Italy occupies Vichy Southern France after the armistice is already in place. All remaining Vichy units are disbanded. What about the factory and the naval base? Do they remain? And can Italy build something in S. France on the same turn?
Posts made by freh
RE: G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download
RE: Surprise strike complications
Subs only get the surprise strike if there are no enemy destroyers present. So there wouldn’t be a situation where a sub gets a surprise strike and hits a destroyer that would get to return fire.
It seems to me that the confusion and your question stem from the fact that hits from surprise strike subs kill units immediately EXCEPT for subs that are also conducting a surprise strike.
Surprise strikes only occur when there are no destroyers. If there are no enemy destroyers, subs fire first and get the surprise strike. IF the defender has defending surprise-strike subs (ie. no attacking destroyer is present), then those subs can return fire.
This is why the defender moves hit units behind the casualty line - only surprise-strike subs will roll in this stage, including ones just hit, so you need to leave them on the battle board to remember to roll for them. Attacking units that are hit by defending surprise-strike subs are always removed right away because there is no casualty line for attackers (IIRC) and they are just dead without the ability to fire anymore.
The final step to remove casualties is just a reminder to remove all destroyed units so you don’t roll for them anymore.
RE: Canada as the 7th ally
Some context for how A&A Global 1940 came to exist. The original A&A had only 5 powers: USSR, USA, UK, Germany and Japan and the game started in 1942. Italy was part of Germany and China was part of the US. I remember, back in the 90s, people wondering if Italy could be a separate power and debating what that would look like to better simulate the Mediterranean and North African theatres. The same with India, ANZAC and China to better simulate the pacific theatre and keep both theatres alive when it wasn’t uncommon to see one axis power being completely ignored in favour of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the other. Players wanted more powers, more units, and more declarations of war options. Global 1940 has succeeded exactly by adding in separate powers in a way that is fun and balanced. 30 years after the original game was released, people are still tweaking, but overall it’s pretty good.
In search of realism, balance has to be maintained. A divided UK is weaker. In games I’ve played, Canada is most often involved when UK wants to build navies but is under too much threat to do so safely at home. In fact most games have seen UK producing something in Canada. That’s pretty realistic. Without the ability to build UK boats out of reach of German air, UK’s position in the game would be that much weaker. If you want to start adding resources to Canada without weakening UK, then game balance is affected. Canada starts with a factory and a harbour: manufacturing capabilities and the ability to efficiently and quickly send units across the Atlantic. I think the balance works.
RE: Questions reg JP-> UK/Anzac US->JP DOW, Scrambling, Transport, Sub Strike
yes, US can declare war on Japan and Germany and Italy.
you are correct. The fighters can no longer participate in that turn, not the entire round.
same as 2 above.
4a) Depends on who the planes belong to. In combat, planes always fly into a battle with the exception of friendly planes that would just come along for the ride as cargo (because multi-national forces cannot attack). So in the case of planes and an AC belonging to the same power attacking on their turn, the AC would sink but the planes are considered in the air. But in the case of multi-national cargo, they would go down with the AC
4b) Since planes on attack fly into battle, they would have however many movement points left. So if a fighter flies from an AC and flies two spaces to the combat, on non-combat they would have two movement points left.
transports can be ignored and don’t by themselves make a sea zone hostile or prevent amphibious landings. In your scenario, with all of the defending units killed other than transports, the amphibious assault could proceed.
You are correct. Remember that battleships and ACs that are hit only once are damaged and so they can still return fire.
RE: Holland Airbase before Sealion?
Looking at the long-term impact, I’ve had a couple of Holland or Normandy Airbases at times for late game or situational defense. They can be useful, but making them useful requires fighters/tac to be stationed there and as a result they are too far away from the eastern front to provide necessary air or defense. As already pointed out, Russia will be a handful already – stationing air on the coast of the channel will make it that much harder imo.
RE: G40 Allies Help
Dear Fellow Players:
5-Americans make a landing in Norway or France; little effect on game. Germans reinforce Paris if necessary with 10 inf or 10 arty. Push towards Moscow.
