Posts made by Pelanderfunk

I created a Macro-enabled worksheet to help with the banking in AA Global, Alpha +2. It keeps track of income, bonus and banks for each of the 9 countries (with separate banks for UK), and has a handy purchase calculator for tracking your buys. I’ve recently added an archive sheet, so you have a visual representation of the economies.

Installation:

You’ll need Excel 2007 (maybe 2003 will work, I’m not sure) to use this spreadsheet – make sure to enable macros.

1. Download the spreadsheet.
2. Rename the extension from .xls to .xlsm (I had to change it to upload it to this forum).
3. Open the renamed spreadsheet.

AAG40_Bank_Alpha2.xls
Instructions.doc

• Buy mobile ground units (I prefer mechs only)

• Take France and Normandy with all available ground and enough aircraft to ensure as little tank losses as possible (and no airplane losses).

• Use remaining airforce, navy and subs to sink as much of the fleet around the British Isles as possible (use subs against the non-destroyer stacks when possible)

• Move infantry and artillary from southern germany and at least one of the Romanian infantry into Yugo and retreat after first round of combat to Romania

• Land 2 of the France attack planes in Italy to protect italian fleet.

• Take Finland and Bulgaria.

This strategy neutralizes the immediate UK threat while setting you up for a G2 Barbarossa. Also, even without the additional German navy/transports, the UK player will need to spend some of their income to stop Sealion – the last time I used this strategy, the UK player saw my Barbarossa tell, went full into Africa on UK1, trusting on a lone surviving cruiser to stop Sealion. On I1, I flew my Italian airforce up and sunk the crusier, and I was able to take London G2 with a single loaded transport, battleship support and the remaining German airforce.

Low Luck works in favor of the Allies – at least in the early game.

The Axis start with the more mobile army, giving them more flexibility in the early game. Flexible units enables a flexible strategy – if one of your battles goes sour, you can pull your reinforcing tanks back to attack another front; if you roll better than expected for a battle, maybe you want to pour into the gap using units you were saving for another battle. This flexibility and unpredictablilty is one of the best tools the Axis have in the first few rounds (and given the number of “Alpha 2 is unbalanced for the Allies” posts, one of the least appreciated).

Low Luck takes all of that unpredictablity away. I couldn’t imagine trying to conquer Russia as Germany if the Russians could see exactly what they needed to keep in each territory to perfectly defend. In my regular games, sometimes I win those close battles and sometimes I lose, but my advantage comes from my ability to react to the randomness, not from “getting lucky”.

There is an additional effect on game play balance, because Low Luck favors one type of player over the other. The players who spend hours staring at the intial set-up, hatching the perfect plan of attack or defense love Low Luck, because with the exception of some small battles, there’s no chance that the dice will derail their plans. The players who are skilled at quickly adjusting their strategy to the changing battlefield (i.e., the players that always seem to find a way to attack that one weak spot you thought was out of harm’s way) find the usefulness of their skills diminished. When the game goes as predicted, there’s less chance to find the hidden opportunities that seem to pepper regular games.

Low Luck basically turns Axis and Allies from a messy war simulator into a complicated game of chess. Whether or not that’s what you’re looking for, keep in mind that it takes away an advantage for both the Axis and players who are skilled at making quick adjustments to strategy in an unpredictable environment.

China wasn’t producing its own combat aircraft until the mid-50’s.

Remember that in the Alpha +2 rules, West India income goes to India and Western Canada income goes to London.

In well-meaning discussions to improve this game, I’m seeing a lot of historical “facts” stated, and sometimes they’re completely inaccurate.

If you’re going to make a historical claim, please cite a source.

There has been so much written about this war that it’s ridiculous that we should be spreading misinformation.

Here’s a free State Dep. resource for pre-war conditions: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/paw/

As Japan, I like to spend the first three turns building and loading transports in preparation for my attack. I stage forces at Japan and the Carolines.  If you keep a big enough force in the Carolines ready for your first strike, you can put some pressure on Anzac to build (ultimately useless) infantry instead of a fighter or small navy. I wouldn’t recommend actually going for NSW unless it’s a slam dunk, (partly because it isn’t too hard for the US to retake and partly because it’s way out of your way), but if the Anzac player ignores your Carolines fleet, it can be very satisfying to snatch Syndey for a few rounds. If they bulk up their defense, I go for more conventional J3 targets (PH, DEI, Hawaii and the 7 NO islands). I always try to take the Solomons if I can, netting up to 15 lost IPCs a round for the allies.

