G40 League House Rule project

But Japan now also has the option of building a medium complex on Kiangsu or Manchuria!  (Not Malaya or Hong Kong because must be originally controlled)

You’re right on the convoys!
You guys might want to print out the NO and convoy pages for your reference while playing?  Just an idea

@Shin:

Oh, and one more thing.  When the remaining French units become UK units, do they change the ownership of the terriroty they are currently in?

No.  Only the units change.

Say, the one in French West Africa, for example.  Assuming France has fallen by that time, on the Uk turn it would start in a French owned TT, and it could move into French Central Africa, making FCA a UK TT.  So, does FWA remain French?

All French territories remain French until taken over by the Axis.  Then any ally can take the territory back and control it.

French units will always become UK after the first round of play regardless of whether Paris falls (after USA1)

And that’s a good point.
I was just thinking about making a rule that Normandy (only) would become UK after USA1, although the infantry and artillery becoming UK is already some deterrent to letting it go.  Don’t worry about this for your test game.  I’ll consider it in the future.

Note that while the infantry and artillery becomes UK after USA1, the Germans will have an opportunity on G2 to attack them before they can ever move.  And now the Italians don’t have to worry about an immediate French counterattack from Normandy on South France after I1.

Right, they are each 5
Added to document, thanks

Edited to specify USSR must be at war to get the no allies NO

Also for UK Pacific - must be at war with Japan to get NO’s

Copy of the comment I posted to the game:

You guys are doing a great job of implementing the house rules onto 2nd edition G40
I like how the reduced transport price gives Japan more transports J1
The map looks good to me, and I’m happy nothing seems to have “exploded”

With an extra NO, Russia will be harder to crack.
Probably should have bought a sub instead of one of those tanks!
You can disrupt 2 NO’s with a sub in 125, and 1 just by building one into 112  :-)

Perhaps the Russian NO for European territories should only be 2.  3 always seemed a bit extreme to me.

Added a sheet to the document for new ideas, to keep them separate from the rules that Shin Ji and Noz are playing with.
They are already about 5 rounds into the game, and are doing a great job of adapting these house rules to Triple A and remembering the changes.
Thanks guys, for being the pioneers

@Shin:

You know, I was thinking about the dual capital thing, and it seems needlessly complicated.  If you were going to do that, wouldn’t you need clear ocean between India and Australia most of the time to let them share money?

So why merge them as one country in the first place?

It still removes a power’s turn, and removes 1-2 punches and dirty tricks, like the old ANZAC declares war after UK sails a destroyer right into the Japanese so they can’t load trick.
There’s more - while it was fun and novel to have Australia as a playable power for awhile, it strikes me as ridiculous.  If Australia is a power, Canada should be a power.  They have too much income and units to start with, presumably to keep them from being a sucky playable power.  Et cetera.

I just realized during your game that I didn’t want Australia to be shut down by Calcutta falling, and vice versa.  It’s not complicated.  If one capital falls, Japan gets half the IPC’s, and the other capital continues on with the other half of the money plus income from non-Australian or non-mainland Asia territories only.  It’s no more abstract than anything else in A&A.
Thank you for these thoughts and questions.

Also, I think AA guns need further reduction - to 3.  Even at 4, there’s no reason to ever buy them.

I hadn’t done extensive analysis on them yet, so just took a step in the right direction.  3 might be good, I don’t know yet.  Thanks for the suggestion

I’d also reduce Tac Bombers to 9.  Ftrs at 11 is great, though.  They are clearly worth it, as are Strat Bmbers at 13.

Yeah!  You are among the small minority that agrees with me.  Awesome.
I hesitate a little bit to reduce tacs to 9, but don’t disagree.
Note for readers who may not realize - this is with Strat bomber SBR damage reduced to dr+1

Love having the bases at 12.  More options!

Sweet!  Was starting to have 2nd thoughts that they were maybe slashed too much, but this feedback is valuable

Were you still going to have Normandy change to a UK TT after USA1?

Yes, if it is still French at that point, of course.  Because it’s crap if the Axis have a way of making Normandy unusable to the Allies.

Does anyone else want to further playtest this?  I’d like to see some higher end players give a whack at it.

Looking forward to another play test by whoever, with the tweaks I’ve come up with as a result of your play testing.  Although, waiting for a full report and opinions from both you and Noz (or maybe this is your full report, I don’t know)

Yeah, I don’t think tacs should be reduced below 10

Part of the reason of raising fighters and bombers was to help the relative cost of tanks be a wee bit smaller

I would suppose few would argue with having transports cost 6

I’m wondering if Japan air needs to be reduced a little bit more, and maybe a USA fighter in the Pacific too, along with reducing the Russian stacks by 1 each…… I think the Pacific board overall has too much stuff.  I took a guess at how much to reduce UK to offset the power of being able to attack together and build in Australia or India at will.  If we think they are reduced too much, we can reduce Japan air.  19 fighters/tacs at start still seems like too much (it was several more than that before Larry did his aircraft reduction plan!), and we’re down to 17 now.  Any more reduction, and we should probably reduce USA air too…  This also helps reduce the dramatic effects of crossing over from Pacific to Europe for either Axis or Allies (btw Larry also increased Europe some from what it originally was.  His first version had a huge disparity between Europe and Pacific stacks of ground and air)

Moving one infantry to Yunnan and taking one away from Kwangsi is pretty drastic, although I believe Japan in your game still mowed down Yunnan (leaving China with 1 less infantry).  But Yunnan is no longer a pushover, and this was partly the intent.  Now, bid units to Yunnan and Russian air flying down on R1 become more of an issue (not saying that’s good or bad), although playing with a 1 unit per territory bid limit pretty much still prevents R1 air to Yunnan being a wise move?