@aadudecphdk1981

On Amazon UK, I was able to find the game sealed and shrink wrapped for only 130 pounds! This is compared to the normal (rounded up) 500 US dollar price on Ebay-I was able to ship it to a friend’s house in Scotland and from there sent to my place. Unfortunately that was the last copy, so I can’t help anyone else with this-still, keep looking and you should be able to find it eventually! It took me a long time, but I was able to find it!

@witt

I believe that they could have captured Tripoli-however, if Germany launched an all out Mediterranean campaign instead of Barbarossa, Germany would have been able to regain the initiative due to possibly an entire Panzer Army being sent to Libya, or if not possible, Tunisia (historically, Germany made quite good negotiations with Vichy France to get them to join the war on the Axis side, which only stopped after the failure of talks with Spain), crossing the Mareth Line. In the end, Germany would have won especially as they would not have needed to invade Crete (if the British did not move troops to Greece, they wouldn’t garrison men off Crete), allowing for an assault on Malta, and Hitler, summoning all of his “diplomatic strength”, would convince Franco to invade Gibraltar. In the end, the Suez would have fallen. And if the Panzer Army couldn’t reach Cairo, Hitler would also have been able to convince Turkey to join the Axis, or invade Cyprus, which either way, would allow Germany to move into Syria and Iraq, driving from the east to the Suez.

I’m so happy. I voted Stalingrad, but still we are getting a new Axis and Allies game. I’m sure Larry Harris passed the torch well. I hope that this community will like this game, and it won’t be controversial.

@kaleu

This is all true.

Firstly, it’s possible that Hitler could have restrained himself for the moment and go against the Mediterranean, a decision support by Raeder and Goring.

Secondly, the main reason Franco was so toxic was that before Hitler’s meeting with Franco, he sent Wilhelm Canaris, a secret member of the German resistance movement, to negotiate with Franco, and Canaris said that he though that Germany was going to lose the war and Hitler was planning to move to the east (it’s said that Hitler was actually going back and forth between the Mediterranean and the Soviet Union). If Hitler really committed to it, he would have been more forceful, and Franco would have relented, especially if the Battle Of Britain had not concluded yet. If Vichy France entered the war, Hitler might have been able to mediate between it, Italy, and Spain about North Africa.

Finally, a similar situation could have appeared with Turkey, where if Hitler really did everything possible to convince them, it might have worked out. If it didn’t, Germany could use their paratroopers (as they would not be beaten up at Crete, due to the British heading for Tripoli) to possibly take Cyprus, depending on the result of an airborne invasion of Malta. Due to no British intervention in Greece, there would have been no disaster at Cape Matapan, and Italy’s navy, along with a Luftwaffe not burdened with commitments on the Eastern Front, could have swept the waters around Cyprus (as likely as not), and launch an amphibious invasion if paratroopers alone can’t cut it. If Cyprus is taken, a leap into Vichy French Syria would be in order. From there, Germany can launch a massive offensive against the Suez Canal, which Britain cannot hold with an attack on two fronts. Additionally, Germany will have support from Iraq, which won’t be destroyed with direct aid from Germany and Italy.

@captainwalker

Today where I live is the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Rimini, a town on the Adriatic coast of Italy. Its liberation was part of the broader Operation Olive, an attempt by the Allies to break through the Axis-held Gothic Line in Northern Italy. While they experienced multiple tactical victories, the Germans were able to hold out long enough to prevent a decisive breakthrough until winter came. It would not be until 1945 that the Allies would break through the Gothic Line and liberate the rest of Italy.

Rimini was actually liberated by a Greek unit fighting with the British, one major highlight in the Greek military history of the war following the country’s fall in 1941.

@Krameleon

Welcome!

One thing to keep in mind is that the Axis only need to win on one side of the board.

This means, that if a Japanese strategy is good enough, even if Germany gets their butt kicked the Axis might still be able to win if Germany buys enough time for Japan to win.

