G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Seems pretty good. Looks like a lot more money for the Allies. Might be required since the UK is so busted up. Seems like you’d always J1 given that the US is already making 5 bucks off Japan anyways.

TripleaA lobby is seeing a lot of bids between 16-24 on average? In LL I agree with what’s been said, I really am starting to come to the conclusion that even mid-20s makes it a very tough match for Allies. I am not surprised the league is going higher than that. But I really do think you need to guage the skill level of your opponent. If you get a newbie in your triplea lobby, maybe cut them a break. It’s the somewhat experienced guys that always throw me, strong for about 3-5 rounds but then don’t really have any mid-game strategy experieince. It’s hard to know how much to bid in those cases too.

But anyway, back to what units are getting bought: Subs/DDs around the Med for UK. Sometimes fighters for UK (Scotland, Malta). Other threads have answered this question as well, from recent memory: Inf in Yunnan for example, and ground units in africa.

Less often variations: Russia bomber, UK transport in South Africa. UK sub in Malaya. I’ve also seen Subs in the north atlantic.

Some people dump a bunch of ground units in Russia. Whether or not that actually does anything I doubt.

I am also going to take this opportunity to plug this thread about Bids and bid rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35874/allied-bids-what-are-the-common-rules-on-placement … I do so to personally recommend not allowing facilities for bids.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

As the War progressed it became apparent to all Major Powers, that Weapons Production needed a significant increase.

The Total War rule reflects the efficiency in production as War materiel were mass produced.

G40 Total War.pdf

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

This rule allows players to move a specific number of land combat units in order to reinforce front line units, build up forces for future offensives or simply as decoy to confuse the enemy, etc.

Paratroopers and Soviet Partisans can both become handy in order to disrupt enemy Strategic Rail Movement.

G40 Strategic Rail Movement.pdf

@crockett36
What you talkin bout Willis?

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but it’s been a crazy year.

I know that there is evidence of Dutch transports, and I’m not refuting that. I’m simply stating that the addition of a transport makes the new Dutch units too powerful on the game board, and grossly unbalances the game in favor of the Allies, which is a bad thing.

My solution, after play testing, is to give the Axis some units to balance it out, and I’ve edited my original post to reflect this.

@Caesar-Seriona said in G40 Benelux (Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg) Setup:

@JustLuthor:

@Herr:

I like the general idea though of course it would have to be carefully balanced. As for the units, I’m not much in favor of the tank in Scotland, for realism’s sake. The Dutch had one small tank at home. The Belgians did have a significant number of tanks but evacuating them to the UK was evidently impossible. Having two Benelux infantry units there is already more than enough compared to the French who were far more numerous.
Dutch New Guinea might have an infantry unit, though. Dutch resistance continued throughout the war there, and the Japanese never completely conquered that territory.

I can’t find it now, but in my research, I came across a Dutch tank unit raised in England after the fall of the Netherlands. For balance’s sake, maybe it should be 1 Artillery to represent Luxembourg’s limited contribution to the allied war effort. And maybe it should be only one infantry in England for both balance, and scale.

I couldn’t find any Dutch 1940 Order of Battle for Dutch New Guinea. I only found references to DNG being reinforced after Japan declared war. This is the best historical argument for a Dutch transport in the Pacific, though I still feel it should be up to ANZAC to ferry Dutch units around for balance’s sake, which is empirically more important than historical accuracy.

Another reason I don’t stress accuracy, is that it’s a slippery slope that eventually leads to completely revamping the game; not just the setup, but the map, and game mechanics as well. I would certainly like to do this for my own amusement, but it’s hard enough to get a game of Global going. I don’t want to compound that problem by creating an even more complicated game with 40-something countries, resources, trade agreements, diplomatic agreements, governments in exile, technology, a dozen new units, prison camps, espionage, sabotage, food rationing on the home front, and the Bretton Woods Conference.

Though I would totally play that game.

From my understanding of Luxembourg war effort against the Wehrmacht was the fact their nation did not have a military and only their capital city had some kind of defense and it was the cities police force that fought and surrendered (if I remember correctly) after a day of fighting. So as far as I know, no military campaign of any sort came from Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg government in exile did field a small artillery troop attached to the 1st Belgian Field Artillery Battery (specifically Troop C). They fought in Northern France, and Belgium.

Allright- here it is.

The Japanese lost without a massive US contribution. The US built a Flying Tiger tactical bomber turn 4, and the Chinese Nationalists managed to keep the Burma Road open for a turn, so it got to Szechwan. The Russian Far East Army was in Novrosibirsik and Samara by turn 5, so the Japanese made the critical mistake of attacking Amur. This enabled the Russians to divert their tactical bomber from Moscow, and fly it to Suiyuan. The Mongolians walked into the Chinese Communist army over the next few turns, and by turn 8, the CCP had:

8 infantry, 2 of which were Mongolian
2 artillery
1 Russian tactical bomber

The Nationalists had traded Yunnan back and forth four times over the course of the game, and had lost Kwiechow, Anhwe, Hopei, and Hunan. Other than that, they were doing OK, as Szechwan was safe.

