Just a suggestion, not promoting anything.  You could go check out the Historical Board Gaming site,  they might have a few things you’re looking for.  They pretty much have everything.

Anyone know of a place to pick up these units for play on the classic board? Also is there a post within the forum that has a the implementation of the rules. for the Cruisers and Artillery.

Sounds a mad game.

I’m actually trying to SIMPLIFY the game by reducing the number of powers to four.

Often, simplified rules are the most complex to explain, especially to dick heads.

Would Germany have much chance of sinking them with the Atlantic just a couple of SZs wide?

Give subs a first-strike capability and you may be talking, but this will not make USW worthwhile.

EDIT: Ahem, I just realized that there’s a subforum for house rules… can a mod move this there, or should I just repost?

I’ve been watching this forum for a while, but waited until today to create an account. After looking around on the internet for house rules for Guadalcanal, and only finding Krieghund’s submarine changes (I can’t post links at the moment, I guess), I decided to make my own. This isn’t some small change, this changes how the game is played completely.

These rules are in early development, and we have only just started our first game using these rules, but I wanted to see what feedback you guys can give.

Introduction:
Guadalcanal was the first Axis and Allies game that I ever played. My dad got it for me for Christmas one year because it was the cheapest version at the time. After playing a few games, we found that we didn�t like some of the major components in the game. We felt that the 15 victory point limit made for a short game that was hard to change the course of midway through. We also felt that, though important, airfields shouldn�t be what decide victory over defeat.

We made some changes to the rules, the major change was that the victory condition was total domination, a simple objective, but it more accurately reflected the true objective of the Solomon campaign. We also did small tweaks to units, including changing the armor mechanics for battleships and adding an entirely new unit: the transport plane. But, these rules encouraged building up each of your islands with an unbreakable force which caused neither side to make large offensives. Usually someone (normally me) would surrender while both sides still had three of the islands.

I realized that, while I didn�t want to go back to the original rules, our primitive house rules had to change. I searched for house rules that did anything more than altering submarine mechanics, but none (that I found) existed for Guadalcanal. I decided it was time to take matters into my own hands and do a major overhaul of how Guadalcanal plays. This was the result, and with a few more changes it should be close to perfection.

Rule Changes:

Mass Invasion: When one player lands at least six land units on an island controlled by the other player, they must declare a �mass invasion� on that island. Put a marker on that island to signify a �mass invasion�. The �mass invasion� ends when all of the attacker or defender�s units are killed or moved off of the island.

Note: If the attacker already has units on the island and declares a �mass invasion� those units become part of it, along with any units put on the island after the �mass invasion� has been declared.

Objective Changes:
It was difficult thinking of some middle ground between getting points for airfields and total domination. We decided to stick with the point system, but instead of just getting points for airfields, we added more objectives for the player to complete.

Note: The points gained from each objective are added at the same time during the �score victory points and check for victory� If both players reach 15 victory points in the same turn, the player with more points past 15 wins. In the case of a tie, play until one player has more points at the end of the turn.

Objectives:

Build Airfield: Build an airfield. (1 point)

Capture Airfield: Capture an island that has an airfield on it. (1 point for 1 airfield, 2 points for 2 airfields.)

Capture and Hold Island: Capture an island and still have control of it at the end of the next turn. (1 point)

Sink Capital Ship: Sink a battleship or aircraft carrier. (1 point)

Damage Airfield: Succeed in damaging an enemies airfield. (1 point)

Foil Invasion: As the defender, have control of the island at the end of a �mass invasion�. (2 points)
Unit Changes:

Submarine: There are two different types of submarines: Fleet submarines and Patrol submarines.

Submarines are fleet subs if they are in a sea zone with a friendly non-sub sea unit. They behave as submarines normally do.

Submarines are patrol subs when they are in a sea with no friendly sea units, besides friendly submarines. They may not be attacked unless they attacked that turn. After a patrol sub attacks, any surviving unit may fire back at the sub(s) during the Attack Sea Units phase at its anti-submarine power, which is shown below:

Artillery: 0
Infantry: 0
Submarine: 0
Destroyer: 2
Cruiser: 1
Aircraft Carrier: 0
Battleship: 0
Bomber: 2
Fighter: 1

Battleship: A battleship hit by a one on its first hit that survives the turn retains the damage and loses the �heavy armor� ability until repaired using a supply token that is at a friendly island during the Reinforce, Repair, and Deploy phase.

