This video covers some thoughts and ideas I have concerning global 1940. Incorporating some strategies I have not seen used before. And tweaks to some existing rules.
The allies *did* invade neutral counties- the British were in the midst of an invasion of Norway as you mentioned, but the UK and USSR invaded Iran unprovoked, and of course the solviets invaded the baltics/poland/Finland. I think especially e.g. Spain, if it made sense in the real world for the allies to invade they would (though it didn't make sense because conquering Spain is way harder than just beating 6 inf in a&a)
The Pyranese mountains certainly come to mind, I'd expect fierce resistance to whoever was defending the mountain passes. I'm not sure how well tanks could traverse such terrain, probably not at all in 1940
It is very interesting how you describe the game as predictable. My son and I have played AA anniversary a lot and after a few turns we have learned to "read" the board and can predict the games outcome. That is reason we took a break from AA games. Good to hear 1936 doesn't do that as much. I have been wanting to pick it up but didn't know if it had the same issues.
You should definitely check it out. Dont get me wrong AA is a great game but the Global War series is a step up. Alot of variables. Start with Glabal 1939, you won't be disappointed
Free technology will change this, years ago we gave each team 3 free technologies, 1 for each ally and 3 for the axis every turn. 1st you make the list of about 20 technologies, nothing to powerful, we used a lot of new unit types like hover tanks, helicopters, super subs and aircraft carriers, truck's, $4convoy escorts, heavy tanks, heavy artillery, long range (no auto upgrades, must be bought) ect... Over the years several expansion sets were released for the Milton Bradley A&A, but not by MB. Table Tactics, Gamers Paradise, Maxes advanced rules for A&A. We included the ability to buy tech tokens, these must first roll a 6, then rolling 2 D6 and consult your own custom tech chart #2-12. Once a # is rolled, another technology is added in that place. We did about 2 dozen games like this and it never got boring. You can't be sure when you'll get one you want, but you can be sure to eventually get it if you don't lose first. The late technology list was not fully experimented with..ie..atom boms late in the game, super duper late model U-boats, basically whatever you can imagine, agree upon and define the costs and effects, this being done before choosing sides or using them as a bid or for a slight bias. I've been working on off scale costs meaning dimes quarters and nickels as part of costs, income and possibly more. I feel like the atomic bomb should rob from the target and pay the attacker (game ending quickly)
Brits invaded Iceland during WWII. I remember reading that Sweden provided Germany with a 3rd or more of Germany's raw iron in WWII. So invading or even bombing Swedish foundries, power plants, ports, and mines would have saved lives.
If you want to make invading strict neutrals more punishing, then my suggestion for a house rule would be to basically shift all the neutrals one step in favor of the opponent: 1.) (as per rules) all other strict neutrals become pro-[the alliance opposed to the invading country]. 2.) (new rule) all neutrals that were already pro-[the alliance opposed to the invading country] immediately join the war on the opposing side and deploy their standing armies. The opposing alliance player(s) choose which formerly neutral countries will belong to each player, and they place their infantry units on those countries. 3.) (new rule) if the invasion of the neutral country fails (the invader does not capture the country), that formerly-neutral country immediately joins the opposing alliance (instead of remaining independant). It also adds 1 additional infantry for each IPC that the territory is worth (since the unjustified invasion boosts recruitment). so, for example, if the U.S. invades Spain, the U.S. would have to fight Spain's standing 6-infantry army. Regardless of the outcome of the invasion, all remaining Pro-Axis Neutrals join the Axis. The German, Italian, and Japanese players decide among themselves who claims which country. Germany claims Finland and places 4 German infantry on it. Italy claims Bulgaria and puts 4 Italian infantry on it. Italy also claims Iraq and puts 3 (?) Italian infantry on it. Then, all remaining strict neutrals (Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Mongolia, etc.) become Pro-Axis Neutrals. If the U.S. defeats Spain, it takes control of Spain as normal. However, if all U.S. invading forces are defeated, or withdraw, Spain becomes an Axis power. The Axis players choose who takes control of it. Say Germany takes control of Spain. In this case, Germany replaces any remaining Spanish infantry with German infantry, and then places 2 additional German infantry on Spain to represent a pro-Axis Spanish recruitment drive. If you want to be even more brutally harsh, you could also add an additional penalty: 4.) (new rule) Any country controlled by the alliance that invaded the strict neutral, but which does not have any units within it, abandons the alliance and becomes a strict neutral. Place a face-down control marker on each such territory, and deduct their IPC values from their respective country's IPC income. So, in the above example, after the U.S. invades Spain, all allied territories that do not have any allied units in them would become strict neutrals. This would likely include territories like Alaska, Western Canada, Belgian Congo, Trans-Jordan, Western Australia, Iceland, etc.). This is a bit less realistic than the first 3 rules. It seems unlikely that Alaska would secede from the U.S., or that British Columbia would secede from Canada over the U.S.'s decision to invade Spain, but it would serve as a near-crippling deterrent that would likely guarantee that nobody ever tries invading a strict neutral.
