Made a few more changes. Removed 3 inf from allies on setup in Asia.
Made FIC worth 3 instead of 2.
Cauraucus now worth 4 instead of 5. Russia income back to 24. from 25.

We played another game but ended it on turn 4. Axis not being able to get that 12 city.
But of course more play is needed.

I can post updated map if somebody wants to see it.

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

@grinchveld

the ‘Suggested Topics’ does look like others have come up with similar ideas.

like this from 2015
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26036/simultaneous-play-in-opposite-theaters/11

I have not played the versions with more than 5 powers, but I do think the basic idea can work to reduce the number of turns in a round. by changing the turn order.

Implement after the 1st round or 2, to keep positioning balanced.
Depending on the balance, some small advantage for the power who gets skipped.

Then powers on the same side who have consecutive turns may all go together as long as you break the combat moves along the original order (from the perspective of the attacked)

Breaking the combat into multiple rounds does seem to be the organizationally new thing.
(or at least I haven’t found someone say it that way on this site yet)

The Play Testing has now ended.

This has resulted in the following:

"From the moment that Germany, Japan or Italy declares War on - or attacks the Soviet Union, the Soviet player receives 1 Tank unit in each round, to be placed in Urals.

The Soviet player must control Urals from the start of the Soviet players turn in order to receive this Tank unit.

If Germany, Japan or Italy are not at War with the Soviet Union by Early 1941, the Soviet player receives this Tank unit from the start of the Soviet players turn in Early 1941.

Other rules concerning this Soviet Tank unit are still according to the rules described at page 13.

This rule will be part of the updated Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion (expected release Summer/Autumn 2022).

Ya kind a figured since Infantry increase to 4 or 2 on defense based on dice system.
Looking at a few ideas.
At least could try Inf Defend @3 in a d12 system with an artillery boosting 1 Inf.
Maybe for every 3, 4 or 5 inf 1 gets a boost.

Thanks for reply.

@franklin_cain yea it’d make sense for it to be Dutch and German controlled. Treat it the same as the Dutch Territories in the Pacific and the Chinese ones controlled by Japan.

You could house rule it. I guess that way Italy could get it if they conquered it after Germany lost it. I’ve never seen Germany build a major there or even a minor : )

Those are the rules though : ) So yea, no erratta

Edit
I suppose Poland, Norway and Denmark should be treated as Neutrals though. Vyborg, Baltic States and Bessarabia for USSR too. Maybe Poland Pro-Allies ? Vyborg Pro-Axis ? Hmm … I’d say no to Vyborg.

@caesar-seriona Historically Mussolini declares war when there is no doubt Paris is going to fall to Germany.In a G40 game Germany often combat moves through N.Italy and NCM air units to S.Italy,both of which require Italy to be not neutral.
So to keep Italy neutral until UKs turn Germany would need to retreat from Paris{leave it for Italy to take perhaps}and NOT enter Italian territory G1.

Re: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37319/canada-s-distinct-ownership-icons

We did create Canada as a distinct power and the extra ally does create imbalance- we took the money from UK so they are slow to do much. But my son was geeked up to order some UK troops and paint them cherry red.
We haven’t quite found a counter balance for the axis. Maybe we shall try Vichy France.
I lose more than win but my kid knows his ww2 history and world geography pretty well, so…

Well for me boosting other pieces can get crazy out of hand. As I mentioned before my system is not quite like those games as I posted chart in above post.

I just don’t agree here on a few pieces not being able to get a shot. Plus who’s to say my battleship is shooting at a destroyer and not another battleship and vice versa or its aa guns are also trying to kill a plane. IMO.

OK I’ll bow out of this topic. Don’t want to jam it up for you guys. Take care.

I’m testing my own advanced 42 game. Test results so far here in my thread.
I got to half a turn oob game and said nope. Not playing this that way.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/38017/global-1942-with-general-6-stars-advanced-game/29

@baron-münchhausen I think part of what’s needed to make subs both simpler and more realistic is to have a strict “up or down” rule that always applies. In other words, in any given battle, for the entire battle, the sub is either above the waterline or below the waterline. The sub’s owner might get to choose, or the attacker might get to choose, depending on how many destroyers and planes and things are in the battle zone, but we can’t have five different “states” for a sub to exist in, because that’s part of what causes the confusion. Right, like I don’t want to learn about what happens to a sub whose surprise strike is cancelled but that can still submerge but only after the first round of combat. That’s just too much. Either the sub is up, in which case it participates fully in combat, or down, in which case it ignores all combat.

Just my two cents.

@der-kuenstler For some reason I’m just finding this thread now. I mostly agree with what others have said. The only thing I want to add is that if you want to play with more than the simplest of house rules, you should feel good about creating play aids to support those rules. Seriously, go out and print your new rules, in full color. Put some thought into how to design and lay out a chart or a cheat sheet that will help players remember and use your rules. Cut them out so they’re the right size, and then laminate them or print them on heavyweight cardstock. If your rules involve any special pieces, buy sculpts for those pieces or use some paint or something to convincingly alter the closest available piece; don’t just slap a chip underneath artillery and say “OK, now it’s a self-propelled artillery.”

If you’re not willing to put in that work to make things easier on your players, then why should they put in the work to test out your house rules? It can take 8+ hours for a single playtest; if you invite 3 friends over, that’s 24 hours of other people’s time. You should be willing to put in at least 10% of that (2 hours) on creating play aids to improve that experience. If you’re not, maybe that’s a sign that you’re having so much fun imagining new rules that tickle your fancy that you’re not really thinking hard about whether those rules will be fun to play with for others.

@vodot Thanks! I made some edits to the original post based on our discussion. I hear you that it is important to avoid unreasonable “side-stepping” of blockades, but trying to count up fractional territories is way more bookkeeping work than I want to assign. Instead, I give players the choice of using either a land supply line or a sea supply line, but not both.

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

My setup for Dutch East Indies for my game if your interested in is
Sumatra 2 inf
Borneo 2 inf
Celebes 2 inf
Dutch New Guinea 1 inf
Java 1 inf 1 tank
Cruiser, Destroyer and a sub in Java sea zone with a naval base.

Argo is correct in a way. J
there were a lot of tanks on Java, but most ships were in Java sea zone. When it was attacked Dutch only had 5 ships but allies had some there to.
Not a fan of an IC on Dutch East Indies. Japan just take and use plus collect 11 icps if game has can capture IC and use next turn.

@general-6-stars Yes, I would like to see that.

I use them in my game but not G40. Have tweaked them over the years. You roll for 2 each country and use whole game. If you want I can post my chart.

de279a62-5539-4f41-bd47-c39204d491f2-image.png

@barnee Thanks for the replies, the CIS ones sound good, and I like the idea of Gibraltar actually being important in 1914. I might also give the Spanish objectives in North Africa to motivate them to spread out a bit more. Not quite sure what to do with China yet, but they will probably be with the Central Powers (I know they weren’t historically, but it balances the game better). I’m thinking maybe I will give them IPCs for capturing Korea and parts of south Asia.