It’s still risky, of course, as an increase in IPCs on the Europe board can translate to an increase in units in the Pacific, but it’s an option and a far more viable one than the equal version for the Allies.

Personally I’m not a fan of J1 or G1, but that is more out of principle than practicality.

I found this cool J1 video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRi3aIsj8P8

Important note about this video:

There are some astericks in the video, and it is not explained what they mean. I have gotten information from the maker of the video what they are, however.

The only thing that can/will stop this J1 attack is if the Soviets stacked all 18 infantry in Amur.

In that case, both I and the maker of the video strongly advise not to do this strategy (I learned this the hard way, trust me, it’s painful to watch). I recommend, if the Soviets declared war, to attack that stack. Air units, landing back, can defend Jehol and Manchuria from the Mongolians.

@nolimit

I also have an idea for another Soviet national objective:

5 IPCs if the Soviet Union controls 6 Chinese territories. Theme: aid to the Chinese communists and establishment of a Communist Chinese government.

Have you ever heard of the book called If The Allies Had Fallen? It examines many what ifs of World War 2, with all of them very grounded in reality. A lot of the chapters are written very differently, from basically scholarly analysis to what the history books would have said had the timeline changed in the way described. If you had read the book, what do you think? Thank you!

@Imperious-Leader

In Global 1940 it’s used to fly 4-space aircraft directly from Persia to Moscow. So unlike other games (like 1914 where it, ironically does get a number), it’s actually serves an important purpose in Global 1940.

@nolimit

Oops, sorry! My mistake…

The reason I hoped to do 15 victory cities is that the Axis will have to build up a big navy, instead of just doing an all continental assault, perhaps we can make it a 13 victory cities required win, as that will require at least an Operation Sealion which, without a Japanese navy to worry about, the Americans and British can completely focus on the Atlantic, which will lead to epic naval battles.

I think you should make so if China has all it’s territories captured, and the Allies control Africa (excluding strict neutrals), that combined, should be a substitute for capturing an Axis capital-it still won’t be an easy fight.

Another insane idea that I have for you is to have the US join the Axis-how you will balance this is your choice (also, please tell me how many rounds it will take for the Axis to win with only the US with the Axis).

@SuperbattleshipYamato

June 22, 2025, marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Okinawa. It was the final major land battle for the Western Allies during the war, and saw huge amounts of kamikazes used against Allied ships, the destruction of the Yamato, and huge amounts of casualties on both sides.

The large island would’ve been a crucial staging point for the planned Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands.

@tmartin

Nice find! Thanks for letting me know about this game.

@Lancasterlaw1175

I think your hypothesis is broadly correct.

But I think on a technical and logistical level (not sure about political), it seems to me that it was perfectly possible for the French to mobilize and brings the guns to the front much earlier, before September. This would’ve allowed them to begin attacking almost immediately and shatter the German lines. In retrospect, the French should be at fault for not mobilizing (and preventing the Poles from doing so).

The vast majority of Army Group C divisions were undersized (or even just command headquarters), while only about half of the French ones were deficient in some way (Nafziger’s book also lists the condition of French divisions in September-October 193o).

I got the book online here:

https://www.amazon.com/French-Order-Battle-World-1939-1945/dp/1585450189

@Imperious-Leader

In Global 1940 it’s used to fly 4-space aircraft directly from Persia to Moscow. So unlike other games (like 1914 where it, ironically does get a number), it’s actually serves an important purpose in Global 1940.

@The-Janus

1 reason why I, at least, usually avoid 109 on turn 1 is that the fighters in both London and Scotland can scramble. So you could end up committing a ton of units to take down a single destroyer and transport. Better for the Germans to take on the tougher ships before they consolidate and become invincible.

@zooooma

It’s easier to capture Spain than Morroco or Gibraltar, as the last 2 would usually require naval landings while Spain can be done overland.

And West Germany and Paris have air bases, so fighters and tactical bombers can hit sea zone 91.

