West Canada naval base.

Active Nations:

USSR: 45 IPCs
Would include all starting USSR territories, plus the following:
Germany, Poland, Slovakia Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania

Western Europe (WE) : 23 IPCs

Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola, Mozambique Holland Belgium, Suriname, Belgian Congo Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia Turkey, Greece, Crete

So in E&W, a bit ahistorically (as the game is set in 1948) Greece and Turkey are part of WE, despite not joining NATO until 1952. For now I’m lumping them in here, but my other preference would be to have them as strict neutrals – more on that later.

Also in E&W, Greenland and Iceland are treated as US territories; since both are worth 0 IPCs on the Europe 1940 map, the only real important distinction is whether they are hostile or friendly, so I wanted to include them under WE instead.

UK: 31 IPCs
gains the following territories:
Italian Somaliland, Tobruk, Libya, Western Germany

UK loses Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Alexandria to the Arab League UK loses Iceland to WE

US: 38 IPCs
gains the following territories:
Greater Southern Germany

US loses Southeast Mexico to the OAS US loses Greenland to WE

Neutral Powers:

France (pro-NATO) : 16 IPCs

France loses Syria to the Arab League

What I’m proposing for France would be sort of a hybrid rule between the activation rules for pro-neutrals, and a house rule I proposed for China, in E&W.

Essentially how this works is that France would contribute income to WE, based on the IPC value of French territories containing NATO troops (WE, UK, or US) at the end of Western Europe’s turn. If France is attacked by the USSR, all French units and territories would convert to WE ownership.

The reason for doing this is primarily to keep France as part of NATO, without making WE so huge economically that they don’t need any help. Also, by weakening NATO a little bit in this way, I’m hoping to avoid needing to use the E&W rule whereby USSR gets infantry for 2 IPCs instead of 3 IPCs.

Organization of American States (OAS) : 9 IPCs
(Essentially, all of the neutral South American countries except Suriname, plus Southeast Mexico)
If the OAS is attacked by the USSR, all OAS units and territories would convert to US ownership.

Arab League: 8 IPCs
(Alexandria, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia)
If the Arab League is attacked by the USSR, all Arab units and territories would convert to UK ownership.

…
So, in addition to possibly including a diplomacy mechanism similar to classic E&W, I was wanting to incorporate one of the house rules I had suggested for E&W and apply it to this scenario:

All remaining neutrals are considered “strict neutrals”
However:

The USSR may attack any neutral at any time. If the USSR attacks a strict neutral, rather than having ALL strict neutrals side with NATO (as in classic Europe 1940) instead NATO gets to shift either the OAS or Arab League one step on the diplomacy scale.

Now, if Greece and Turkey are kept as strict neutrals, rather than being part of WE, this rule could potentially have large consequences if/when the USSR chooses to attack them.

I was thinking instead of the classic E&W diplomacy scale, it’d make more sense to have it like -8/-6/-4/-2/0/+2/+4/+6/+8

Strict Neutrals:
Probably a good “hard and fast” rule would be that if attacked by the USSR, strict neutrals in Europe would join WE, while strict neutrals in Africa or the middle east would join UK; Rio De Oro would be considered part of Spain, for these purposes. If Turkey is neutral…? I’d probably consider them part of the middle east.

Europe: Eire, Spain / Rio De Oro, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland Africa: Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ethiopia Middle East: Northwest Persia, Persia, Eastern Persia, Afghanistan

What this all means:

Starting Income:
USSR: 45
NATO: 92

Maximum potential income, including neutrals:
USSR (plus Arab League, OAS*, and all strict neutrals) : 71
WE (plus France, and all strict neutrals in Europe) : 46
UK (plus Arab League, and all strict neutrals in Africa + Middle East) : 42
US (plus OAS*) : 46

*Assumes OAS income is capped at 8 rather than 9

Hey guys/girls,

First time posting on the forums, thus first time submitting my house rules, so bear with me. I created a stylized rule sheet, but as far as I understand I’m not allowed to post a hyperlink yet, so I will have to type them out here. I apologize for the lack of aesthetic.  :-P

It is important to remember that I have no idea if these rules are balanced or not. I have only had a couple of chances to test it out. That’s why I would love some feedback; any observations, improvements, and criticisms are encouraged and welcomed. Don’t hold back, folks.

HBG provides beautiful blue acrylic naval mine tokens that I use when implementing these rules. In essence, my naval mines act as ocean AAAs and the similarities can be easily discerned. This also helps in understanding their affect.

Naval Mines
Cost: 6 IPCs
Attack: N/A
Defense: 1
Movement: N/A

Unit Characteristics

Blocks Enemy Movement: Sea zones containing naval mines block the movement of enemy sea units. However, cruisers may bypass naval mines, as well as disarm them.

Sea Defence: A naval mine unit can defend only when enemy units enter the sea zone containing the naval mine. Naval mines defend only once, before the first round of combat. Naval mines may defend up to three times, but only once per attacking sea unit. For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one sea unit as a casualty. These casualties are removed immediately, and will not participate in the remainder of the battle.

Amphibious Assault Defence: In the event of an amphibious assault on a coastal territory with naval mines in the adjacent sea zone, transports must be chosen as casualties first. A die is rolled by the defender for each transport engaging in the amphibious assault, up to three times. For each “1” rolled, the attack chooses one transport as a casualty.

Limited Placement: Naval mines can only be placed in sea zones adjacent to coastal territories.

Cannot Hit Air Units: When defending, naval mines cannot hit air units.

When a coastal territory is captured by enemy land units, any naval mines in adjacent sea zones are destroyed.

