@DoManMacgee All America has to do is spend 25% or less to divert such an attack from Honolulu or Sydney while Japan tries to catch up economically to the US while taking out Calcutta, China, Money Islands, etc.

Yes, America going 100% KGF leaves that option open for Japan but that’s not even a realistic strategy. America would likely spend at least some money in the Pacific. As well, America can spend very heavily in the Atlantic for a few turns and shuttle transports back and forth to the Eastern US, spending less than half its money on re-stocking those transports to go back to Germany/Africa/Italy.

Once America has established complete domination over the Atlantic (thereby allowing the UK to build a navy once again) it can spend the majority of its money on the Pacific, nullifying a Pacific victory by Japan.

@DoManMacgee If Japan kills Calcutta and/or the Phillipines and Money islands as soon as possible than that is a J1 Attack, which will bring America into the war on turn one thereby your first point about Germany is likely to fail because America is going to use all that money to go full KGF.

…in that event, I would say the game is very balanced, if not slightly skewed to the Allies because Italy will not be able to Can-open for Germany if it is left to fend for itself against America coming in with a loaded navy AND after a Taranto/Tobruk raid by the UK…

Germany will have to divert (at a minimum) 1/3 of its IPCs to creating an Atlantic wall, which means Russia and the allies have the odds on Germany simply as a basis of time and space. Germany CANNOT take Moscow if America is in the war on its first turn and decides to spend the bulk of its IPCs on securing Africa, taking out Italy, and then Europe…

@ampdrive Good point.

@simon33 Yes, but if UK builds nothing but naval units and forces Germany into an un-winnable naval battle (along with 3 scrambled fighters) then Sealion is impossible.

@Panther Thanks for the quick rule clarification. It seems that the most effective block against Sealion for the UK would be to build 1 or 2 surface ships in the likely invasion Seazone and scramble against Germany. Germany would be forced to build a bigger Navy, or risk more of its air units in order to secure the landing which makes the landing even more difficult without air superiority…

I have a question regarding the rules on scrambling if Germany is attempting Sealion. Say Germany wants to conduct Sealion with its small navy and 8-10 transports…if UK does NOT have surface ships present in the seazone that the German player moves his navy into, does the UK player still have the option to scramble against those German ships?

And to take this scenario further, if the UK player DID have a surface ship there and the German player had 2 fighters on an aircraft carrier within that navy he just moved in there, would those fighters HAVE TO be part of the naval battle, or can the German player choose to use them in the Sealion land invasion?

Thanks for the tips and suggestions guys. I am really trying to find ways to reduce the overall time of the game since 8-15 hours is a tough sell when trying to find more players. We usually don’t even wait till all the necessary victory cities are captured either. We basically can tell once the game is lost for either side.

Perhaps having a timer on the Purchase and Combat Move phase as well as make a hard end date at the end of Turn 7 or 8 would make things go quicker? I think playing a setup where Russia and America are already in the war could speed things up too.

I wanted to ask all of those here who have tried the alternate Larry Harris 1942 setup to the regular 1940 Global game if and by how much time does it save over the 1940 version…

I wanted to test it out soon. I have found that the typical 1940 game lasts between 10-14 hours on average. Anything that can speed the game up would be a big win for all.

I read the whole thing by the way, ha. And thank you for the detailed opinion, helps a lot.

In a general sense I’ve always felt NOs to be severally limiting to strategies for the game as it incentivizes certain tracks of behavior in the game on both sides, making it much more predictable. I could using NOs for territories rich in some sort of strategic resource historically however.

I was curious about this. I have not yet played Global 1940, but have played other versions all without NOs as a lot of times it makes the game somewhat more predictable.