DK's Hybrid Axis and Allies Map and Rules

@Axisarmpit said in [Global 1940] HELP PLEASE Axis and Allies Global Impasse:

Im not blitzing through a territory with infrastructure, but I am entering a territory with infrastructure as part of my non contact move. Lots of gamers agree variations on their understanding of particular rules?

Right. I understood you were not blitzing. I was using that as an example of logic. Please let me explain.

In your explanation of your House Rule you said “…a non combat movement can take the form of an advance into empty enemy territory…”. Your question then is a territory containing infrastructure empty or not? Therefore:

An armor unit may blitz through empty enemy territories An armor unit may not blitz through a territory containing infrastructure Thus a territory containing infrastructure is not empty

Of course it is your House Rule so you can do anything you want but if you want to follow the logic of the game I would say you cannot advance into an enemy territory containing infrastructure during the Non-combat Phase.

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?

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I thought the B&W background would keep the chart in line with the WWII era, while also allowing the magnetic color roundels to stand out when placed.

also beware that this file doesnt understand the concept of original ownership.
If Germany captures Tobruk it should revert to Italian control, not become German.

Id really like to know if there is a way to fix this outside of edit mode.

@Uncrustable:

I think you should play some games of G40 on here before making these assumptions.
I do, and I see many SBR involving fighters.
Germany sometimes will send 5 or more bombers on Moscow alone, where Moscow has 2-3 fighters to scramble. Odds are better that Russia will lose a fighter before Germany loses a bomber in the air combat. And  Il trade a German bomber for a Russian fighter, Russia can’t afford it.
I also see many games where G2 Germany sends 2 bombers 2-4 tac bombers and 2-4 fighters to London where there are sometimes up to 5 fighters that can scramble.
Italy will also heroically send its lone bomber to London in an attempt to disable the airbase on London before Germany’s turn.

Even with interceptors SBR is a touch too powerful in G40.
This is mainly because bombers are getting +2, meaning 1 bomber auto disables bases and minor facilities once past AA and interceptors.

I would propose taking away bombers +2, while halving tacbombers damage.
Bombers SBR at 1D6
Tacbombers SBR at 1D6 /2. Rounded up.

Now I better see why you wanted to give defending interceptor D2 instead of D1.

Attacker have the advantage of picking which units will go SBR and to concentrate firepower on a single IC.

The defenders are overwhelmed by the sheer number.
In addition, on defense you have often more than just only 1 IC to protect, and you cannot keep all the Fgs in the same territory, have to split them usually.
D2 interceptors can counterweight the advantage of attacker and hindrance of defense a bit.

Reducing attacking bombers to only 1@1  for the whole group is also a way to preserved the defending fighters against destruction by a large number of StBs. But we both know, that is not A&A standard rules, each unit usually get 1 roll…

…unless you treat StBs/TcBs the same way as AAA!!!. :-o
So each defending Fgs can never have more rolled against them than 1A@1, if there is at least the same number of StB/TcBs vs Fgs.

It can be rationalized to get an historical accuracy somehow in the way:
intercepting fighters are not able to attack all groups of StBs/TcBs flying over the territory but only one unit (flight group) at a time.
When interceptors fly around StBs they are under an intense and concentrated AA fire coming from the flying fortress. But all others group of StBs are not chasing actively Interceptors, they are just flying toward the IC/AB/NB target.
So if interceptors are overwhelmed by the StBs/TcBs, it will be in essence 1:1 combat.
1 TcBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2, all other additionnal StBs/TcBs cannot shoot anymore.
In fact, all intercepting Fgs are already busy, other StBs/TcBs have pure and simple an open road toward IC or NB/AB.

What do you think of this one?
When StBs/TcBs attack fighters on SBR air combat, they get A@1 for each StB/TcB or intercepting Fgs wichever is less.

Escorting fighter attack as usual, 1 unit get 1 roll.
Based on 1942.2, I will keep @1 First Strike
Based on G40 rule, if Interceptor has D1, then A1.

(I really wonder why I haven’t think about it, even back in the old thread about StB spam strategy. :?)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31373.0

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 am gonna post a new version of mine using KISS. I think it is too complicated.

but i will do that in a new thread :-D

Thats not too hard to model.
Just let fighters defend SBRs.

We’ll already made production capacity more realistic but limiting IPCs spent at an IC rather than no. of units.
So maybe SBR should destroy IPCs as well as reduce production capacitiy.

Actually, what if we purchase at the END of your turn, and pick which ICs to build them with. At the beginning of your turn some of the units may be destroyed while building and you never got to use them.  :-D Thats pretty cool on the timeline.