ONLY Axis BBs 2 hit @ start…

@hengst This house rules forum is full of ideas. To avoid scripted games you need a varaiety ways to win or lose a game in a reasonable amount of time ,eg 8 to 12 rounds.BBR and 3G40 are rulesets that encourage you to win by achieving various victory objectives.(not just victory cities)
3G40 changes turn order,merges Anzac into UKPacific,and sticks pretty close to oob rules.BBR is more complex than oob and is real popular.Both are designed to play in 1 day and to be able to declare a winner.

@Ichabod:

@Argothair:

Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.

I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.

I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).

Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.

I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.

Axis can grab lands such as South Africa or Australia but I don’t think it might be optimal for Axis.
Such are out of position and, if Germany waste money in Africa, this is less units against Russia.
Same for Japan wasting resources against US instead of crushing India, then going Caucasus or Moscow.

I do agree about Archangel and Karelia, it is on the north way toward Moscow.

@Arreghas:

You are indeed proving to me that changing any rule set is complex indeed and requires very thoughtful analysis.

Yes, that’s quite correct.  An important point to remember is that a complex game such as Global 1940 is similar to other complex devices (such as automotive vehicles): they are systems consisting of multiple interrelated parts which are designed to work together in a particular way and which reflect many design choices and compromises.  Sometimes it’s possible to make minor or even major alterations to some of those components without affecting significantly the performance the overall system, but sometimes even a minor adjustment to a single critical component can wreck the whole thing.  (Take as an example the recent Galaxy Note 7 debacle.  There’s been speculation that Samsung may have changed the electrolyte in the lithium-ion batteries to something less stable, or that it may have gone too far in thinning the separator which keeps the positive and negative sides apart so that the battery doesn’t short-circuit and overheat.)  And design considerations have to take into account the fundamental question of what purpose the system is supposed to serve.  A luxury limousine, a Formula One race-car and a semi-trailer truck are all automotive vehicles, but they’re all optimized to do specific jobs and they all place different leves of emphasis on different capabilities such as passenger comfort, baggage / cargo-holding capacity, speed, fuel consumption efficiency and so forth.

It seems to me like in a lot of cases retreat would not be an option, unless like Black Elk said they could choose any adjacent friendly territory.
Here’s an example using 1942.2 with Germany and Russia:
Germany starts with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter in Ukraine.
Russia starts with 3 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 tank in Caucasus.
Russia decides to send 2 infantry, 1 artillery to Ukraine from Caucasus, 1 infantry, 1 tank to W Russia from Caucasus.
Germany sends 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter to Caucasus from Ukraine.
Now there is a border clash. Let’s say Germany wins losing 2 infantry. Now Germany has 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter that move on into the Caucasus. Basically, Germany now takes control of the Caucasus.
Let’s say the battle in W. Russia goes badly for Russia and they decide to retreat the 1 infantry and 1 tank that came from Caucasus.
How would you handle this retreat? Would they go to Russia or Kazakhstan?
Or would they go back to Caucasus and fight the German units there? If this were the case, would they act as attackers or defenders?
Or, if neither Russia or Kazakhstan were available as retreat options, I guess the infantry and tank simply fight on in W Russia until they are destroyed?

I think I overreacted on the Italian situation. I foresaw UK being able to focus more on Italy in this compared to a normal game, since Britain’s income is centralized due to Halifax, and because it can probably afford to redirect Pacific forces west since USA in the Pacific isn’t as immediate of a threat to Calcutta as Japan was. Additionally, to defend the mobilization of Spain, I moved France’s destroyer by Madagascar to the Mediterranean to block off a Italian T1 transport heading to Gibraltar.
To counterbalance that I made one of Italy’s NO more attainable, upgraded 2 infantry to mechs, gave a free tank and artillery already in Africa, combined the Somalian infantry with the Ethiopians which is almost like giving an extra infantry, gave a free destroyer, and took away an ANZAC infantry from Egypt and a UK AAA from Malta.

But there’s another big factor to consider. Like, uh, I don’t know… USA PLAYING ON THE OTHER TEAM, MAYBE?? ;)

So! I’m changing some of that, and that’s the biggest change of these tweaks here. I acknowledge most of these changes are in favor of the Allies. I now present v1.4, which I intend to be playable as-is and the last of this series of changes, until I play some real games myself or get feedback from you kind or heartless souls. ^_^

v1.3 —> v1.4 changes
-Burma: -1 Infantry, -1 Fighter, +1 Artillery
-switched Cruiser and Battleship in SZ37/SZ39 (this and the Burma changes were actually done a while ago, I just forgot to write them down)
-removed extra tank in Libya, re-separated Somalian infantry, returned Malta AAA
-added to Story (Greenland)
-placed Commonwealth transport in SZ106 (Canada should have SOME sort of Navy, right?)
-removed extra Inf in Slovakia
-changed Eastern Mex standing army to 3 Inf (from 2)
-simplified Commonwealth defense perimeter NO
-modified Commonwealth 1st NO to require Ontario or Quebec (to encourage US player to strike fast and not overwhelm them separately)
-modified UK anti-sub NO to exclude eastern US coast
-fixed Russian lend-lease NO to not penalize Russia for support from allies
-added 2 Inf in Borneo
-added 1 Inf in Hawaii
-fixed a conflicting statement about Bolivia (Bolivia is Pro-Allies)

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.