Grasshopper's Alternative R&D

6 French Resistance units 2 per each city they act like fighters but can only attack one unit per guy. The number of French units in the space is the number they have to roll to hit. Example: 2 Infantry each one rolls for a two or less. Ideas? feedback?

@CWO:

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

If you just using A&A Pacific, 1940 (2nd Edit.) as a “Stand Alone” game only, and using this as a “Special House Rule” scenario it wouldn’t be problematic and would make this interesting for the folllowing reasons - By the rulebook, the U.S. and Japan are not a war yet until Japan attacks first (which would be stupid to do outright) and if this is played in the “House Rules”, Japan may place their all of their units in the Sea and Land zone of Kiangsu Province. HOWEVER, they DO NOT recieve the IPC for it until either ALL American Forces in China (the 4th Marine Regiment and the Yangtze River Patrol at Shanghai) are either evacuated out of China and headed towards either the Philippine Islands (which both actually did do in 1941) or eastward towards Hawaii or one of the outlaying Island outposts before war is declared or Japan decides to “sneak attack” and goes after the American Forces in China and wins, that is when they finally recieve the IPC for the Province. Until then NOTHING, it would be a “Eyeball to Eyeball” scenario in the “Special House Rules” to see who blinks first. And thanks for reminding me about the AVG (the Flying Tigers") in China, i will definitely add them in the “House Rules” as well.

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

@UncleSam0330:

Regarding the Excel file, you all are certainly welcome to use it! I’ve also integrated the rules and charts into electronic versions of the original 2nd edition rulebooks but I’ve not posted those because I’m not sure if that’s OK/legal to do outside of my own private use.  :? If it is OK, I’d be happy to post those as well.

I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, but OK. I mean that it’s illegal in the sense that writing Transformers fanfiction is illegal: It probably violates a copyright law, but Hasbro is never going to do anything to you because you aren’t making money off of it and they won’t waste the time and effort to sue you.

In the first game i played with my brother I just assumed that submarines have first strike. I actually
was rather surprised when I read that they don´t.
Also, I think that USW is rather weak.

Maybe using the damage rules from global 1940 and give the subs first strike could help the central powers
a bit in their struggle.

Naval mines can hit transports. You call out mines on ships one by one. (to distinguish transport w/2 INF vs transport with INF+Tank)

So yea, amphibious invasions are risky, but if you have naval superiority why march through France as the US when you can land and Greece and be super annoying.

I’d like to know if anyone has developed an alternate setup for either AAR or AA50.  I am not looking for historical accuracy - I’m looking for a setup that produces the most exciting gameplay.
I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I like A&A not because it’s based on WW2, but because of the gameplay and mechanics. 
So, I’m looking for a setup that would enhance gameplay.  I can’t help but think that some “exciting” setup options are sitting on the cutting-room floor simply because they are not historically accurate.
Can anyone help?
Thanks.

@dezrtfish:

So, you take a bad odds chance of loosing 12 IPCs worth of equipment for an average of 3IPCs loss to your enemy.

1/61 + 1/62 + 1/63 + 1/64 + 1/65 + 1/66 = 3.5

About the odds! If one uses one fighter to escort the bomber and the enemy has one fighter in the target area, then one has the odds of loosing units to a cost of 8.5 I.P.C.'s (3/6 * 12 + 1/6 * 15). On the other hand the enemy has the odds of loosing 11.5 I.P.C.'s (4/6 * 12 + 3.5)!!! The question is if the enemy chooses to use his fighter to intercept the escort??

If one chooses to perform a SBR whithout fighter cover, then one has the odds of loosing units to a cost of 10 I.P.C.'s (3/6 * 15 + 1/6 * 15), where as the enemy has the odds of loosing 5.5 I.P.C.'s (1/6 * 12 + 3.5)!!! :wink:

What we have learned here is that this rule pracrtically reduceses the bombers range to 4! But there is another thing that is very interesting with this rule, and that is when one player has developed Heavy Bombers. Then it’s worth building a stock pile of fighters in all IC territories, except new or captured ones (se rules for ‘New Complexes’)!

B.Andersson, Game Master