. Or even worse losing Berlin.

JAPAN all by herself in the Pacific, will either try to win the game, if the US ignores it too much, or be a constant irritant forcing the US to spend monies in the Pacific that they desperately want to be spending in the Atlantic. While outnumberd Japan can knock out one or two of its weaker opponents and become sizable if the Allies are not careful.

ITALY is the weak sister of Germany. In fact, every true German wishes Italy was just more German territory to feed more income to German Factories and remove the dreaded possibility of Rome falling to the Allies. Normally Italy’s role is reduced to defending German and Italian territory and producing some limited can openers for the march to Moscow and Cairo. It is not unusual for Italy to be doing everything it can just not to be taken. Played correctly by the British Italy should be a non-factor in the game.

ALLIES: Win the game by pressuring one side of the board more than the other to gain an advantage on one side while stalling on the other side…

RUSSIA is the main target of the Axis. Thus, they need to play defensively unless the Germans go for Sealion. The longer Russia lasts, and the more money it collects and puts down in troops, gives the Allies time to gain advantages elsewhere on the board and be ready to repel the Germans once Moscow finally falls.

USA is the key to the game for the Allies. How and where the US spends their money is the difference maker. The US will collect more money than any other Allied Power and unlike every other Allied power its capital is safe from the Axis. Depending on Allied strategy the US will either a) go all out in the Atlantic for a few Turns then turn its full attention towards the Pacific, b) go 100% into the Pacific for many Turns to rout the Japanese and then turn towards Europe or c) have some balance between the two sides of the board.

CHINA is one of the minor Powers that has a lot of importance in the game. Its role is to kill Japanese ground troops. While it cannot stand against a concerted Japanese effort the more troops it kills the harder it is for Japan in the Pacific.

UK EUROPE has the toughest job in the game as it is the closest Power to Germany, is immediately at war with the Axis, and has the most critical initial missions. UK must protect its Capital, knock Italy out of the game, assist Russia in the defense of Moscow, distract Germany and protect the Middle East from Germany after Moscow falls or is turtled. Simple right? Job one, after defending London, is taking Italy out of the game by taking control of the Med, Middle East and Africa. Once that is accomplished it can move on to reinforcing Moscow and start landings on the Atlantic Wall. But Italy comes first! The benefit of playing UK is at least you know what you need to do.

UK PACIFIC Like China there is not a lot India can do to stay alive if Japan focuses on capturing it. India’s mission is to stay alive as long as possible and make any capture of Calcutta a Pyrrhic victory.

ANZAC is the other minor Power that plays a big role. ANZAC is the death by a thousand cuts for Japan. Making them trade the Money Islands and acting as US Fleet blockers. ANZAC’s job is to force Japan to spend money on them so the US can concentrate on getting a superior fleet versus Japan’s.

FRANCE is, well, ummm… does not really have a role in this game except to die on G1.

Remember as the Allies all you are trying to do is slow the Axis down, kill as many of their units as you can, so that when they come for the final push your money advantage overwhelms them.

GERMANY 1 (G1)
As I mentioned earlier it is important for the Allies to recognize what the Axis is doing to be able to counter it. Since Germany is the main antagonist here are some prime examples of G1 options:
• 100% ground unit buy for Germany. The Germans are going to go for Moscow on G6, G7 or G8.
• Major IC in Romania. The Germans are going for Moscow on G6.
• Carrier and two transports in SZ112 or SZ113. The Germans are going for Sealion.
• Submarine, destroyer and carrier in SZ112. The Germans may be going for Sealion though more likely they are building a fleet to contest the British and fight for the Med. This is more a long-term strategy than a short-term strategy.

TAKING YOUR TURN
Here are the four steps to consider when you prepare to take your Turn:

1. First and foremost, always look to see if your capital is safe. What can the enemy do to you this Turn and the next Turn? No matter how important some other objective is if you fail to protect your capital you just messed up.
2. Are there one or more VIP areas that must be taken or protected to protect my capital down the road or to achieve my main objective?
3. As part of my main objective what can I do to the enemy and what do I need to buy to accomplish it?
4. Are there any attacks of opportunity that, while not part of my main objective, assist me in accomplishing my main objective? As tempting as it may be, any attack that does not assist in accomplishing your main objective, should be ignored.

