The main advantage for overall game balance in AA50 1942 (Allies v Axis) under these rules (with the non-com opening), is that the US gets to keep their Pacific carrier deck. This is fairly major in encouraging the dual theater war, and is one of the things we like most about the set up. The bonus structure also encourages a more effective Russian tank purchase under most set ups, which leads to a dramatic Kursk style scenerio on the eastern front under most openings. Japan alternatively has a much greater incentive to build air and naval, because the Allied position on the sea is stronger, requiring a more substantial counter.

Also, and this is just an aside, but having played quite a few alternative starts now, it has become much clearer to me why the gameplay on this mapboard is so centered around Moscow and Europe. It is a consequence of the basic map territory connections. 7 territories border Moscow which mean 7 ways in, a split 7 defense of the capital. Berlin is 5 territories and a sea zone, 6 ways in, 6 split defense. UK is 5 all from the sea. Compared to Eastern USA and Japan which can both be defended from a single sea zone, it is fairly clear to me why the board would favor KGF, regardless of the unit set up, or the starting income conditions. And why Moscow is the clear choice over London, for a conservative Axis warplan.

Still, that said, I do find that the bonus scheme outlined above helps to moderate the built-into-the-board drivers on Moscow and Berlin (and to a lesser extent London), and pushes it instead into a somewhat more “world” wide conflict. Plus the idea of a board which features 6 possible starts rather than just 1 seems to me a worthwhile thing to pursue. At least 6 times the replay, but much more in actuality, since the bonuses allow for so many potentially different purchasing strats.

I agree with both responses. Railroad movement should allow greatly extended mobility when not attacking. Troops going from one front to the other should be able to do so fast. But troops should have to actually march to the enemy, not ride on rails. Makes sense both mechanically and in terms of what the game represents.

I agree about the caution in national advantages that cement strategies too rigidly.

That would work great.

I’ll be able to post set up this weekend any comments on it will help

Sorry everyone, I will need to push my deadline to another week, there is a lot involved in preparing the illustrator file to work in artscow. I will do everything I can to make these cards available to everyone here as soon as possible.

@Zombie69:

Even though I don’t like house rules in general, I like the OP house rule in conjunction with the HR that allows submerging after one round against DD. The first HR makes subs a little weaker (can’t be used as fodder against planes) while the second makes them stronger (by letting them survive more battles). All in all, I think it balances out. It also has the advantage of being elegant and easy to use.

Glad you see it that way.
A still more simplified HR could be that keeping all OOB DDs rules with Subs and planes, each sides which have Destroyers must say whether or not Subs will be targeted in priority by planes.
If not, then anything but subs must be selected as planes casualties (unless their is nothing else except transports) by the owning player.

For any game with tech research in it, I like the tech being more likely to be discovered the more money you put into it. Instead of needing to roll a 6 on one die to discover the tech, you roll two dice and need to roll a 12, but for each previous roll, you get +1 to your current roll. So on the second roll you would succeed on an 11, on the third roll on a 10, etc. The average number of rolls needed to get the tech is about the same, but the variation is much lower. You’re much less likely to get it on your first attempt, but also much less likely to need 10+ attempts. To keep track of how many rolls you’ve made, place a die (or an airplane movement marker from Revised) on the tech chart where the control marker would go.

Seems to me like the introduction of China/ANZAC in 1942 would just give Japan free money once they take Australia, since they can’t buy an IC until turn 3 (making 7 IPC per turn) and with no other way to spend money, would just end up with 21 IPC in bank as a gift to Japan for taking Australia.

Cavalry should attack on a 1, defend on a 1, and move at a 2. They could be combined with other units to up their abilities. For example, they could defend on a 2 if paired with infantry. THey could attack on a 2 if attacking with infantry. They should cost 3 IPCs.

The real role of cavalry should be to harass the enemy. If cavalry are in a battle, the other units cannot retreat nor engage another contested territory until the Cavalry are cleared out of that territory. In effect the unit is stuck there. This would simulate cavalry cutting supply lines and communications etc.

Also, cavalry could disrupt IPCs by entering into a vacant territory and in effect scorching the earth. The territory would lose 1 IPC for every Cavalry performing this task in that territory. A marker could be used to denote the territories new value. Cavalry themselves could not conquer a territory by themselves. They would need to be paired with an infantry.

On the map, all the territories on the Western front are occupied so this tactic would not really be used. However on the Eastern Front there are a couple of open territories mainly in Russia where it could be used.  Also, The middle east and Africa are more wide open. This rule conjures up images of Lawrence of Arabia!

Ok, you’ve learnt me some new things !
Thanks for that. Your NOs look fairly good.

@mattsk:

About your HR, Russia is merely strong enough to protect Moscow, not talking about some far east adventures.

I guess one way to handle this would be for the HR to say that Russia can declare war on Japan after two conditions have been met:

This is basically what happened in WWII.  Stalin had an agreement with the Americans and British that he would declare war on Japan three months after Germany’s defeat, to allow him time to shift his forces eastward.  Which he did.

@Imperious:

Tanks could go to 5$ not less, or game imbalanced. Heck for $4 id only buy tanks.

Done

actually perhaps you get discount of 1ipc but you must buy in two’s

complimented it with mobile industry instead, makes for a tough choice against “Trans-Siberian Railway”

Id rather you go with “Rasputita” and create a winter rule in Russia twice per game that effects Axis units in some manner.

There’s a Russian Winter rules in the “Alternative Rules” portion of Delta found here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33730.0

All the discount units creates imbalanced games, certainly because we got 5 allies and 3 axis, so allies have a +2 advantage just in these rules.

