@crockett36 In this post I liked your emphasis on waging economic war on an opponent. You listed these objectives: Taking possession of territory (cash value of these), SB factories and convoys. I was thinking to add denying the achievement of national objectives to your opponent when possible. New players often miss this.
Best posts made by GuamSolo
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
-
RE: G40 rules for "away from table" gaming (in an office etc.)
@Rauno-Kinkar Here is a link that shows kamikazi and casualty selection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2bx4Px7j8
-
RE: Guam Solo & Son
Haha! I guess allies stick together–thicker than even blood?
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@Argothair Of the 4 most plausible targets you list, do you think the US can realistically drive for two of them at once? In particular, drive for one objective each on both sides of the map?
-
RE: Cool Axis & Allies (80s Laser edition)
With that cover art it looks like the new unit added to the game could be a Tron light cycle!
-
RE: Guam Solo vs crockett36 G40.2 oob
@GuamSolo I think General Patton said that btw…
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36
Eventually - when time permits of course - I think it would be great to see you sitting in front of the map and summarize it all while walking people through the board. But I don’t say that to take away from any of the work you’ve done. Blessings! -
RE: G40 Historial v1.1
@Valladares I like your idea about Spain being pro axis and how you can collect, or lose, 1 IPC from the bank. We may try that one.
-
RE: Guam Solo & Son
I can’t believe you hit another bomber on an SBR!! Que @crockett36 to poor salt in my wounds too!
-
RE: G40 Historial v1.1
@Valladares I just read the history of Corsica and WW2. Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.
-
RE: Guam Solo vs crockett36 G40.2 oob
Game is back over to you. I’ll try and be faster since you have more time recovering at home.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@M36 On UK1 I took out the Italian ships in SZ96 next to Malta with one destroyer and a fighter. With that SZ cleared of enemy ships I moved the remaining UK fleet in the Med to SZ93 where they merged with the French cruiser and destroyer. I then landed 2 fighters on the carrier that combined with the French ships in SZ93. The tactical fighter that starts on the carrier was sent to Ethiopia to take out the Italians there.
London fighters were lost in scrambled defense of UK fleets and the Med fleet was lost when the Italians hit SZ93. The issue in that battle became order of casualties because a hit to the carrier meant the planes would have nowhere to land if the Italians only fought for one round. Which they could do and then leave the remaining ships for the Germans.
-
RE: [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.
@SS-GEN said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:
These ain’t bad ideas here but 95% of G40 oob players aren’t going to want to add more ships to game.
I guess I’m in the 5% - :relaxed: I can blame HBG for that! My son and I, who lead our play group here in Guam, really like having a diversity of units.
-
RE: Guam Solo vs crockett36 G40.2 oob
In the middle of my work day. I’ll get to my turns later tonight. My evenings have been consumed with a lot of counseling these past two weeks and that explains my delay in getting to turns. I do 2x the amount of counseling here in the paradise of Guam than I did in Los Angeles, but that may be due to the fact that so many in California have their own personal therapists.:grin:
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@weddingsinger Good notes for this thread. I have tried to use the UK Middle East IC to mostly roll mech up to Russia and spread a few fighters in. 3 Fighters a turn would eat up most of UK’s money - do you not spend on anything else? For example, some type of transport threat to get at Germany (or nibble as Crockett puts it).
Also, has anyone tried using the ANZACS in the Middle East? @siredblood has a video on his webpage called the ANZAC Express where he uses a British transport to move an ANZAC infantry from Egypt to Persia in two turns. They build a minor IC and then shoot mechs, or even a fighter or two up to Moscow. I tried this in my last game. It was going to help, but the game ended too early as I’ve detailed in earlier posts on this thread. Japan wasn’t positioned to threaten Sydney which helped. I built ANZAC infantry only for defense in Australia while funneling cash to the minor IC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcC2A1oevLE&list=PLUfMZorDuTU6p_D1UondElpCedG5377Q7&index=7
-
RE: [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.
@SS-GEN said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:
If you want more action in the Pacific you need to make the Islands more
juicy. I have 3 island group NOs and some islands worth more money. Also Barney in another post on this subject
has a 3 Island Group NO worth 3 icps and any captured Island receive a 2 icp bonus plus territory value 1 Icp = 6 Icps.Here’s our house rules for going after islands:
The Battle For Pacific Islands – To create incentive to recreate the fight for the many different islands of the Pacific there is a bonus for the first time capture or recapture of the following islands that increases for each successful win and the immediate placement of units to be permanently garrisoned there. Any capture or recapture progresses the bonuses for the nation. The islands that qualify for this are: Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Palau, Marshall, Caroline, Philippine, Guam, Wake, Midway, and Aleutian Islands. A nation may only receive one bonus a turn and must choose only one island to place bonus units if there have been multiple islands captured in a single turn. The progressive bonuses are:
1st island victory - $5 + the placement of 1 coastal/naval gun for defense, and an airfield
2nd island victory - $7 + 1 naval gun, 1 infantry, an airfield (if there isn’t one)
3rd island victory - $9 + 1 naval gun, 1 infantry, 1 AA, airfield
4th island victory - $10 + 1 naval gun, 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, airfield
5th island victory - $12 + 1 naval gun, 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 AA gun, airfield
Also, airfields and coastal/naval guns are added units in this expansion. Airfields are different than Airbases. Airfields allow you to land 1 plane in noncombat phase after winning the battle, and they negate the 2 movements it takes to get “off” and back “on” the island. They don’t give any +1 movement to aircraft. The idea behind this is that the island is a threat to enemy ships passing by and are left in sea zones after their turn and they are close enough to be attacked by aircraft from the island airfield. Coastal guns can fire at ships in an amphibious assault, but also go on a battle board for defense in combat rounds. Coastal Gun - 0-3-0-5 unit that is permanently garrisoned on islands. Gun functions like artillery in combat for defense, but it also may fire at landing craft or ships being used in the invasion using the mechanics of AA guns (attacker chooses casualties). This happens before combat begins.
I always enjoy seeing what other people’s house rules are - so that is why I am posting this here. It is a work in progress and maybe someone can point out some deficiencies in this. The Cruiser rules I posted above work in conjunction with this rule.
-
RE: Guam Solo vs crockett36 G40.2 oob
Hey Crockett, I hope you are doing well with your family and your sister’s funeral. I know this game isn’t as important as that. I finished Japan’s turn 6. I logged in wrong so I had to save it and post it here.
triplea_34201_Japan6.tsvg -
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@Argothair Good thoughts. I think that is a good approach.
-
RE: [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.
@SS-GEN Thanks for crunching the numbers and for feedback. We are going to play a game and test it in two weeks. Just don’t have time to do it before that. I appreciate the thought about not giving the LCT the ability to move a transport with it +1. I’ll probably change that and just allow the LCT to carry 2 elites. The +1 to transports was the one rule I didn’t like (LOL) but we were trying to create a mechanic for smaller, faster groups of ships to forage outward and do some damage.
I read that heavier cruisers made longer runs without capital ships but leading groups of destroyers in the Pacific theater. The could be bullies in battles where they were the biggest ship, but if they came up against a battleship they didn’t fare as well. That is the thinking behind giving a +1 on attack and defense to the HC when engaging enemy ships where no battleship is against them. As a player I’d buy them and send them out with transports to conquer.
We also have a light carrier that we give 3 movements to so they can bring one fighter on the voyage with these cruiser/destroyer groups. I read that light carriers were faster than escort carriers and had the ability to participate in fleet operations with better range whereas the slower escort carriers protected convoys or joined up to lend support to amphibious landings.