THE BID
As discussed, the Axis has the advantage in Global 1940 2nd Edition OOB; significantly. How much of a bid the Allies receive is up to each Player’s desire to be the Axis or the Allies. Whatever amount the bid is, it should be used to accomplish the Allied goals of slowing the Axis down and making life more difficult for the Axis and to assist the Allies in accomplishing their own goals. Bids should be used to:

• Protect the British Fleet – as I already said ships cost a lot and saving ships means not having to buy them later. Protecting the UK fleet not only makes it easier for the British to fight for the Med and make Atlantic Wall landings later it also protects London. Any bid placement should include a fighter for Scotland and a submarine for either SZ 111 or SZ 110. (Mandatory)
• Taking Italy out of the game is job #1 and a submarine in SZ 98 to maximize Taranto assists in that. (Mandatory)
• Ground troops for taking out Italian units in Africa or a transport in SZ 71 to do the same.
• Submarine or destroyer in SZ 91 to defend the UK cruiser and assist in the attack on SZ 96.
• Submarine in SZ 106 to defend the UK destroyer and transport.
• Infantry in India/West India/Burma to bolster defense. Or a mechanized infantry in Burma to threaten FIC on UK1 if the Japanese do a J1 declaration of war.
• Submarine in SZ 62 to protect the transport.
• Infantry in Russia to defend Moscow.
• An artillery in Amur to pin more Japanese troops in Manchuria.

I hope you learned something reading this paper. The goal was to highlight key points regarding how to play Global 1940 that will help you win more games.

@shkoboo said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:

@gamerman01 As a passionate player of AAA over years, let me give you my opinion on this - Not only that this is not a sneaky tctics, but this looks like an exploit in rules that is ruining your whole game mehanics turning one perfect balanced and before all game of STRATEGY in a game of ‘oversights’. Sneaky tactic is when I am planing in round for example 5 how to win something in round 8. In placing Ansac fighters on US carrier, I’m counting that my oponent: wont reckognise them, make mistake in counting movements…etc And this is all basic - not brilliant nor sneaky.
And is ruining game - You are not giving more options - you are making confusion!
Hope this willbe removed in next version.
(carryed plans must have less moves, according on host carrier movement)
(we already homeruled this in our boardgame sessions)
all the best

• Does this scenario make the game more complicated - yes.
• Does it provide greater options for attack - yes.
• Does it require a Player to determine where an Allied plane might be able to go - yes.
• Does that break the game - no.

Adding complexity to the game while keeping the game mechanics simple is one of the beauties of Global. The more nuances a game has the more likely the higher skilled Player is going to win. Keeping a game “simple” means the luck factor is going to be an ever greater determining factor.

There are a myriad of items that create complexity and nuance in the game.

• Italy being a can opener for Germany.
• USA being a can opener for UK and ANZAC.
• UK and ANZAC planes on USA carriers.
• UK troops on US transports.
• Being able to land fighters and tacticals on newly built carriers.
• Being able to declare war on the Neutrals.
• Being able to attack from multiple areas and retreat to one area.

All of these are capabilities that can be taken advantage of by a superior player. That does not make them game-breakers, that makes them strategy scenarios that everyone should try and learn, comprehend and master to become a better Player.

Thank you @farmboy and @Arthur-Bomber-Harris for your strong play in our recent games.

Both games began about the same time and you both used similar overall strategies:

1. Stacked Yunnan with the Bid with Russian air.
2. Broke into China using Russian troops via Manchuria.
3. Were very aggressive in the Pacific attacking at every opportunity even with negative TUV odds.
4. Spent significant resources in Europe with the US, since with the loss of China Japan could not win the game in the Pacific, thus preventing Germany from winning the game.

Both games resulted in a loss for me and caused me to reconsider the Axis strategy I have been working on for the last 5-6 years. Due to your great play I was forced to come up with a second, or Plan B, strategy for the Axis.

If the Allies do not stack Yunnan I think I can still use the same Axis strategy as before with a tweak by adding Item #2 below. So, Plan A and Plan B both now include Item #2. If the Allies do stack then I would go with Plan B by including Item #1 below.