Something crossed my mind reading your chronology. Just want to make sure that you are aware that major ICs get downgraded to minor ICs when captured, and so the french major IC in France s/b converted to a minor IC once it is taken by Germany. If Germany is incorrectly/illegally plopping 10 units in France on G5, that opens up 21-28 IPCs on G4 that could be used against Russia - a couple of bombers at least. If Germany wants to reinforce Paris with 10 inf/art, some of it would have to purchased on G4 in order to have that quantity in Paris on G5, and this might impact Russia’s success defending against Germany.
RE: Rule Question on Amphibious Assaults
I have a couple of questions I cant seem to find direct answers to.
2. This one goes with #1 if the Transports attempt and Amphibious Assaults alone can Fighters scramble to attack them before the Amphibious Assaults happens?
The simple answer is yes, they can. I thought I had seen at some point a rule that said that this situation could not take place, but in reading the rules and the FAQ just now, I can’t find it.
I was trying to think of a scenario in which this would make sense, and the only one I can think of is where the attacker has an interest in diverting a defending air unit away from another battle that the fighter could otherwise participate in, for instance, a strategic bombing raid, or a sea battle, or even a land battle in that same territory where the odds are increased in favour of the attacker if the defending air unit does not participate.
Regarding Wittmann’s assertion that the defending transport could retreat if the defender does not score a hit with an air unit, I was initially skeptical but he’s right. This is addressed in the rules:
- Attacking transports are not usually considered defenseless, since they generally have the option of retreating. If they can’t retreat, they are treated the same as defending transports.
In your question, there is no reason why the transport can’t retreat, so it isn’t considered defenseless (ie. automatically destroyed). I suppose you could have an odd scenario where an attacking transport could begin its move in the same SZ it tries to unload in, survives a round of combat, retreats, and remains in the same SZ.
RE: Naval Movement from a Newly Hostile Sea Zone
That must be a bug.
From the Europe 2nd ed. rules:
Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones
At the beginning of the Combat Move phase, you might already have sea units (and air units on carriers) in spaces containing enemy units that were there at the start of your turn. For example, an enemy might have built new surface warships in a sea zone where you have sea units. When your turn comes around again, you are sharing that sea zone with enemy forces.
If you are sharing a sea zone with surface warships (not submarines and/or transports) belonging to a power with which you are at war, this situation requires you to do one of the following:
• Remain in the sea zone and conduct combat,
• Leave the sea zone, load units if desired, and conduct combat elsewhere,
• Leave the sea zone, load units, and return to the same sea zone to conduct combat (you can’t load units while in a hostile sea zone), or
• Leave the sea zone and conduct no combat.
Once these sea units have moved and/or participated in combat, they can’t move or participate in the Noncombat Move phase of the turn.
RE: Tank Blitzing?
Any single piece, on land or sea, blocks all land or sea combat movement in the way you contemplate. The only exception is air flying over it.
this is mostly true but there are a few exceptions:
as he says, all planes can fly over anything except neutrals that aren’t violated yet.
boats can ignore transports and subs and move right through them or end movement in the same sea zone as them. one restriction is that transports can’t load or unload in a sea zone with a a sub unless there is a surface warship along with it.
subs can ignore (move through) all ships except destroyers. they can also end their movement in sea zones containing any ships on non-combat.
I think those are the only exceptions for units blocking movement or being able to move through territories. If I forgot anything, one of the better players than me will notice it
RE: Turn one attacks that must not fail
I’ve been pondering the turn one attacks that absolutely cannot fail – i.e., if these attacks fail you should concede and start a new game. This is my list so far:
1. G1 Paris attack – yes, you can let Italy mop up, but it changes the whole dynamic of the game. Germany has lost a lot of resources and is deprive the Paris income. At best you now have to give Italy a large role in the attack on Russia which gives you a severe disadvantage because you now have to use an Italian sacrificial attack to soften up Moscow and then two-punch with Germany, and at worse you’ve lost the game.