I like doing the G+J3 myself to maximize the US being Neutral, which in my opinion makes an unbeatable Axis strategy! I'd lay off Normandy+S France in the first round and let ITALY have Yugo (after the German raid of course)+Bulgaria to give it some income power, the Romanian factory build is interesting but I probably wouldn't do it myself! I think the Allies would've invaded Spain if the Normandy landings went seriously wrong, in my house rules I would give any strict Neutrals(territory value of at least 2) a minor factory+air and Naval port when one side starts attacking any strict Neutrals and to be taken by the Pro side but those facilities wouldn't go to the initial attacking Nation of course (the neutrals would just blow them up and deny them the privilege)!!!
You could be right about the invasion of Spain if the Normandy landings hadn't worked out. But I see some American players invading Portugal and then the British invading turkey and I just think that is unrealistic and really tilts the game in the allies favor. I like your idea's on the strict neutrals. I did buy the major factory in Romania so we will see how that works out lol. I will make a new video after the completion of a complete round 1 so stay tuned.
Love your videos. I like to play Germany to take France completely on turn 1 and then attack Russia on turn 3 paying no attention to Africa or invading England. I put a minor factory in Romania and Finland going all out for Leningrad and Ukraine. I have Italy take the Balkans, Malta, and play defense forgetting about Africa. Before England can invade Italy and US can invade France, Moscow will fall.
Reagrding neutrals I think the main issue is the Axis have a hard time reaching ma ny off them. I think any you get into should join (perhaps also by airplanes?).South America could be very good for the Axis iand is free income for teh Allies if teh Axis hit Turkey etc.
This is a better solo game than a competitive one, IMO. I've had the 1st edition of both 1940 copies since they released and typically play a solo simulation annually. I've play against friends once with the global and a couple times on each theater map.
I like Germany vs. France without the intention of taking it, to allow Italy capturing France. Germany has nearly enough starting units to take UK or Leningrad even if UK or Leningrad puts more than 12-20 infantry on. Germany needs close to 16 transports for its starting units plus some navy defense/bombardment. Germany should have enough starting navy and planes to take the waters; dont use any German planes in France. If Germany holds money round one, Germany will have enough money to build a large navy all at once. Germany has to keep their planes positioned to attack either Leningrad, UK, or perhaps participate in the sea. Dont be afraid to loose some planes in the land battle, its more important to actually land. First move, let Italy take France. Itll give Italy more money for the capture + steady income. That extra money that can be used to expand. It will make the difference. I think of Germany as capital hunter that is willing to destroy itself because Italy is defending the home by expanding and securing the south resources. In theory, Germany will have lost most of its stuff pieces trying to land on UK or Leningrad. For a moment, it will seem that only Italy is on the board. Germany will have destroyed alot of its starting units in the amphibious and Italy will keep everything secure until Germany can build using captured money. Germany into France battle round one: (I think the math is right for this example but in general this is how how I calculate) 8 units @ 1/6 = 1.33 expected hit 3 units @ 3/6 = 1.5 expected hit 2.8 expected hit total, I generally round down because I dont want to build luck here into the strategy France starts with 7 units @ 2/6 = 2.33 1 tank @ 3/6 = .5 1 fighter @ 4/6 = .66 Expected hit is 3.496 or I tend to round up to 4; I tend to build luck here into the strategy. >> Continued fighting Germany into France and the 3 tanks still do 1.5 expected hit. After loosing four units, there are Four @ 1/6 = .66 2.1 total. Round to 2 France would probably loose a AAA gun and have Six @ 2/6 = 2 tank = .5 Fighter = .66 3.1 and it would be extremely lucky to get 4. >> Run this again. But really the idea is for Germany to weaken France enough that Italy can take it. ___ Let the German player focus clearing the waters and repositioning everything to purchase 12-16 transports and some defensive navy to land everything they start with into either UK or Leningrad.
Are you sure about strict neutral countries? In the rule book not all neutrals are strict neutral. Only Sweeden, Turkey, and Switzerland are strict neutrals, other countries are just neutrals (excluded pro neutrals)
Or an easy one, if the Allies invade a strict neutrals triple the number of the standing Army in that country. Call it a populist uprising. And then all remaining strict neutrals contribute 1 ipc each to the axis.