Plan B:

1. If Yunnan is stacked with Russian air then instead of a J1 it converts to a J3. This provides Japan with more time to build up against China as China is much tougher by holding Yunnan. It also allows Japan to do this without the US Navy breathing down its neck. My mistake previously was to still do a J1 and with the UK, ANZAC and US all beating on Japan they were unable to make any headway. This changes the Pacific from a get India quick strategy to a “take the Money Islands and make slow progress against China and India” strategy. Or in other words a long term game. This revised strategy does keep Japan in the game versus my previous strategy.
2. Build a Minor Industrial Complex in Manchuria and stack Manchuria against the Russian Far East Troops. Previously, I kept my Japan stack in Korea and you both showed me the error of my ways. By stacking Manchuria instead and keeping a force there large enough to defend against the Russians it keeps those Russian troops from breaking into China. Again, this expenditure slows things down for Japan’s expansion, but it protects their inner perimeter from being compromised.

While it is no pleasure for me to lose, I do thank you both for teaching me something. As they say, “You learn more from losing than winning”. Whether or not my opponents stack Yunnan in the future I have learned how important it is to protect Manchuria from Russia and that knowledge is gold for my future games. Through adversity you have made me a better Player and for that…

THANK YOU!

@aequitas-et-veritas said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

A.) It will be a 50/50 chance each time, b/c either you won or you lost.
B) even if you play as much as possible without taking risks, if your opponent makes a risky move, doesn’t this call off your whole riskfree playstyle and awareness??

Good questions… Thank you for contributing.

A) It is only a 50-50 chance if the Players are of equal caliber. The stronger Player is always going to win more than 50% of the games. Thus the stronger Player does not need to take as many risks and the weaker Player does have to take risks to win.

B) That depends. If you are the stronger Player than you may still be able to play conservatively even if the other Player is succeeding in risky attacks. Case in point. I had a face to face AA50 game where our Opponents had a dramatically aggressive G1. They attacked Egypt and every Allied fleet they could get their hands on. None of the battles were greater than 65% and one of them was under 50% yet they won them all. Our Allied position was frankly terrible. Germany was going to swoop through Africa and there was no Allied fleet to do anything about it for multiple Turns. Our team huddled and since it was the very beginning of the game, and night, my partners wanted to concede and start over so we could play at least one game where we might win. I disagreed. My point was the reason they had such an aggressive opening was because they knew we were the better team. Thus they will either a) make a mistake down the road that we can take advantage of or b) they will continue to make very risky attacks and eventually the dice will turn against them. So we continued and I was correct. They made a strategic error the very next Turn and the following Turn had two risky battles go against them so by the beginning of Turn 4 we were right back in the game and eventually won. So we did not have to play risky because we were better than them.

On the other hand I have been in games where the caliber of the Players was about the same and my Opponent started making risky attacks and was successful and you are correct. I had to change from my conservative strategy and start making risky attacks to try and stay in the game. For example while personally I would never like to attack Moscow with anything less than an 80% chance of victory against a really good Player I would go all the way down to 60% because after all, against a really good Player winning 60% of the time is a good thing. In fact if you are playing the best of the best winning 51% of the time is all it takes to be happy.

The point I am trying to make in my article is if you do not have to make a risky attack to win; why make it? I never said risky attacks were bad; many times they are necessary. I said do not make them if you do not have to.

Thank you for your consideration. It is not my intend for anyone else to have any opinion regarding Trulpen or myself regarding our game. This is a game just between us and unfortunately a private game is open to public disclosure since we are playing online. How I feel about Trulpen is my business so please do not let my feelings or experience affect your opinion of him.

Without getting into details I think everyone can agree the game got out of hand and there are many reasons, beyond edits, that I am unwilling to play against Trulpen any longer. Again, that is just my business. Not finishing the game was my way to remove myself from what was a very negative experience. If that cost me a loss so be it.

I fully intend to continue playing in League games. I am trying to decide how best to move forward to minimize any future potential disagreements because I, like I am sure most everyone here, just wants to play and have fun.

Please consider this matter over.

@J-o-C said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

Would you ever consider using an infantry to block a potential blitz? That would mean Germany would not be using artillery or regular infantry for the attack, which may not be a good idea on their part. I guess it would depend on the situation.

Good question and yes it depends. As I said in my article…

@AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

to lose a unit for any purpose outside of that big battle is a waste of the unit unless it takes more units with it than it loses, or has extraordinary ramifications, such as protecting a vital monetary area, or slowing down the route of march.