2. G1 sea zone 110 attack – in this case, absolute success means destroying the fleet with no aircraft lost. If you leave ships alive or lose multiple aircraft, it changes the whole dynamic of the game. Is it worth a restart though? Probably not unless you lost three or more aircraft and left ships alive.
3. J1 attack on Yunnan – if your J1 attack on Yunnan fails, is it a total catastrophe? My opinion is yes. This rises to the level of “Japan will never be able to win” in my opinion.
4. C1 attack on Yunnan – if you lose this attack, India will fail on J3 with absolute certainty barring insanely fluky die rolls (by “insanely fluky” I mean “you get 12 antiaircraft hits when Japan goes in and Japan misses its entire first round of attacks”). Losing this attack is an utter disaster for the Allies.
5. UK1 sea zone 96 battle – this is so bad that when my opponents fail I ask them if they want to continue the game. The whole dynamic in the Med changes. The UK really cannot hold Egypt and secure the Middle East if this attack fails.
I’d been thinking about this too. in my experience, France needs to fall by by I1, not necessarily in G1. And I agree on the J1 & C1 attacks on Yunnan. But the others aren’t gamebreakers.
I also want to highlight a danger with looking at battles this way. If some battles become established win-or-startover battles, players might start to cut corners on those attacks, knowing that they’ll just restart the game if they fail. That’s risky to me. Yes, France is designed to fall G1, but you still have to take in enough to win it. If Germany tries to spread itself thin by attacking too many territories, the player should have to live with those consequences, just as the opponent would have to live with them if the gambit pays off.
RE: Europe 40 or Pacific 40?
I voted Pacific, only because you said which should you buy FIRST, which I assume means you
will eventually buy both I started on Pacific and love the naval aspect to it.
But if I were you, I would get both if you can find them. I have both and even though I mostly play TripleA, I’m glad I have a hard copy of each.
RE: How can we add simple Vichy rules to Europe and/or Global 1940 2nd Edition?
Generally speaking, the evolution of A&A has been to make it more, not less, complicated. I’m all for this as I think it adds things to the game that people want. There’s a reason none of us are still playing 1984 MB rules. And if you look at house rules, a lot of the evolution can be traced to people experimenting with new ideas and seeing how they fit – Italy and China as separate players, dogfights, 2 hit battleships.
So in principle, I’m in favour of a Vichy France as long as it doesn’t tilt the balance too much, though I’m not sure how this could be achieved. Free french units can already prove useful in Africa and sometimes in the Indian Ocean without needing any help. So even though I’m not sure how it could be done, but my vote is behind anyone trying to come up with a good compromise that adds realism without bloating the game.
RE: My 1st Top 10 list
I’d like to see the declarations of war somehow fit into this with the most common errors pointed out. It could really just be an if/then explanation to highlight some of the most common misconceptions (the effects of Japan DOWs, restrictions on allies in the absence of DOWs). eg in a recent game, I didn’t realize that Washington could declare war if London fell. oops!
RE: We will fight on the beaches…
I’ll get my two cents in before the really good players give their thoughts:
is UK vulnerable to a G2 sealion if you don’t buy anything on UK1? Particularly if a lot of the Luftwaffe survives.
if I’m Germany and I see UK buy 10 tanks, I’m ok with that. It will take you a long time to make use of them for anything other than defending against Sealion. Might it not be better to buy 4 ftrs and 6 inf? Still 10 units, 28 defensive pips vs 30 for the 10 tanks, but if Germany turns to Russia, those 4 ftrs will be a lot more valuable than just tanks.
In the successful sealion scenarios I’ve seen, I lay the blame at the feet of Russia. Russia fails to apply enough pressure against Germany. If I sense sealion, I like Russia to move their inf and art to threaten Poland and/or Slovakia, and stacking mech and tanks and planes in St. petersburg that can threaten both Poland and Finland. I’ve won a few games pounding Scandinavia against an unprepared German player – it’s worth 11 to USSR, and denies 10 to Germany. Russia can really help the allies out by making Germany worry. A successful sealion is usually pyrrhic, and leaves Germany vulnerable to Russia. Finland and Poland either fall, get pounded, or are lightly defended. Or, germany changes their plan, but now relatively unprepared to invade Russia, leaving them vulnerable. Put simply, if you sense sealion, get all aggressive with Russia.
