Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

G40 Total Naval War

House Rules

143

T

The Captain 2024 '23 '22 '21
last edited by

The Total Naval War rule is part of the Total War concept.

In Early 1943 World War II is defined as a Total War - and mass production of specific land and air units benefits the major powers (see pg. 50 in the G40 HRE rulebook).

The Total Naval War is designed with the same game mechanisms as Total War, but concerns only specific Naval units and specific Nations.

We expect to release the Total Naval War rules in Late 2025, when play testing has ended.
S 1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 4
S

SuperbattleshipYamato 2024 '23 '22 @The Captain
last edited by

@The-Captain

Makes sense.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0

Featured Topics

League rules idea: mulligans for patrons

Guadalcanal Tournament at Strategicon (Los Angeles) Feb. 17, 2024

T-shirts, Hats, and More

global 1940

183

anniversary

1914

1942 2nd ed

tips&tricks

bm3

video

axis & allies

Suggested Topics

T

G40 Minor Powers

House Rules
• • • TinCanoftheSea

1

0
Votes

1
Posts

329
Views

T

I know there are other forums on this but I wanted to collect the best ideas here. What minor powers work best (balancing wise and being fun), preferably those without having to buy lots of extra pieces/ones that can use pieces from other games. But if one requires purchasing pieces and is really good feel free to add. Also not G40 specific but that tends to be the most common for minor powers. Thanks!
V

G40 Historial v1.1

House Rules
• global 1940 • • Valladares

73

2
Votes

73
Posts

9.6k
Views

G

@Valladares said in G40 Historial v1.1:

@SS-GEN These are some preview, new things, that we include in our new version 1.2:

New National Objectives:

UK Europe: Theme “Mediterranean supply line”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Europe controls Malta.

UK Pacific: Theme “Jewel of the far East”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Pacific controls all: India, West India and Cylon.

Japan: Theme “USSR Oil trade”: 2 I.P.C. if Japan is not at war with Soviet Union.

ANZAC: Theme “Anzac new day”: 5 I.P.C. If Anzac have at last one land unit in Egypt, Alexandria or Crete

China: Theme: “Asian Sherman”: China can purchase tanks if at last one USA land unit is in china controlled territory. Historical context: http://www.theshermantank.com/tag/china/
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/china/m4a2-sherman-in-chinese-service/

Modes of play
Historical and Victory Conditions: With year historical restrictions and game max duration is 12 rounds, and axis or allies have 3 of 4 victory conditions, at the end of the round 12.
Majority of victory cities in Europe.
Majority of victory cities in Pacific.
Majority of oil world producing areas.
Majority of global team I. P. C. (Map and bonuses)

Axis & Allies Global 1940 Historical MOD 6° Play Test
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Med supply. Malta. I like if any axis ship between Malta and Gib blocks this

Anzac had guys in Egypt.

China building tanks based on a US tank or 2 in China at end of war should be a no go.
Keep in mind this game your playing isn’t a lot like mine. Just feel NOs should have some type of resources on them to get. IMO
Just me. Not knocking your ideas. Try them first. You guys may like them
T

G40 - Fall of London - Canada?, South Africa??

House Rules
• • • the_jetset

2

0
Votes

2
Posts

736
Views

C

You might find useful some of the information in the British section of my G40 map analysis:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

Egypt, for example, was technically an independent country during WWII, though there was a lot of British influence. It was also somewhat unstable; some members of King Farouk’s inner circle were a little too pro-Nazi for London’s taste, and in 1942 the British Army actually staged a mini-coup to get rid of them.

I agree that if the UK itself had been occupied the rest of the British Commonwealth’s self-governing Dominions, who in 1939 had declared war in their own names (rather than being automatically dragged in by Britian, as was the case in 1914), would have continued the fight on their own. The British colonial territories are a more complicated case, with no clear answer. India is particularly problematic to speculate about; if Britain’s homme territory had come under Nazi occupation, the independence movement in India would probably have been given quite a boost. Even if India had, however, declared itself independent from the UK, this would hardly have translated into India surrendering to Japan, since that would have undercut the whole point of being independent in the first place.
?

Naval Retreat and Pursuit

House Rules
• • • A Former User

5

0
Votes

5
Posts

1.3k
Views

C

@the_jetset:

Retreating fleets disperse and then regroup again once safe.