So not to be wishy washy but it depends. What does the blitz of the armor gain versus the loss of the armor on the counter attack? What is the loss of the infantry versus the gain of stopping the blitz? It is situational so without an example I cannot answer the question except to say sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it does not.

@jesse144 said in Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current):

Hi, Jesse here from Kelso, WA. Glad to have found this site! I especially appreciate the amazing customizations and House Rules people have developed. Wow, some really beautiful and ingenious work has been done over the years. Custom game tables, painting, solo wargaming techniques, escape rolls for transports… just awesome stuff. Thanks to all contributors!

I played Classic many times back in the 80s, CD ROM version in late '90s a few times, then rediscovered A&A (and this site) a few months ago. Have since played 1941 (teaching my wife the game that way–she picked the game up quickly and is almost as big a fan as I am now), then 1942 SE about 4 times, Europe 40 three times, Pacific 40 is next. Then G40.

I’ve been accumulating and some House Rules ideas, drafting some of my own ideas, and purchasing additional playing pieces (oil economy, Allied Lend Lease, Govt in Exile, Canada and The Netherlands-Belgium as minor Powers, elite/specialty units) so that someday my ongoing G40 games will have these elements. And I’m going to paint France’s units dark blue-gray. I hope I don’t ruin them haha.

I don’t generally have big chunks of free time, so our games tend to take a couple of weeks at a time. It’s been interesting to notice how helpful it is to have fresh-eyes between breaks, to slow down the aggression-momentum phenomenon that tends to occur when playing to get the game over quickly after a long slog of hours.

Ditto! Definitely lucky to have a wife that not only is okay with you playing but enjoys playing with you too! I am trying to convince my new wife to play and she is reluctant so far. At least she supports my habit.

Being in Kelso you may want to look up the Axis and Allies Portland Wargaming Group. I think they are starting to play face to face again. https://www.facebook.com/PdxAA

If you are ever up in the Seattle area we are back to playing face to face ourselves. Just had our first game last weekend.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/329268357746777

WELCOME!!!

@Saber25 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

What makes Bryansk a better hold point?

Bryansk is the point where the original German advance forces and fast moving reinforcements are at their limits to get to Moscow in comparison to the Russians who have been building infantry waiting for them to arrive. It takes some Allied fighters to tilt the battle to the Allies favor to hold for a little bit. Even one Turn is helpful though.

@salish_rogue-0 said in Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current):

Hello everyone, I’m new to the community. I’m located in the greater Seattle, WA, USA area. I’m currently playing Axis and Allies online. I was just gifted the 1942 2nd edition board game in Dec of 2022, but haven’t gotten much use out of it because I only know one person that plays and it’s an all day event.

I’ve been actively making a few turns a day for the last month or two online. Before that I played a few times as a teenager with my dad. The stages of learning has been obviously tiered. In short I’ve learned what works against the computer, doesn’t work against people. Playing the computer just teaches you bad habit. Then I learned what works against bronze players doesn’t work against silver players. This week I got a custom game against a platinum player and realized what works in silver doesn’t work in the more advanced play. I’m excited that I got a game against a platinum player because I’ve been punished for mistakes that I previously didn’t know I was making. I learned more in one losing platinum game then I think I have in all other games combined.

If anyone know of some users who post their games on youtube with detailed commentary about their thoughts and strategy I’d love to know which channels. I just found TTG who I’ve liked because he talks through a lot of his thought process.

Looking forward to playing against you all and chatting with you on the forums.

Contact @GeneralDisarray and @MarshmallowofWar. They both used to be in the same play group with me in Seattle and they are both still there. There are about 8-10 active Players in the Seattle area.

@Saber25
OOB? Three things if OOB. 1) $34 is not enough of a bid. Needs to be at least $50. Buying 2 fighters for Russia is not the way to go as that would be far better used as infantry. These two things combined sound like you are having to over commit the US to the Atlantic.

In the Pacific Calcutta holding till Turn 7 or 8 is actually great. Normally they go down on Turn 5. 2) The US needs to spend the bulk of their money in the Pacific so by the time Japan knocks out or beats down China and India a large US force is there to stop them from winning the game. 3) With a large US presence ANZAC can be aggressive instead of defensive. Trading the Money Islands and forcing Japan to spend money against ANZAC is a must.

