Cards for Axis and Allies 1940

Not saying these are at all perfect, but I posted about some potential Vichy house rules for 1940 a while back as well! Just thought I’d share here in case it sparks anything for you as well or anything to go along with your own!

I explain my thoughts in this post, but my hope was to avoid any massive deviations to the standard A&A game play. By that I mean, I didn’t want to go crazy adding or changing a ton of specific rules or anything that exist in the game already.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26099/vichy-france-global-1940?_=1688593330283

@Valladares

I used Tank as substitute for Artillery bonus on Infantry.

No need for more sculpts, just giving +1 Attack bonus when paired 1:1 with a Tank.

That way, you introduce a combined arms mechanics at no real cost. In addition, you make Inf+ Tank combo the best attacking land units compared to 3 Infantry by a small margin, for same cost.

@general-5-stars said in [Global 1940] Funny How...:

We play Uk 1 inf or art can use the hump from Assam to Yunnan if China controls Yunnan.

You could have roll a 1 and it blocks the piece based on lost planes.

Or a 2 blocks it like all limits said. Think using a bomber plane is to much. Just lose the 6 icps.

Come on. Test test test.

Okay so I that title sounds kinda clickbait-y and I apologize for that. To get it said and done, no I don’t think France should be scrapped entirely replaced with Britain or something. I just think that as is, it needs way more to be an actual nation worth having a person play if you have a lot of people while still being balanced. So we all know that 99% of the time, France is gonna fall on the first turn to Germany. Maybe they pull some weird new mega brain ultra plan but that’s pretty unlikely. Paris falls, Germany gets cash money and the French are left playing the most minor and conservative support role known to man.
This really sucks for you when you first pick up the game and think maybe there’s gonna be some interesting new faction with special rules like China but instead you’re just a stepping stone. So here’s what I would suggest:

Instead of having just France it be France and a collection of the other minor allied powers in exile. So France, Dutch, Poland, etc. Change Congo to this new faction and place an infantry down there. Maybe one infantry in Indonesia and one in Indo China, an extra fighter in Britain, and maybe a Transport in either the Atlantic or Med.
But that still isn’t really much of an improvement for the player, so similarly to China I would say that the exiled Allies should get some special way of recruiting units. It’d be very small like at the end of every turn roll a die and if you roll a one you can place one infantry down in any territory of yours worth at least one IPC. While I do want to make it more interesting for the exiled Allies player, I don’t want to make them too powerful to significantly hurt the Axis. To counteract this maybe make a few territories they own worth an extra IPC? They won’t be making money once Paris falls and a few more IPCs I think would add up to a rough equivalence. Territories like Normandy, Indochina, Tunis, etc.

I’m not gonna pretend like I’ve actually tested this yet and I’m also fully admitting that I might be accidentally suggesting some horrible completely unbalanced idea that would throw it to the Allies. But this is just a little idea I thought up to try and help make things slightly more fun for the poor French player. Is this a good idea? Am I a big dumb-dumb? (Those are not mutually exclusive.) I really want to know your guys’ thoughts on this before I actually try it or anything I could do to change or fine tune it so please let me know!

Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
😊😊😊

@CWO:

I’m not sure I understand the concept of a Pearl Harbor attack involving no Japanese ships, since the whole operation revolved around the use of a Japanese carrier strike force to bring the attacking aircraft into range of Pearl Harbor.  Japanese aircraft in 1941 didn’t have the range to fly all the way to Hawaii from Japan and all the way back again.  The closest that Japan ever came to doing anything like that were one or two very small bombing raids carried out against Hawaii by (if I recall correctly) a couple of flying boats from Kwajalein Atoll.  These flying boats – Emilys, I think – were big and slow and clumsy, could hardly have done much damage, and would have had to fly unescorted since no Japanese fighters had the equivalent range.

As for the Doolittle Raid, it was carried out by B-25 Mitchell medium bombers, not by tactical bombers.  The rule section about these normally land-based planes being carrier-launched is correct (they used special training and techniques to launch from a flight deck), but the rule would have to be more precise than just saying that “The US player can launch 2 TB from 1 carrier” because it doesn’t restrict the location of the carrier and it doesn’t specify that the planes have to fly a one-way mission.  In the actual raid, Hornet had to get close enough for the planes to launch, hit their targets and continue to China.  The planes didn’t have the range to return to the carriers, and in any case could never have made a carrier landing; the techniques they used to launch from a carrier couldn’t work in reverse to land on one.

Also, the pearl harbor attack included Jaanese subs. It wasn’t a pure air attack.

I use WWII Russians and control markers for Bolsheviks. These are controlled by the CPs, but cannot attack outside original Russian areas. Some sort of Siberian railway track to represent the arrival of Allied (i.e. anti-Bolshevik) forces from the east.

Something else I’ve experimented with is the release of POWs; if the war with Russia ends, G & A get a number of infantry to represent the release of prisoners held in Russia. This can be extended to any power being knocked out of the war.

My main change is that collapse is based on national morale, based on casualties suffered & bombing raids on the capitals as well as losing battles and tt. Its fairly obvious that collapse based on income levels favours the CPs too much.

There were a few wars fought in South America in the early 30’s. I don’t know who had who’s backing in those conflicts. There was the Guerra del 41 between Equador and Peru. I know the US supported Peru and Japan supported Equador, but I’m pretty sure that support was from the bleachers. The only equipment I can tell you for sure that was used was the Czech LTP (Panzer 38t). These were used by Peru.
Peru had all the gear. They actually prepared for war. This lead to Peru having a 3-4 to 1 advantage in men and equipment. Except for tanks. Equador had none. Peru had around 25. Take a wild guess at who won.