ONLY Axis BBs 2 hit @ start…

@Frederick-II

If you move 2/3 through original territory, does that count to a nearby enemy territory? For instance, if I take an army from Vienna, can I move it 2 to attack Poland or am I forced to wait in Galacia?

Yup! Scale was perfect for the map…the infantry are too large to fit comfortably in Belorussia or West Russia, but they fit great in France, Italy, Africa, and China! Quality is 3.5/5 stars. Some of the infantry didn’t detach cleanly from the sprue, and the modeling is slightly chunky, but overall the pieces are durable, handsome, and clearly distinguishable.

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

Typing from a smartphone is the best way to respond LOL! So sorry for the typos and grammar.

Anyways Hotspurs. I really encourage you and others to play around with the game.

So if a power on one side, let’s say AMERICA, has committed a ton of war crimes and their morality score gets down to say 50(?), then all the neutrals become pro-axis.  Very realistic.

Now what if you could buy off a neutral with “foreign aid” and prevent them from going pro-other side?  Suppose the “Hearts & Minds” thing were changed so that you get a +1 morality point AND prevent a neutral from going pro-other side by coughing up the number of IPCs their territory is worth.  For example, if Germany is <50 morality points and all the neutrals are going pro-allies, then they can pay Spain $2 to stay strict neutral for another turn.  You do this every turn at Purchase Units.  Once a strict neutral goes pro-other side they can never go back to strict neutral.

So having a bad reputation means the other side gets lots of potential income from the neutrals (and their units) and you have to spend a bunch of money every turn on forein aid to Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc to appease them. The good news is everytime you buy them off you get to brag up your generosity in propaganda that earns you +1 morality point.  Now that’s realistic.

What would be neat is if you can arrange it so that all the war crimes result in IPC gains but have morality point losses.  If at some point those war crimes result in tangible bad things happening to you (e.g. Fifth column etc), then you have to balance the benefits against the potential harms and it really becomes a game of “How much can I get away with?”.

I’ll continue this proyect. The definitive rules are:

Victory conditions:

Axis win if

a) Japan has at least 6 VCs at end of USA’s turn
b) Germany + Italy have at least 7 VCs at end of USA’s turn

Allies win if they have at least 13 VCs at end of USA’s turn

Tech:

Use delayed tech as default (techs enter in play at the end of the turn of the power that discovered them)

NOs:

NOs are mandatory

Europe:

Dardaneles closed 1942 scenario: Karelia IC deleted and moved to Novosibirsk (at setup) 1941 scenario: you can move Karelia’s IC to Novo (1 time each game). Do it in deployment phase. You cannot deploy new units at kar or novo the turn that you move the IC

China:

Using AAP40 rules for China China plays after Italy and before USA Setup is the same for both scenarios (use OOB 1942 for both) However, the chinese fighter is moved from Yunnan to Sikang and China gains 1 aa gun at Sikang China is allowed to move to any place. No limits of movement with one exception: China cannot enter at soviet controled territory (and USSR cannot enter at chinese territory) China doesn’t start at war with Germany and Italy. Germany or Italy can DOW China at pleasure, but China cannot DOW ger/ita unless that one of them DOWed first or that NAP is not active

UK

Colonial garrison: you MUST deploy a free IC for UK round 1, as if you had purchased it. The free IC costs 0 IPCs 1941 only: add 1 uk inf to sum, bor, ngui and sol

USSR/Japan non agression pact:

The breaker pays 15 IPCs to the bank unless it attacks a territory or SZ defended by multiple nations (that case, pay 0 IPCs). You can attack multinational SZs and ignore units belonging to a power that you’re not at war If the NAP ends, China can enter to USSR and viceversa. Also, if Germany or Italy attack China, the NAP should be voided, making a fully global war

This will be my last effort to balance AA50 (I’d like to play some games here and there). I’ll try to post the AABattlemap module soon. I want to end this before moving to my next proyects, a custom 1940 OOB module and some other module called ‘Spain, 1940’ …