Get the US fleet to Queensland or Carolines as quickly as possible without being destroyed. That forces the Japanese to combine their navy or get picked off in detail.

@kyle47 said in Revisiting G2 Barbarossa:

We are just playing friendly home games, no bids. Although, we have considered implementing bids in the future, we have yet to do so. I think my play group would LOVE that type of bid. They are getting tired of losing

The Axis are heavily favored in Global 1940 OOB. With no Bid, with equal Players, the Axis should win 90% of the time.

There are only 13 places to put a Russian infantry that can make Moscow in time to defend against a G6 attack. 14 for a G7 attack. Default League Bid rules state you can only place a unit where a unit of the same Power already exists.

Most people use the Bid to save half the UK navy, invest in the Med, help defend China and knock Italy out of Africa. By doing so it frees up Allied units faster to get to Russia to help defend Moscow and put pressure on Germany at the Atlantic Wall to force Germany to spend needed resources defending there.

The Romanian Rush allows the Germans to get the most they can by G6 to Moscow. A standard G3 provides the most firepower possible for a G7 attack, but gives the Allies one more Turn to get UK air units to Moscow.

A standard Moscow defense has 70+ infantry plus 10+ Allied fighters (non-Russian) by the time the Germans’ get there making an attack on Moscow a low odds affair. Turtling Moscow and then draining their money for a future capture is more standard of the Axis strategy.

If Russia is taking Finland, let alone Norway, than the Axis player is not playing properly. Russia should never get the $3 NO bonus for any territory in Europe. That is why they usually send troops to the Middle East to get the NO down there.

If you are playing with no Bid then really anything you are experiencing is irrelevant. The Bid should be in the 50-60 range.

TripleA Turn Summary: Germans round 14

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition

Game History

Round: 14

    Research Technology - Germans

    Purchase Units - Germans
        Germans repair damage of 6x factory_minor; Remaining resources: 65 PUs; 
        Germans buy 19 infantry and 2 mech_infantrys; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 

    Combat Move - Germans
        2 fighters and 2 infantry moved from Western Germany to Holland Belgium
        1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 3 infantry moved from Western Germany to Northern Italy
        3 infantry moved from Volgograd to Caucasus
        1 infantry moved from Smolensk to Vologda
        3 mech_infantrys moved from Archangel to Vologda
        1 mech_infantry moved from Novgorod to Vologda
        1 fighter and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Bryansk to Vologda
        1 fighter moved from Bryansk to Vologda
        1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Bryansk to Tambov
        2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Bryansk to Caucasus

    Combat - Germans
        Battle in Vologda
            Germans attack with 2 fighters, 1 infantry, 4 mech_infantrys and 2 tactical_bombers
            Russians defend with 1 artillery and 4 infantry
                Germans roll dice for 2 fighters, 1 infantry, 4 mech_infantrys and 2 tactical_bombers in Vologda, round 2 : 2/9 hits, 3.17 expected hits
                Russians roll dice for 1 artillery and 4 infantry in Vologda, round 2 : 4/5 hits, 1.67 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the Germans and 3 mech_infantrys owned by the Germans lost in Vologda
                2 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Vologda
                Germans roll dice for 2 fighters, 1 mech_infantry and 2 tactical_bombers in Vologda, round 3 : 2/5 hits, 2.50 expected hits
                Russians roll dice for 1 artillery and 2 infantry in Vologda, round 3 : 2/3 hits, 1.00 expected hits
                1 fighter owned by the Germans and 1 mech_infantry owned by the Germans lost in Vologda
                2 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Vologda
            1 fighter owned by the Germans and 2 tactical_bombers owned by the Germans retreated
            Russians win with 1 artillery remaining. Battle score for attacker is -17
            Casualties for Germans: 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 4 mech_infantrys
            Casualties for Russians: 4 infantry
        Battle in Caucasus
            Germans attack with 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber
            British defend with 2 infantry
                Germans roll dice for 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Caucasus, round 2 : 2/6 hits, 2.17 expected hits
                Russians roll dice for 2 infantry in Caucasus, round 2 : 1/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the Germans lost in Caucasus
                2 infantry owned by the British lost in Caucasus
            Germans win, taking Caucasus from Russians with 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
            Casualties for Germans: 1 infantry
            Casualties for British: 2 infantry
        Battle in Tambov
            Germans attack with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber
            Russians defend with 1 infantry
                Germans roll dice for 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Tambov, round 2 : 2/4 hits, 1.50 expected hits
                Russians roll dice for 1 infantry in Tambov, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Tambov
            Germans win, taking Tambov from Russians with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
            Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry
        Battle in Holland Belgium
            Germans attack with 2 fighters and 2 infantry
            British defend with 1 infantry
                Germans roll dice for 2 fighters and 2 infantry in Holland Belgium, round 2 : 1/4 hits, 1.33 expected hits
                British roll dice for 1 infantry in Holland Belgium, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the British lost in Holland Belgium
            Germans win, taking Holland Belgium from British with 2 fighters and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
            Casualties for British: 1 infantry
        Battle in Northern Italy
            Germans attack with 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 3 infantry
            Americans defend with 1 artillery, 1 factory_minor and 3 infantry
                Germans roll dice for 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 3 infantry in Northern Italy, round 2 : 4/7 hits, 2.83 expected hits
                Americans roll dice for 1 artillery and 3 infantry in Northern Italy, round 2 : 0/4 hits, 1.33 expected hits
                3 infantry owned by the Americans and 1 artillery owned by the Americans lost in Northern Italy
            Germans win, taking Northern Italy from Americans with 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 3 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 13
            Casualties for Americans: 1 artillery and 3 infantry