Anyways, every strategy is best when it’s tried out in a game! Good luck!
RE: What is my friend going to do…
I can’t guess exactly what he is going to do, but as others have alluded to, the reality is that you’ll have a good idea by the time he makes his 3rd turn purchases.
Japan’s ability to strike anywhere in a surprise way is usually linked to a huge naval build-up next to a harbour. So watch out for that.
Another possibility is some kind of invasion of the mid-east through Turkey, which might be paired with attacks on other neutrals. The “neutral strategy” generally only works if it’s by surprise, so he might be trying that. Look out for a strong build-up after turn 3 near neutrals.
And if it hasn’t been said yet, be sure to come back and tell us what your friend does!
RE: 7 player global game
The split is less confusing because they are different coloured units with their own nation and turn sequence, so it’s the same as ANZAC infantry in Egypt with UK pieces.
Lol. I do own physical copies of each game but you can tell how often I’ve played them
RE: Can neutral USA go to Greenland?
Why not build a naval base in Greenland then? get some men into uk fast in case of sealion, especially if a J1 happens?
I assume you mean if a J1 DOW happens, but in that case the US isn’t restricted to staying at East US, and I’d argue that stationing at East Canada makes a ton more sense than Greenland.
RE: 7 player global game
If you have players that want to have a Yalta conference before every Russia turn or US/China/UK turns, then that’s one consideration. Put another way, if the US player is going to want to know exactly what China, UK and Anzac will do before it does anything, this could slow gameplay down.
IMO, the game slows down the most between Japan and US, since Japan has so many options and US can’t know what to do and how to split its builds until it sees what Japan does. But while US contemplates, all the rest of the players can be considering their next moves.
So basically I agree with YG except that I think China can be split off from UK Pac just so UK pac can be thinking about its builds after Japan moves, rather than having to plan China. Russia and China can benefit from a bit of coordination, and if the axis are slow to invade, the Russian player is in the thick of the game quicker.
Player 1: Germany
Player 2: Japan
Player 3: Italy
Player 4: Soviet Union / China
Player 5: United States
Player 6: UK Europe / France
Player 7: UK Pacific / ANZAC
Just a question though, since I have never actually played this: when UK is split, could there be a conflict if UK med boats move to the Indian Ocean? Who would control them? Or sending fighters from Africa to India, or vice versa? The split sounds good in theory but does it work in practice?
RE: Do you take Southern France as Germany or Italy?
There was one game where I had a damaged Italian BB at S. France and it was German owned. The UK player sbr’ed the harbour, preventing me from repairing my BB and using the harbour to move from there to Egypt SZ. So that might another downside to taking it with Germany, along with the weakened attack on France and the fact that the French med fleet can convoy damage your PUs, unlike with Normandy where you’re guaranteed the 2 PUs.
Generally speaking though, I also don’t like diverting Italian ground forces to take S. France, so I almost always launch an attack against it on G1. Once I retreated after killing one unit and then moved in and inf and art to take it with Italy. But in general, I take it with Germany and keep it. Having the option to build german boats in the med is always good.
RE: Custom Rule Book
I guess if WOC had plans to do a 1940 Global rulebook, and then I made one and shared it with the public… than they would likely be pissed about that. I know from a friend that asking a company like wizards for permission to share custom materials that they own, is a great way to hear the word NO. Anyway, if I were to do something like this, it would be after I take my InDesign class in December.
I’m not a lawyer but I work with the law a lot, so I’ll throw in my two cents not in terms of legal opinions but as a practical consideration where the law is concerned.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. If they planned to make a 1940 Global rulebook and sell it, then yes they would see your rulebook as a threat, and move to stop you. But the chances of them doing that are virtually zero. Making the rulebook would take a lot of time, and the likelihood of them achieving a significant enough return on investment is also zero. So there’s no incentive for them to make it. That addresses whether they would want to make it, which is different from whether they would want it done at all. My guess is they would be happy for it to exist since it could only serve to increase interest in the game. BUT, from an ownership point of view, they could never officially give you permission to make it. Which is why you would get a “no” if you asked. Which only means that you shouldn’t ask.