When the Pacific war is in full swing, the state of the central Pacific usually depends on whether or not I was able to grab Hawaii (I’m a big fan of that move unless the US is going all out in the Pacific, in which case I just make the battles slow and ugly until Germany wins it all). If Hawaii is in my hands, I’ll usually send a small fleet down to take New Zealand, more to keep Anzac occupied than for the money. Basically, if Anzac is focused on liberating their islands, they won’t be landing fighters on recent US captures. If the US decides to help Anzac retake New Zealand, all the better. As Japan I would love it if a distraction like New Zealand occupied the navies of two of my opponents.

I also have the latest macro-enabled Excel spreadsheet available if anybody wants that. It keeps track of Income, Bonuses, and Banks and has a calculator for unit purchases. It also archives the banks at the end of each turn and creates a graph, so you can review the progress of each country in the game.

I’m a little surprised that Sealion or Romanian Major are the two “standard strategies” for Germany. I wouldn’t use either one if I really wanted to win Europe.

I’ve found that buying mechs almost exclusively for the first three turns as Germany (with a little left over for subs or whatever other little things you might need) puts too much pressure on Russia for them to handle. If they turtle to Moscow, grab their other victory cities and head for the Middle East/Caucus money. If they try to defend everything, position your full force in the middle and attack the weakest of the three cities, of just go for Moscow.

I still not seeing the unbalance in alpha +2 that you’re talking about. How exactly are the Allies beating you that you don’t see any way to counter?

Also, suggesting that the US split their income with the existing Alpha +2 victory conditions doesn’t make any sense to me.

Think about it: for a forced US income split to give an advantage to the Axis, the US had to have been winning the game by dumping all of its income into one theater, otherwise you wouldn’t need to force a split. Given the “either theater” victory conditions for the Axis in +2, this also means that the Axis, left completely alone by the US in one of the theaters, can’t get the necessary victory cities.

Really?

You’re saying that if the US goes all out in the Pacific, your Germany can’t take the necessary Russian cities? That if the US goes for a Europe only strategy, your Japan can’t become a monster?

As the Axis, you only need to win one of the boards to win the game. You’re claiming that the Axis can’t win one a board without any US involvment at all. I think you need to revisit your Axis strategy.

I feel like the Alpha +2 changes have balanced the game more than enough – these additional changes are unbalancing.

First of all, I’ve yet to see a +2 game where an Europe or Pacific-only strategy pays off for the US. If the US weren’t in the game at all, the Axis would have no trouble getting their victory cities on either side – given that victory can come from one theater for the Axis, the US has to balance their forces or they will lose the game. In fact, it takes the Allies walking a very fine line to avoid losing the victory city game in alpha +2.

Secondly, if you’re looking for a balanced game like the Anniversary, you might as well take G40 back to the store, because there is no variation of 1940 that will capture that same symetrical balance. In Anniversary, the incomes and armies become relatively even after the third round or so. Then it all comes down to tactics and rolls of the dice. Global 1940 may seem extremely unbalanced (and it certainly is in Anniversary terms), but only if you ignore the massive tactical advantage the Axis have. With every roll of the dice and every unexpected move by your opponent, you will need to adjust your strategy – the Axis can pick their battle and have the mobile forces to quickly change strategy, whereas the Allies are either stuck pumping out slow infantry walls or stuck behind oceans.

In every game of Global 1940 I’ve played, OOB or Alpha +2, the game was won or lost by the Axis. The Big Book of Allied Defense is already written – the moves you need to make are known. When the Allies win, it’s been because the Axis wasn’t aggressive enough in the beginning or they got too cocky and attempted a low-odds battle. When the Axis win, it’s because their opening moves put them in position to take on the superior income of the Allies.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that a lot of people that complained about Axis inferiority in G40 also played a lot of the earlier editions. I’ve looked through some of the Axis overall strategies for those editions, and they are way too conservative to work in the new game. I sometimes wonder if some of the Axis players aren’t able to look past their favorite strategies for the previous games.

@oztea:

My group has used what ive coined as “Less Luck” on occasion

It works much like low luck, but different slightly.

1. Calculate your low luck combat value, keep in mind the remainder
2. After you have tallied the ammount of hits you should recieve, subtract 1 from that.
3. To replace the hit that was taken away, you may roll for units thats combat power adds up to 6 (2 tanks, or 2 fighters attacking, or 2 cruisers, or a destroyer and a battleship, 6 Infantry attacking, 3 Infantry defending, etc) You must choose combat values of units you actually have to make up this missing hit. (If you only have infantry, then you can only use thier combat values)
4. You roll those attack dice, as well as your remainder.

In essance, your expected result will be very close to average all the time, but with MUCH more deviation.