Not necessarily. “Disperse then regroup” is a tactic that was used – and only as a desparate last resort – by convoys of merchant vessels under heavy enemy attack. I’m not aware of warship fleets using this technique extensively in WWII; some naval tacticians like Wayne Hughes have argued that warships are actually in a much better position when they’re concentrated than when they’re dispersed.

The Japanese fleet at Midway didn’t disperse as a result of its defeat because it was already dispersed when the operation started. In his book Miracle at Midway, Gordon Prange faulted Yamamoto for his dispositions in the Midway operation: the Japanese fleet was broken up into several widely-separted forces, none of which was close enough to the other to provide any meaningful assistance to each other. This dispersion wasted the enormous numerical superiority that the Japanese had over the Americans. In fairness, the Japanese Navy as a whole (and not just Yamamoto) had a fondness for elaborate operations involving multiple fleets; their operation at Leyte Gulf in 1944 was another example.
Y

G40 Resolve combat phase

House Rules
• • • Young Grasshopper

2

0
Votes

2
Posts

635
Views

Y

There are some benifiets, such as units in their initial group would get a certain attack or defence value, but it would change once they moved to a new group designated for stronger or just different units. For Example: Strategic Bombers would fight air units at a lesser value than land units, and destroyers would fight submarines at a greater value than battleships, cruisers, or carriers.

There are some disadvantages… like a few defending air units getting killed fast just to have a lot of attacking bombers facing just land units who wouldn’t get the high defence rolls of the defending fighters past the first combat round.

More thoughts to come… is this a valid path to take? it’s a complete revamp of how battle takes place.
W

Captured VC bonus, and revised NO's for G40

House Rules
• • • WILD BILL

3

0
Votes

3
Posts

2.8k
Views

B

About VC IPCs bonus,
do you think it could be an interesting reward if a conqueror of a not initially owned VC received a +6 bonus IPCs only at the start of his next turn and as long as he holds it a complete round of play?
So this reward comes only after you kept it for a whole turn.
As long as the Victory City is exchange back and forth there is no reward.

If a lost VC is reconquered, it should be a one time +6 bonus to the one Nation which fought back to retrieve it, not the original owner.
For instance, UK captures Leningrad and the IPCs from territory goes to the Russian player,
while UK gets the one time 6 IPCs bonus if Leningrad is still kept in Allies hands at the beginning of UK’s next turn.
Of course, if it is Russia who retrieve Leningrad, Russia will also get his one time extra bonus on his next turn.
We can apply the same mechanics and bonus for Capital Cities.
There is no need to add a higher reward since you already get the opponent’s money.

So this will be a separate IPCs distribution from all others regular and NO calculations.
VC would be treated differently compared to other ordinary conquered territories.

And players will be waiting with expectations to see if they can hold the VC till their next turn to get their rewards.
This will somehow put the emphasis on Victory Cities.
And it gives time to the opponents to not let go a VC too easily since the stakes are high.
It is a 6 IPCs bonus because it is easier to spent right away to not disturb a well prepared buying strategy if at the last minute the bonus is lost.
You can buy 2 Infs or 1 Tank or 1 Sub.
What do you guys think about this? Still a too high reward?

Maybe it should be just a 4 IPCs bonus? especially if playing 1942.2.
So you can at least buy right away an additional Artillery.
Y

G40 Strategic Objectives - Delta

House Rules
• • • Young Grasshopper

9

0
Votes

9
Posts

2.6k
Views

Y

@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.
D

Naval Repricing

House Rules
• • • democratic leader

5

0
Votes

5
Posts

1.2k
Views

O

cruisers cant get too cheap, or powers that dont deserve them will get to buy them, like Germany, ANZAC, and Italy. Sure they can buy some, and use the unit, but its expensive now for a reason, so they dont buy a gazzilon.

Boat prices have to be high, because only wealthy powers deserve big fleets.

if you want to add something neat to destroyers add my Sonar/Radar tech to games

“In addition to Radar as normal, a power with this breakthrough is also granted Sonar, Destroyers now fire pre-emptively on the first round of combat at submarines when both attacking and defending.”

24

Online

17.9k

Users

40.6k

Topics

1.8m

Posts