An idea for changing G40 scramble rules

Correct. While we all know the outcome of Axis forces in USSR, I am just pointing out here that the Just Cause for invading USSR heavily favored the Axis forces. And remember when Hitler gave the orders, the Heer was basically doing nothing but waiting to see if the air and naval power of Germany could contain UK so the army was doing nothing and neither the navy or a large air force was needed to invade USSR so why not? Personally, I would have waited for Stalin to make the first move.

Mr. Piscolar;

the fortress idea is OK, but it seems OP when you can build them to defend key VC strongholds like Moscow.  Your point about inactivating them is interesting, but that’s not how the rules for Airbases work, you can’t disable them right before the scramble.  It is sort of interesting to imagine a fighter intercept/bomber part of that transaction, but at some point you simply need all your planes in order to overwhelm, you can’t split them off to wrack the forts first, or the defense becomes too favorable (because you have increased defensive power by +1 or reserved the planes for this task, either outcome increases the defense vs offense pretty dramatically).  When you are talking about potentially adding +1 defense to 40+ units, it becomes OP.

Actual fortresses are not realistic in WW2, as they were captured by paratroops, reduced by bombing, surrounded and besieged, or simply bypassed and ignored.

Your ANZAC idea is fun and interesting, but unless ANZAC takes the risk of moving its assets to Brazil, there wont be much coordination there.  Not sure why you would cleave off a second grey team.  Why not just clarify your original idea by making the ANZAC team better (by giving them Canada and 1-2 ships 1-2 units) at the expense of UK Atl.?  UK isn’t really a viable team at that point but neither is a 7 income independent team with split forces…

I like the special NOs from Balanced mod, but I’m not sure why you’ve added NOs that are active based on what teams already pretty much have or go for from the get-go.  NOs should draw the players into an unexpected alignment to incentivize new play, not reward them for doing what they were already going to do.

Adding German Units seems very odd since they are usually getting a bid of 20+ against them, now the required bid would be even higher.  You have offset some of the Axis advantage with other NOs, but I wouldn’t make the Germany start position even more advantageous its extremely powerful as is.

You also added several Axis NOs for just being Axis, these aren’t necessary to bolster their already dominating economic position and they aren’t dependent on what the Axis choose to do.  Giving Japan an NO for attacking allied zero $ islands or for Germany to attack Iceland are some examples of encouraging the player to do something that otherwise he would rarely or never choose to do.

the VC condition is messed up OOB, good effort on trying to change it

Tech/Cruisers/Bombers; these are similar to other suggestions, I think the tech doesn’t need new incentives to go after it, several of them are awesome and the rest are junk.  Unless you nerf the good ones and improve (all) the bad ones, making them easier to get doesn’t really balance anything.  Smart to reshuffle the Charts, but the “Land” one is packed with junk.

Crusiers are OP if they are 10 AND AAA.

Bombers are OP at 12, but if they cost 14, SB isn’t viable and buying them in bulk isn’t either.

These are just a ton of interesting extra rules, which are all fun and creative but they don’t seem to balance Axis vs Allies any better than standard rules.

Now it sounds so good I will try this next time.

I assume you are asking about a land territory. The answer would be no. When you attack a land territory, you attack all country’s units that are in that land territory. So if Russia attacks an Italian territory that has German units in it, then Russia just declared war on Germany.
Sea zones are different. In a sea zone, you can attack one power’s units while other “neutral” power’s ships will simply sit there.

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.

I read numerous posts about historical rules like a separate Canada and rules for Vichy (just to name those two)

Since most of you seems to agree that the game is in favor of the axis, how do you (re)balanced the game if you use those two rules(canada and vichy) or any other one that sesns to slow down allies or advantage axis ?

@Razor:

Maybe the inherent Carrier defense value should be boosted, to compensate for the weaker fighter. Let say you can land 2 planes on the Carrier, but the Carrier itself has a little fighter force just to close combat self defense, making the carrier defend on D3 ?

Very good idea: it is a can opener. It gives much room to compensate.
Maybe you can even give it the classic A1D3, if necessary for balance.
Or even going that far: A2D3, so almost all of the OOB A3D4 Fg + A0D2 Cv= A3D6, will be converted: Fg A1D2 + CV A2D3 = A3D5.

Just suppose that there is a bunch of escorting ship/fighters wich can not be separated from the Carrier unit.

It can probably solve a lot of balance problem.

@FieldMarshalGames:

LETS GET 'EM CANADA!

When and where can I get THESE BABIES!!!