A battleship hit by a two on its first hit that survives the turn ignores the damage like normal.

Fighter: Instead of fighters moving two zones during movement and two zones during regroup, fighters can move a total of four zones, but they must have enough movement during the regroup phase to get them to a friendly airfield or aircraft carrier.

Bomber: Instead of bombers moving three zones during movement and three zones during regroup, bombers can move a total of six zones, but they must have enough movement during the regroup phase to get them to a friendly airfield.

@knp7765:

That is a good idea about limiting the Japanese Kamikaze use until they are kind of pounded down to a low income. The Kamikaze was a weapon born out of desperation after all.

Yes, and in addition to the pressure of Japan being in such a desperate situation, there was another related factor at play: the more the war progressed, the fewer top-notch pilots Japan had at its disposal.  Japan’s training philosophy prior to the war had produced an elite corps of pilots, which gave Japan an initial advantage but left it in a worsening position as the years went by and their casualties mounted.  The US Navy, by contrast, figured out that training large numbers of competent pilots was a better investment than training a small number of superb ones (especially since the US could produce enough aircraft to take advantage of its abundant pilot supply).  When Japan’s situation became dire enough in late 1944 for it to consider extraordinary measures such as kamikaze tactics, one element which worked in favour of the kamizaze concept was that it required very little pilot training: the pilots basically just had to learn how to take off, how to fly to their targets and how to go into a steep dive.  This kind of rudimentary flight instruction was the opposite of the elite-oriented training philosophy Japan had followed prior to the war, so it would make sense to have a rule saying that Japan can only make kamikaze attacks late in the game once Japan is on the ropes.  Maybe this could even be seen as a kind of tech – a capability which isn’t available at the start of the game, but which becomes available later when certain conditions are met.  With a normal tech, you need to invest money to gain the new capability; in this case, kamikaze attacks (a kind of reverse tech because it reflects a training downdgrade) would become available when Japan’s economic and strategic situation drops below a certain threshold.

Do you play it that Italy does nothing while neutral, i.e. Italy cannot buy new units or move what they already have?

In my view this is essential for a workable neutral Italy; as far as the powers of the day were concerned mobilization was the equivalent of a declaration of war, so as soon as a power starts moving and building it should be considered at war for all purposes.

Also, it’s rather unfair that Italy can build, yet Austria cannot attack it. Therefore, if Italy can build/move R1/2 then Austria has no reason not to attack Venice R1 to prevent an Italian buildup, which of course renders the rule obsolete.

If you’re going to make Italy neutral for two turns, then Turkey should be neutral at least until the beginning of its first turn.

@BJCard:

Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).

With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber.  And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London.  Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3).  No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1).  Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.

I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.

If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.

The obvious Allied counter would be to prioritize aircraft production, like in the real war (see: Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, Battle of Kursk), which isn’t as daunting as your projections would indicate.

Because planes can’t land in newly-conquered territories, each side could use their air units to cherry-pick the other fellow’s best offensive units on their respective turns, resulting in a mutual neutering until somebody finally broke through.

It would be a bloodbath in the sky for the first few rounds, but the Allies have the economic clout to pull off air superiority in the long run… and with this targeting prize, air superiority would really mean something worth fighting for, for a change.

I prefer the neutrals rules in 1914 over G40 ones

Is the game not balanced under the new tourney rules?

@Uncrustable:

Tac bombers need something, they are rarely produced relative to fighters and strat bombers

I would also suggest letting tanks roll a 4 for each tac bomber present if air supremacy has been achieved, that is for each tac bomber one tank rolls at 4 instead of 3. Tac bombers do not change
This even further increases air buys and also gives tanks a buff which they need

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Air supremacy is checked for each round of combat, before any dice are rolled for that round

These rules will magnify both fighters and tac bombers buys as well as tanks, and also promote a combined arms approach to purchases similar to artillery and infantry

You want enough fighters to achieve air supremacy, but also a good even amount of tac bombers and tanks to maximize air supremacy when you do achieve it

This kills multiple birds with a single stone
It should reduce somewhat the infantry/mech spam with sprinkles of artillery that we see now
It also indirectly buffs AAA as each AAA adds 3 more dice to the air battle in defense, and increases your chance of gaining control of the skies

Very thoughtful ideas. I like them.
However my first impression is your HR change much more the balance.
I’m looking for just small changes.
I will come back on this.
You have some compelling reason like this one:

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Thank you very much for your challenging ideas.