    Non Combat Move - Germans
        1 armour moved from Archangel to Bryansk
        2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Caucasus to Bryansk
        1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Tambov to Bryansk
        3 infantry moved from Ukraine to Bryansk
        1 mech_infantry moved from Novgorod to Eastern Poland
        1 fighter and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Vologda to Novgorod
        2 fighters moved from Holland Belgium to Western Germany
        1 fighter moved from Northern Italy to Western Germany
        2 bombers moved from Northern Italy to Western Germany
        2 infantry moved from Denmark to Western Germany
        1 aaGun and 3 infantry moved from Western Germany to Greater Southern Germany
        1 aaGun moved from Western Germany to Germany

    Place Units - Germans
        3 infantry placed in Ukraine
        2 infantry and 1 mech_infantry placed in Germany
        10 infantry placed in Western Germany
        3 infantry placed in Volgograd
        1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry placed in Novgorod

    Turn Complete - Germans
        Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 8
            Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 125 Sea Zone. Rolls: 2,6
            Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 97 Sea Zone. Rolls: 2,1,5,1,4,2
        Germans collect 48 PUs (8 lost to blockades); end with 48 PUs
        Trigger Germans 5 Swedish Iron Ore: Germans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 53 PUs
        Objective Germans 3 Control Caucasus: Germans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 58 PUs
        Objective Germans 2 Control Novgorod Or Volgograd Or Russia: Germans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 68 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Americans regular : -1.33
Russians regular : 3.33
Germans regular : -0.50
British regular : -0.33

Savegame

2 Kamikaze please.

TripleA Turn Summary: Italians round 13

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition

Game History

Round: 13

    Combat Move - Italians

    Non Combat Move - Italians
        1 artillery and 1 mech_infantry moved from Bryansk to Ukraine
        1 fighter moved from Norway to Western Germany

    Turn Complete - Italians

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame

@wizmark Unfortunately, I think you are being naive. From experience, I would say the vast majority of people (90%+) would not take advantage of the dice or try and cheat however, there are some who would. Having the dice go to both sides keeps everyone honest and maintains a fair game. Plus, it keeps anyone from wondering about really great dice or really poor dice and giving someone an undeserved reputation.

As Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”

Yeah, but before, 2 years ago, I switched from Gmail to Yahoo to resolve/alleviate the issue. Then, about 5-6 months ago, Gmail starting working again 100% of the time so I switched back to Gmail. Then, suddenly about 2-3 weeks ago, it began again. I am on the 2.6.14364 version

Yeah, for the last couple of weeks I have only being 25-50% of the rolls.

WELCOME!!! @MajorJoey

Glad you are here and enjoy the site. I suggest you pick up some games via TripleA from the top players and check out their games to see some top play.