*Notes:
a. Subs may exclude themselves from caluclation and roll normaly if they wish to benifit from “suprise attack”
b. AA guns do not fire with “Less Luck”
c. If ever a situation arises where your less luck value can not be broken down with unit values you actualy have in step 3. Then roll as normal luck (OOB) (This occurs in an attack with perhaps 4 Bombers, a fighter and a tactical bomber)

I think low-luck would be a perfectly fine option if 1940 Global were a symmetrically-balanced game, however given the differences in starting forces and incomes, the Axis are in a much better position to take advantage of unexpected battle outcomes than the Allies – removing unlucky roles takes away one of the largest Axis advantages.

The Axis may start the game with less forces overall and a lot less income, but the forces they do have are strong, fast and positioned to give them a lot of attacking options. Every time I’ve won as the Axis, my strategy has involved threatening more targets than the Allies can properly defend and going after the weakest link. The randomness of the dice is crucial for this strategy. If my opponent knew that the actual result of each battle wouldn’t deviate far from the expected outcome, he could leave just enough defenders get the “expected” victory. As it is, he has to compensate for the dice by leaving extra “padding” defenders around high-value territories, when one of the battles goes unexpectedly wrong, I can get my mobile attack forces there faster than he can get his plodding defense.

If you have a transport alone next to an island with an airbase and fighters, can an enemy sub get “free” kill on that transport?

@Dark_Destroyer:

Moot points kcdzim.

If Moscow falls and Japan hasn’t even attacked Russia yet… game is over anyway, regardless of the 12 IPC.  More after than not, you’re going to forget about the bonus when it gets to Russia’s turn, so it’s best to do it after you get attacked !!

No points of interest declaring war on France, the Destroyer over near Africa takes to long to get over to be a problem with the rules.

Funny you should mention this, because we just played a global game where the Allies focused entirely on Japan. Japan was all but finished, and Germany was in position to take Moscow, so Japan declared war. (We misunderstood the rules and gave Russia an immediate bonus).

Situation: Italy holds Gibralter with ground forces and a couple fighters – they have no navy. The US has a navy in the adjacent sea zone following a botched amphibious assault.

Question: If UK attempts an amphibious assault through the sea zone with the US navy, and Italy scrambles the fighters to force a sea battle, does the US navy participate in the pre-assault sea battle, or is it just the Italian fighters vs the UK navy?

@Maddog77:

One thing I know is that if I’m Japan, and Russia stacks all 18 Inf. together on R1, Japan will pounce on J1 w/ everthing it can muster. I still invade China & sever the Burma road, but w/o the Russian Inf. threatening Japan, I find it very effective for blitzing & gaining valuable Russian IPC’s and focusing on China & India on J2.

Would you still attack in alpha when it’s 18 inf + an AA?

Assuming Alpha 2+ rules…

On R1, I move all 18 and the AA to Buryatia.

R2 depends on the Japanese player’s J1 move, but if he empties Manchuria to fight the Chinese, I’ll bring the full army back to threaten Manchuria/Korea. The Japanese player does NOT want to see 15+ guys and an AA gun sitting in Korea – the distruption to his plans alone is usually worth an R3 declaration of war.

I’ve had good success as the Axis pushing for Hawaii J3. I generally don’t get too aggressive in China, spending my first two turns buying transports and aligning my forces. With large fleets at both Japan and the Carolines, the allies don’t have enough forces to properly defend all of my potential targets.

If you can get Hawaii on J3, not only do you get the NO for Japan, but you also hold the easiest entry for the US into the Pacific. It’s a little harder to defend with the new scramble rules, but I’ve found that the US has a tough time with the Pacific war if they’ve committed even a small fleet to Europe and Japan holds Hawaii.

The problem with taking a true neutral as the Axis is that you open up Spain as a landing point for American forces. This means that continental battles with the US are only transport turn away.

Secondly, USSR now has a stronger incentive to mess with Japanese affairs, because while the declaration of war gives Japan 12 IPC (alpha 2+), it also allows them to swing down into Mongolia and pick up the troops there.

Thirdly, if Scandanvia is at all threatened, Sweden becomes an attractive point of attack for the allies – pick up a few extra guys and deny a German NO.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that the Allies can pick up a small army in South America. It’s kind of removed from the fight, but send some transports down there with tanks, and you can fill up on infantry before heading to Africa.

G1 Barabossa has been my standard Axis attack – if UK get’s too cocky, you can always build a navy G2 to put them back in their place.

I generally buy only mechs for the first 3 turns. By the time UK rebuilds their navy and the US gets involved, I usually have Stalingrad or Leningrad and a boatload of formerly-Soviet income.

Russia is really only a problem when you have to face them after 3 turns of build up. If you go in early, you’ll more than make up for the loss of NOs.