@Krieghund

Yeah, I was confused about Imperious Leader’s comment. Thanks for clarifying!

@AndrewAAGamer

Thanks for the advice!

This should be part of your principles thread.

@Tamer-of-Beasts

I think it’s generallly a good idea to have cruisers and battleships be too expensive to reflect the real-life cost of building them.

I the name of historical accuracy, I think to simulate the battleships and cruisers already begun before the war, certain nations (mainly the UK and US) can buy 1 battleship and 2-3 cruisers 25% off.

The main trouble with this is that some will also want carriers to be included in this.

I think the anti-aircraft capability to cruisers and battleships doesn’t really make sense for the reasons you describe. I feel that the regular combat capabilities the ships have already reflect their anti-aircraft weaponry, and “[planes] wait[ing] until optimal range to release bombs/torpedoes, while the ships had been firing all throughout the approach” is too small and too tactical for an this game. In Global 1940, I feel one battle could actually be a series of battles (for example, the entire Solomon Islands campaign, despite being composed of dozens of seperate engagements by destroyers and cruisers, would likely simply be represented by some Japanese infantry and ships capturing the territory in 1 turn, then American forces destroying those units and liberating the Islands the next turn).

@The-Janus

This is what AndrewAAGamer, one of the best Global 1940 players, said about the Taranto Raid (I think it mostly applies to Europe 1940 as well):

@AndrewAAGamer said in Let's talk the Taranto raid.:

I used to be a big proponent of the Taranto raid, but I am leaning against it recently as I’ve had two games where the German didn’t lose any planes on the counter attack, which was a disaster for the allies. Probably better to do Gibastion as you don’t have to worry that the dice will screw you.

(https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41082/let-s-talk-the-taranto-raid/2)

Here’s what he said about strict neutrals (while this is about Global 1940, 90% of strict neutrals are located on the Europe map, so it mostly applies):

@AndrewAAGamer said in Violate a true neutrals?:

Both sides should be consistently paying careful attention to “Should I go for the Neutrals?” as the game progresses. Looking for the key indicators that show the Player that “Yes, now is the time to attack the Neutrals.”

Typically, there are three reasons to go for the Neutrals:

Axis #1: The Allies have left their SZ91 fleet exposed if the Neutrals are attacked by Italy, specifically Spain, and that allows the Germans to annihilate a large Allied fleet on the cheap.
Allies #1: The game has come to a standstill and neither side may improve their position as the board is deadlocked. By accepting a short-term disadvantage, the Allies will gain a long-term advantage that may swing the game in the Allied favor.
Allies #2: As you mentioned, the Allies are not making sufficient progress in landings on the European coast so they revert to the simpler strategy of landing in Spain.
Normally, it is the Allies who are attacking the Neutrals and typically they will set up such an attack by being prepared to hit Spain (USA), Portugal (USA), Venezuela (USA), Saudi Arabia (UK) and Turkey (UK) all on the same Turn. In later Turns Chile plus Argentina (USA) and Angola plus Mozambique (UK) are taken. Typically, killing these 28 infantries results in about 11-13 Allied losses or about $36 worth of troops.

The gain in income for the Allies is $15 a Turn. The Axis will usually gain 8 infantries from Switzerland and Sweden, or $24 worth of troops, and $3 a Turn in income from Sweden. That means the total initial loss for the Allies is 60 TUV. (36 troops killed plus 24 infantries gained Axis). Compare this to the $12 swing in income and you can see it take about 5 Turns for the Allies to recoup their initial losses and start making gains from their strategic decision.

As long as the Allies can last those 5 Turns then making the attack makes sense.

BTW, you will notice I did not include Afghanistan as usually the Axis are not able to gain those 4 troops because either they can never liberate them or the Allies kill them at a loss of usually 1 ground unit.

So to specifically answer your question… YES it makes sense depending on the circumstances.

(https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41838/violate-a-true-neutrals/2)