The transports taken as casualties first may seem, “iffy” (for lack of a better term) but it is meant to emulate the real danger posed by naval mines. I am worried this might be imbalanced/overpowered, but I think it adds a whole new dimension to Amphibious Assaults.  
In addition to the Naval Mines, I sought to expand the role of cruisers. I think the general opinion is that Cruisers aren’t worth their cost (though I could be mistaken.) With this in mind, I decided to provide a specific foil for the Naval Mines, but merging the role of a Minesweeper/hunter with that of the Cruiser.

Cruiser/Minesweeper
Cost: 12 IPCs
Attack: 3
Defense: 3
Movement: 2

Unit Characteristics

Minesweeper: Cruisers are specially equipped for mine sweeping duties. When entering a sea zone containing naval mines, cruisers cancel the Sea Defence and Amphibious Assault Defense characteristics of the naval mine.

Minehunter: Cruisers can also attempt to disarm naval mines. After combat (if any) is resolved, cruisers can attempt to disarm any naval mines present. If a “4” or less is rolled, the naval mines are disarmed and removed from play. If a “5” or more was rolled, the naval mines were not disarmed, and the cruiser must wait until the next round to attempt to disarm them again.

Treat hostile Naval Mines as Friendly: Cruisers can move through a sea zone containing enemy mines. Their movement is not blocked by the Naval mines.

Any and all comments are appreciated. If you notice anything even just by reading these, share it. I’m also open for rule clarifications, in case there’s any confusion.

Thanks guys/girls.

We talked about it with other players and Canada’s NO is going to small but concentrated to its role which is why the three I said were most likely going to be it.

NO for units in France
NO for no Axis subs in the SZ’s between UK and Canada
NO for a surface warship off UK Asian territories

This next one seems dumb but it works for history

NO for having at least one infantry in Aleutian Islands.

@Ichabod:

This thread reminds me of how I’d play Axis and Allies Global 1940 if I were filthy rich.

Intelligence as a part of the game turn order would be incorporated into the game in military terms as far as gathering information for enemy strength/location ect.

If I was rich…I’d pay people to referee an Axis and Allies Global 1940 game.

There’d be 3 different boards set up in 3 different rooms all for the same game.

1 board would be the Axis Room

1 board would be the Allies Room

1 board in the middle (Axis and Allies side players could not see) would be for the Administrators of the game room only.

Axis and Allies sides could only see numbers/units of enemy units on their border initially whether adjacent by land or sea. From then on, there would be a " Reconnaissance" or Spy turn in the game turn order. Only the Administrators’ room would have the complete setup of the board.

House Rule would be:

1. Repair damaged facilities
2. Purchase units
3. Reconnaissance Step: Players could utilize submarines or S. Bombers for a recon mission. Each Sub or bomber, within it’s range of movement, could pass through or move to (if a sub wants to stay) to spy on one specific land territory or sea zone for a cost of 1 IPC per unit used in that part of the turn order. Players would have to smartly “save” IPCs for the RECON part of the turn order. Each side would be informed which territory was spied on. In the case of being spied on by subs, players would have to hunt the sub with a destroyer. Subs or S. Bombers used for RECON could not be moved in the Combat movement phase.

Whatever intel is discovered during the RECON phase, the corresponding units would be placed on the board of the side who just completed a RECON mission. On the opposing sides’ turn, if the “discovered” units were moved to a new location (not adjacent to an enemy controlled territory), than that intel would be lost and the administrators would come and remove the pieces from the corresponding sides’ board. A German sub out in the Atlantic could slip away to RECON the W. US…

Axis and Allies players COULD still place a specific color (I’ll call it purple units) on their board for their estimation of what and where they think the enemy units may have went to.

In this game, each side would have to do their own S2 (Intelligence) estimate for where the enemy was concentrating. Japan for instance may send subs or bombers close to the Western US to see what warships were being built in dry dock. Germany would have to RECON Leningrad (so they don’t blunder into a Russian counter attack) or SZ91 in case a landing is coming.

Good news, you don’t need to be filthy rich. Once I finish all the general’s booklets, I am going to print them and they are folded. Next, you place your general token on the map and, keeping the general passport upright, you put the units he commands behind it. So your opponent will only see the general piece and not the army. Haven’t thought about recon but, one D6 before combat phase and the opponent has to reveal that number of units in an accurate ratio of his forces.

Neat idea you gave me :p

Hi Marc.  I was hoping for your input on this.

What you are saying is very true.    This is why I’m proposing to simulate NB’s servicing ships/fleets with a “radius”.  The ships do not ever have to enter the actual sea-zone where the NB is located.

Therefore, if you have a chain of Naval Bases, your ships can stay at sea forever, as long as they stay within range of a base.  A range of 3 sea zones would be several thousand miles.

Ships would only need to actually go to a Naval Base to get repairs.

–—

The Japanese also had their ships out on very long missions.  Example being their carrier fleet around Java back in '41.  But they were able to do that with a very nice series of Bases leading all the way back to the mainland to service them.

CRUSADERIV, its like your reading my mind. I have air supremacy rules too.

There’s someone in my head but it’s not me! (Pink Floyd)

Since this topic is really not actually in the game, i consider it a house rule discussion.

cruisers cant get too cheap, or powers that dont deserve them will get to buy them, like Germany, ANZAC, and Italy. Sure they can buy some, and use the unit, but its expensive now for a reason, so they dont buy a gazzilon.

Boat prices have to be high, because only wealthy powers deserve big fleets.

if you want to add something neat to destroyers add my Sonar/Radar tech to games

“In addition to Radar as normal, a power with this breakthrough is also granted Sonar, Destroyers now fire pre-emptively on the first round of combat at submarines when both attacking and defending.”