The game ended with a narrow Allied victory on turn 12. The FEC had attacked the Japanese unprovoked on turn 2, and by turn 5 had French Indo-China bulked up heavily, with

5 infantry
3 artillery
2 fighters
1 tactical bomber
mIC

Over the next three turns, they built 3 tanks a turn (they controlled Siam and Sumatra).

This forced the Japanese to build an IC in Shanghai, and built 3 tanks every turn to keep the Chinese coast safe from either the Nationalists or the FEC. This means that, out of 55 IPCs a turn, they were automatically spending 18 a turn in an arms race where the Chinese were a factor as well. Then, on turn 8, everything cracked. The CCP retook Chahar at the cost of 4 infantry, and received a Russian tank.

The Nationalist Chinese, who had been playing fairly conservatively, hit Yunnan hard with

9 infantry
6 artillery
1 fighter
1 tactical bomber.

They came out of this battle with 3 infantry dead. Finally, the FEC followed up on this with throwing everything they had at Kwangsi. This triple blow wasn’t something the Japanese could immediately counterattack. They started a new line of defence encompassing Jehol, Shantung, Manchuria, and Kiangsu. They also shipped 6 infantry to hold Hong Kong. It wasn’t enough. The Chinese Communists and Japanese wiped each other out in Jehol, while the Nationalists retook Kwiechow, Hunan, and Kiangsi without any difficulties. ANZAC was cooperative enough to eliminate the possible landing spot of Formosa.

While all of this was going on, the US was focussed chiefly in Europe, where they had done Torch and taken Rome (and were putting its IC to good use!) Normandy had been traded back and forth a few times as well. This had the effect of forcing the Germans to keep 6 infantry in Northern Italy, 2 in Albania, 4 in Yugoslavia, and 1 in Greece. They also had to keep a garrison in Paris, including a fighter to help ward of bombing. This had the effect of the Germans not being able to take Moscow, so there was no immediate danger in Europe. Therefore, the US decided that the time was right to hit the Japanese. On turn 9, they built 3 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 2 strat. bombers. On turn 10, this all sailed out to Hawaii, as 4 loaded transports came out of WUS. On turn 12, the Japanese (who were down to 12 IPCs a turn, thanks to the Chinese mopping up the northeast, and ANZAC clearing the DEI), succumbed to a US invasion fleet. That same turn, the British captured Paris and Northern Italy, causing Germany to surrender.

Not all of this was caused directly by a stronger China, but that did influence it. Since China could do more, the Japanese did not gain easy access to the 12 IPCs of the Chinese interior, and only ever captured 6 Chinese territories over the course of the game. And holding these territories was trickier as well, as the Chinese could hit harder. Attacking Russia was a really stupid move on Japan’s part, as it not only opened up a supply route to the Communists (Mongolia), but diverted troops away from India and China. Since Japan had more on its hands, the US could focus more on Europe, contributing to Italy’s early fall and Germany’s inability to take Moscow (although strong Russian play and die-rolls played a part in the latter). Once both Axis powers were under a lot of pressure, the US could simply take Tokyo, thanks in part to good FEC play, but also because China could reconquer the valuable coast, depriving Japan of income. And once Tokyo fell, the German player knew that there was a 0% chance of taking Moscow, Paris, Rome, and Cairo. The Allied advantage in the Pacific was due partially to good FEC play and die-rolls, and the insane decision to attack Russia, but a stronger China also played a part.

Just for the record, the players were divided up into US/Nat China/France, USSR/CCP, UK/FEC/ANZAC, Japan, and Germany/Italy.

Uncrustable,
why don’t use this game mechanics instead when attacking transports?

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs.
-When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

This is another way to play a defenseless transport which should be added in this thread to be complete on the optional rule for this topic.

It makes me think about a similar but still a bit different way to played it also as a defenseless but not hopeless transport:

When there is no more warships/aircrafts to defend transports, then each transport roll and for each “1” rolled in a specific round, one TT can escape.
Attacker need to hit transport unit according to each attacking factor (ex.: subs @2/ DD @2 / CA @3, etc.) to destroy one transport.
Each round any un-destroyed transport which haven’t been able to escape can still trying to roll “1” to escape.

The combat end when, either all remaining transports have been able to escape, or have been destroyed.

Their will be no more auto-die, no combat unit will be destroy and the naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule: a roll is needed to destroy any unit and no unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round.

Since I play-tested it,
I say it is much more interesting than auto-die and more balance way to keep some surviving TT than destroying expensive attacking units (one way or an other).

I should add this detail:
transport can get their evasive roll as soon as their is no more warships or planes on their side at the end of a combat round.

Always attacking units can hit first, and it is only surviving transport which can get an evasive roll.

Which means, for instance, if their is 2 transports at the beginning of a round and 2 are hitten by attacker’s units then their is no evasive roll.