On another front, I’d be happy to volunteer to copy-edit.
RE: Anzac IC Iraq
I have seen an ANZAC IC in Saudi Arabia, but never in Iraq or Persia.
I don’t think there’s a greater benefit to ANZAC getting into Iraq than USSR (given the 3 IPC bonus for Iraq) or even UK. I would never specifically try to put it under ANZAC’s control. But if presented with the opportunity, I can see some advantages: ANZAC going between Italy and Germany, for instance. Or can opening for UK in the mid-east or North Africa. Then again, if ANZAC units aren’t needed to contain Japan, then the war is probably going well enough for the allies for this not to matter as much.
RE: Should China spend its money?
the one way I think this might be advantage is to help solidify a second front. China could save its money (not necessarily all) and if Russia ever gets into Manchuria, build the chinese infantry there. I’m not sure it’s worth it, but it is an interesting idea.
RE: German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter
I’m playing against a German bomber strategy for the first time. What I’m finding to be the most significant challenge is their range. 7 spaces let’s them hit the west Gibraltar SZ from France or West Germany, while simultaneously threatening Russian stacks on the eastern front. I’m finding that really hard to defend against. So I had a couple of ideas (assuming the intent is to restore balance – I’m not necessarily in favour of either of these rules in principle, but for the purpose of play-balance, they might make sense.) They are influenced by my observations in early games that saw Germany have a tougher time once they commit fighters and tac to the eastern front and they aren’t available to threaten atlantic shipping. As well, the combined price reduction and increased movement have increased the lethality of bombers. Apologies as well if these were already mentioned but the search function wouldn’t work for me so i couldn’t see if these ideas have already been raised.
My first suggestion is a fairly simple one: to remove the airbase movement advantage from strat bombers. This would maintain their range just enough that they can’t threaten Moscow and gibraltar and everywhere in between West Germany. They could still operate out of Germany and protect the coast of Europe, or Russia, but it would open up some shipping lanes in the Atlantic.
If that’s seen as too extreme, or if the effect on the pacific might be deemed too undesirable, my second suggestion is to give strat bombers the extra movement point if there is an an airbase at takeoff AND landing. In the pacific, there are so many airbases on islands, Australia, and Japan oftens by an airbase for SE Asia to increase fighter and tac range, so this might not affect the pacific as much as the European theatre.
Just some food for thought.
RE: A question about rules on strafing and AA guns
Just to get this straight (I’m a bit confused now):
Since AAGuns fit into the same category as TRS, apparently, I’ve taken a closer look into those rules (defenseless transports). Remaining TRS are simply removed all at once.
The rules are easily interpretated that this is not mandatory, but rather a means ‘to speed up combat’. I.e. as the attacker, I can imagine that sometimes you do not want to ‘speed up combat’ and roll a couple of times against the TRS, in order to ‘keep the right to retreat’ (into a safer SZ).
From my understanding, transports are defenseless and removed once they are no longer protected. The exception would be in a battle where subs + other naval or sea units are in sea combat, and only transports and air remain on the defender side. Assuming only the sub hits in any given round of combat, the sub hits would have to apply to the transports, but common sense would suggest that a single hit by a single sub would only kill a single transport, and not all of them at once. Unless they would all die at once?
Last but not least: the rules clearly state that when an area containing only AAA units is attacked, the AAA units are automatically destroyed and the combat is concluded. In the OP’s example however, the territory did not contain only AAA units so combat was entered. Doesn’t this entitle the attacker the option to (combat sequence step 6) press the attack (in which case all remaining AAA will be destroyed at once) or retreat (in which case the remaining AAA will survive)?
This is the crux of the question. To what extent are the AAA involved in combat given that they fire at attackers? By my reading of the rules, they fire before general combat, not in it, and while they can be taken as a casualty, because they don’t fire, they don’t technically take part in the battle and so need to be defended by a unit or they are automatically destroyed.