@toblerone77:

@Uncrustable:

Honestly the problem is not broken bombers
But broken AA, would bomber spam work vs classic AA? Or even pre alpha AA?
It likely would not

I think that the AAA unit was going to be used in an entirely different way than what we have now. I just don’t see making an entirely new sculpt that’s nation specific, that only moves defensively, but gets destroyed. They could’ve used the old plastic guns like before. That’s a lot of money and production for something that works as strangely as it does.

That’s why I see a better future for  an artillery division unit like this one, as first proposed by Uncrustable :
AAA A1D1M1C5-6 + when on defense as OOB rule vs 3 attacking planes.
It would be far more integrated in the A&A system rules.
And keep the old AA linked to IC, NB and AB.
It was absurd to protect preemptively a large territory against all planes.
But it make sense in a limited area like ICs or bases when it is heavily protected by AA guns.

And if Bombers spam still need a fix via AAA, give them AAA vs 4 or even 5 planes, but not unlimited preemptive strike @1 vs all planes.

And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.

I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.

@Uncrustable:

Yeah 25s I meant lol
And as far as “heavy carrier” is concerned, I don’t believe there was such a thing in WWII

Jets in post-war USA and Korea made the difference. Still you never saw or see large aircraft on carriers. our modern carriers now are built to handle the speed of jet aircraft. The size and cost eliminated most of the post war allies from owning them with few exceptions. The Harrier and various helicopters can operate on smaller Aircraft Carriers, but other than a few examples and exceptions the US dominates the large carrier business in the modern age.

I think now that the no subs vs subs combat is not necessary at all.

Explaining: subs are considered a separate group inside the navy.
Allowing subs to attack subs still be as OOB rules.
For example, 2 subs can decide to attack another 3 subs with 2 DDs and 2 TTs in a same sea-zone.
If attacker target subs, then the defender had only to decide whether or not his 3 subs will submerge or combat.
Many will prefer to submerge, so there will be no combat.
If defender choose to fight, then it will be 2 subs@2 vs 3 subs@1, as per OOB rule.
So sometimes, but seldom, subs can sink subs as history reveal.

About AntiSubWeapon and Mission,
I have a different idea than:

The sub rule we are trying now is 2-1-2 unit as in 1940G OOB but each DD that is declared a sub hunter rolls a die and sinks the sub on a one and locates on a two.
Located or detected subs can then be attacked by CAs or additional DDs.
If sub survives first round of combat then it defends at one or submerges.

When DD are on attack vs Subs, I will let the OOB DD A2 ASW as usual for getting a hit.
If any DD roll “1” or “2” it is a hit, or if roll a"3" then Planes can attack located subs.

If all DDs roll only “4” or higher, then no planes can attack subs, since no DD detected them, however they can still hit any other units in the sea-zone.

I find interesting to let the defending subs to submerge instead of taking defensive roll.
I would rather let this submerge possibility only if all DDs roll “4” or higher.

This will have the effect of drastically reduce the odds to find Subs by 50% instead of an automatic finding. And it gives an increasing importance on having much more than a single DD for ASW.

I will not forbid cruiser from attacking Subs since I already agree to forbid attacking BB vs subs.
It will let cruiser somekind of specific effectiveness vs subs that don’t have BB.

However, Cruiser would not block the subs from submerge, instead of defending.

The game starts in june 1940, so germany would attack russia on G2, and japan would attack on J3.

(the map reflects the situation in june 1940, low countries are defeated but paris has not been taken yet)

@Uncrustable:

bunch of ignoranuses lol

At least I apologized for that…

@Cow:

I play low luck games. Usually I get my low luck mood out on triple A… on this forum not so much.

Strategy is completely different in low luck.

You should post a G40 strategy guide for Low Luck!

Germany and Japan openers LL

@Imperious:

Ok if you want more units make it basic:

3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB

CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5

I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs  2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs for 1.25% of 12 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.