How much would the game change if…....

Made a few more changes. Removed 3 inf from allies on setup in Asia.
Made FIC worth 3 instead of 2.
Cauraucus now worth 4 instead of 5. Russia income back to 24. from 25.

We played another game but ended it on turn 4. Axis not being able to get that 12 city.
But of course more play is needed.

I can post updated map if somebody wants to see it.

During an interview with Larry Harris we did a few months ago, I mentioned house rules for A&A centered around Espionage. We got a ton of feedback about it. So, now that we have completed the complete series on Air Combat and Sea Combat, we decided to double back to make a video about possible set of house rules that center around the concepts of spycraft.

We worked with our friend Jonathan Bosch to develop a few fun options. We aren’t claiming these are 100% flushed out, but our hope is that folks will give them a try and have some fun with them. Let us know what you think in the comments and if you would like to see more videos like this one!

Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/6MaDGKjVbDI

I recently played a game with a new group, and they had a few changes that altered the game dramatically. They edited units so that they “represent” real units during the war. For instance, they changed German tanks to Panzers and made them 4/4/2’s for 8 IPs. They gave Russia 2 free INF at the start of their turn to place at an IPC before mobilization. They made Japanese fighters into Zeros making them 3/3/4’s for 8 IPs. British AA guns hit is increased to 2 while in London. Lastly, American transports get to move one space after offloading, but cannot pickup or dropoff during this move. This was my first exposure to these rules. In my opinion, the US transport rule made shuck-shuck much faster. These rules clearly favor allies, but definitely changed the game. Give me your thoughts, changes, etc.  :mrgreen:

Moderator’s Edit: Added [Spring 1942] to title

Combine Venezuela/Colombia/Ecuador, Chile/Bolivia/Peru, and Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay together. No need to change IPC values.

From a playability standpoint it makes no sense to have 9 little countries across the continent.

I play it like this and things can get interesting.

I really like the idea of 1 IPC per valueless allied pacific island. I am going to propose that to the group I play with, because we are always looking for a way to balance the game, but at the same time try to keep it as close to OOB as possible.

What we have been doing for several games, and it is working well, is this:

Play “cry uncle” - so no Victory City win condition for Axis.
Germany not allowed to build factories in original German controlled territories.
USA can do whatever they want in the European theater only, right away in turn one.

Hi Procas!

I like the concept. The main difficulty I see with a 2 ipc rule though, is that the some of the major transcontinental railways that existed at the time would violate the rule (by passing through 1 ipc territories.) The Trans-Siberian, Trans-Canadian, Tran-Australian would all be out for example.

Something along the lines of what Narvik suggested might be workable, but there the issue would be max capacity of the rail lines. For example, it’s conceivable that some units could be redirected from one end of the rail network to the other, but not all units at the same time. So would there be an upper limit on how many units could move around like that, within the broader region they control by rail?

It might be interesting if the total rail capacity was somehow related to total production capacity of a Nation. For example, if the max number of units that could be moved around like this, was limed either by your total IPCs or by the number of nearby factories, or something of that sort.

The idea of caping the movement at 2 for all ground units would fit with the concept generally, but would definitely diminish the value of tanks and mech as others pointed out. A bonus of +1 to all units, is another alternative, though this would dramatically increase the value of tanks and mech. Its an interesting trade off, but on the whole expanded movement makes me a little nervous. It really needs to be handled delicately, since it’s much more powerful than expanding say attack or defense values. The long range air tech, or ABs have been an example of this, and they can be very potent, and crazy game changing.

I still like the idea of a rail base though, or some kind of rail component to the factories, or ways for Infantry to move at an accelerated pace under some conditions like those.

@BJCard:

Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).

With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber.  And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London.  Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3).  No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1).  Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.

I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.

If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.

The obvious Allied counter would be to prioritize aircraft production, like in the real war (see: Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, Battle of Kursk), which isn’t as daunting as your projections would indicate.

Because planes can’t land in newly-conquered territories, each side could use their air units to cherry-pick the other fellow’s best offensive units on their respective turns, resulting in a mutual neutering until somebody finally broke through.

It would be a bloodbath in the sky for the first few rounds, but the Allies have the economic clout to pull off air superiority in the long run… and with this targeting prize, air superiority would really mean something worth fighting for, for a change.

No, I haven’t used them before, but if you’re not sure about them you could make a small order and if it works out ok, make a larger order (if you need one) afterward.  They have free shipping, so it won’t cost you extra if you make multiple orders.