Perhaps, but the Axis have the slight advantage when it comes to the “Strategic Objectives” portion of Delta found here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33734.0

I think only Russia and USA should have any advantage that effects prices. The other nations didn’t have capability to build cheaper units.  Colonial troops should only be something that allows placement in some area w/o having a factory ( just one unit per turn).

Perhaps, we’ll find out more when some play test reports get posted.

Not attacking transports as a philosophy and not having the ability to attack transports are two different things. I prefer the option of using as few artificial rules as possible, in order to give commanders the most freedom with the game. The Japanese also practiced suicidal “bonzai” attacks against impossible odds, but there are no rules in the game requiring the Japanese player to do that. There is no rule that all Japanese infantry must go fall on a grenade when they realize they are losing. The Japanese had the ability to attack loaded transports and unarmed ships during WWII - they just chose not to most of the time. I favor leaving that choice in there for players to decide.

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.

Today I removed the “Beach Head” rule and added this…

Enola Gay
During the SBR step in the combat phase of America’s 12th turn, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.

Hello,

Recently a few A&A.org members collaborated on a simple house rule variant called “Halifax Rules” in order to balance 1940 Global 2nd Edition in a way that is both fun and fair. These rules are based on 3 game mechanics which are a single economy for the United Kingdom, the creation of a small Commonwealth nation, and a 3rd production unit that may build up to 5 units. You can view the thread here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

For a long time the G40 community has been looking for something universal to balance the game between the two sides. However, Larry Harris does not seem interested in addressing the problem, and the forum members can’t agree on which house rules to implement, so we always fall back and use the boring bid system.

Halifax rules offers something that players have been wanting for a long time, like freedom to spend the UK income where they wish, and with less restrictions. The idea of a Commonwealth nation has been around since to conception of the 1939 Variant Global War. Halifax is particularly special because Krieghund himself has called the project “interesting” and has even offered his own ideas to improve the set.

All I’m asking is to visit the thread, read the house rule, and give it a +1 rating if you like it. If you can find time to play test it and share your results with the rest of the community… that would be fantastic. However, all we need right now is your vote. If we can unite the G40 community around this, we could get sticky thread status, and hopefully an endorsement from Krieghund… this is our goal.

Thank you

YG

anyone have any good alternate set ups? looking to change things up a bit with the group soon

@knp7765:

I think the other nations would welcome such a development. “Oh, you have a bunch of paratroops and transport planes? Good! Now I’m going to invade you with my stack of tanks and mechs.”

Yes, this would echo the principle of unequal force ratios stated in the proverbial Law of the Sword, which says “The guy with the gun usually wins.” Â

oztea-

i appreciate the more concise version of my suggested NO’s, and they seem historically sound. But wouldn’t this prove to be a bit overpowered? I mean, the UK as a whole receives 10 IPC’s just for domination of 4 strategic points. I dont think the UK needs that much of an economic boost in comparison to the other nations, do they?

These ideas for Spains involvement are sound, (although im not sure they should be presumed to be part of italy) and can easily be applied to other states as well. Lets see what neutrals there are. . .

Turkey: wouldnt be easily swayed, but if the USSR had fallen and germany had put them under enough pressure, they may have sided with the axis.

Latin America: All declared war just before the end. To make it simple: become pro-allied once paris and moscow both under allied control. Or once allies have 10 europe VC’s

Mongolia: taken care of with border pact

Sweden: loosely supportive of Germany with iron ore exports, but even when surrounded by german territory did not give in , so impractical to include rule.

Saudi Arabia: started out leaning towards axis, but eventually declared war on germany, and other arab states (yemen, oman, UAE) had ties to britain. not sure where theyd go. . .

Correct and add to this as needed, but I dont see the point of putting those countries on the board and not using them.

@Der:

Hi Marc -

I put in the possibility of removal of the chips in case the player was faced with a huge attacking force and wanted to withdraw everything but did not want the enemy to capture and use all of his entrenchment. (kind of a scorched earth thing)

I put some entrenchment in the Causasus because on my map Stalingrad is located there. I didn’t put any in Hitler’s Atlantic wall because my map starts in 1942 and the player can always add some later. Plus the German player gets an automatic 3 entrenchment anyway when the Allies try to land from the sea.    Â

Okay, thanks for the clarifications.  About the scorched earth thing, the ideal technique (and I’m just kidding here) would be to wait until the attacking enemy infantry falls into the abandoned entrenchments, then to fill in the trenches by blasting their walls with pre-set charges of TNT.  Sort of killing two birds with one stone.  :-D  In fairness, U.S. troops sometimes used a variation of this technique in the Pacific.  When confronted with a particularly tough dug-in Japanese position that would cost a lot of American casulties to clear by conventional assault methods, the troops would simply use a bulldozer to fill it in or collapse it.

@oztea:

I like this idea a lot. I had a similar idea a while back, wherein to win you had to get to a certain number of points. 2 points for each capital, 1 point for each non capital VC, and 1 point for each National Objective you satisfied this turn.

You calculate the axis total, and the allied total.

Lets spit ball, the axis wins if they have 20 points at then end of turns 1-5
or they win if they have 18 points at the end of turns 6-10
or they win if they have 16 points at the end of any turn after 11 they win.

The Allies would win if the axis falls below 10 points at the end of turns 1-5.
Or if they fall below 12 points at the end of turn 6-10
Or if they fall below 14 points at the end of any turn after 11.

I’m gonna have to digest this and see how the math works in different situations, regardless… it’s great to hear from someone that believes in the points per city formula, and I really like the idea of points for objectives as well.