G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

Quick answer is that bids seem to keep going up with bids over 20 now common.

yes

just the dollar amount.

@cds

I’m referring to the new neutral rules for Global 1940 created by @Charles-de-Gaulle :

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28180/should-we-make-better-rules-for-invadable-neutrals-1940?page=1

@all-encompassing-goose

Hi, these rules are cool. I did not base my rules off of this. This was developed independently.

A different take on “free for all”. Being able to make alliances though means it should be called “shifting alliances” rather than “free for all”.

I have looked for threads that deal with this but they are sort of rambling and don’t quite answer all my questions. If you can point me to a thread or pdf that explains it all, that would be great. Otherwise a response here for these questions/comments will be greatly appreciated. Also, the Notes tab in the game itself does not address most of these. And I am interested in what the Triplea rules are now, not the original game rules. Thanks.

If Japan attacks Dutch islands, UK can declare War on Japan, correct? Does that include Anzac can do the same? Or do one or both automatically go to War with Japan if Dutch are attacked? And does AI handle properly?

If French Indochina is attacked, same question. UK/Anzac can declare war or are they immediately at War? AI handles properly?

For both 1. and 2. above, I assume that if they are at War with Japan automatically, that the US can then declare War on Japan? OR, if UK/Anzac simply can choose now to go to War, then if they attack Japan, the US can not go to War until the proper turn?

Can Anzac and UK declare War on Japan at any time in all cases? If that is the case, then the answer should be that an attack on the Dutch or French IS an act/declaration of war by Japan and that US can then also go to War in their next turn.

With Russia, I have noticed that it is very hard to not have the Mongolians join Russia, even if Russia declares War 1st. But, am I correct in remembering that if Russia attacks Manchuria first, then Mongolians will not join Russia even if Japan takes back Manchuria and attacks Amur?

Thanks!

No apologies needed! FMG has been a great help in carrying the product and getting it to folks like you. They need to be thanked too! Glad you asked about the rules and let us know what you think.

In the interest of putting unit variant house rules ideas in one place, I’m starting a new thread.  Here’s my tentative list:

Piece              Name                  Attack        Defense        Move        Cost        Special
Soldier 1        Para. Infantry          2                2                1            4            Can be air dropped w/ +1 attack

Soldier 2        Elite/ Marine            2                2                1            4            + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult

Truck/
TT Jeep        Motor Unit                0                0                2            1            Can Blitz: “Motorizer” for Infantry/Art.

Gun(1)          Artillery                  2                2                1            4            + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Gun (2)          Heavy Artillery          2                3                1            5            + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Half-Track    Mech. Infantry          2                2                2            4            Can Blitz

Tank 1          Armor                      3                2                2            5            Can Blitz

Tank 2          Heavy Armor              3                3                2            6            Can Blitz

Fighter 1      Fighter                      3                4                4            12

Fighter2/      Fighter-Bomber/
Light Bomber  Tac Bomber              4                2                4            12            +1 tanks attack on 1-1 basis

Bomber        Bomber                      4                1                6            14

I have studied extensively the economic dynamics of the added benefit of how nations faired following conquest, and concluded that the conquering player for the most part has not increased his total economic output from either liberation or conquest, and even to a lower degree has the nation that was invaded had lost any of its war making potential as a result of enemy occupied lands.

Cases:

German invasion of the Soviet Union only caused the Soviets to mobilize to a full war economy, moving potentially targeted areas (factories and industry) out of harms way. Secondly, even after the period of 1943-45 the Soviet economy rose at a even level in spite of having recaptured most if not all of her German occupied territories.

In Germany’s case she did benefit marginally with the conquest of france, because Vichy government was forced to pay for the war but this didn’t add nearly as much as the Germans slowly moving into a full wartime economy.

In the British case the loss of Singapore, parts of Egypt or Tobruk only served to embolden the conquerer and which served to deliver only a short term psychological blow to national morale.

Japan did benefit from the conquest of the Dutch colonies and was able to sustain her war from the newfound oil imports to offset the American oil embargo effects.

The invasion and liberation of France did not afford the allies with income, nor did it cost the Germans anything but prestige, a few lost U-boat bases, and some strategic air fields… but no tangible economic benefits other than the stoppage of some foodstuffs and payments from Vichy.

I think in all these cases they represent examples of only lost or gained oil reserves, but did not effect the production of airplanes, tanks, ships, or raising of new cadres of Infantry formations. In Germanys case conquered peoples offered a few divisions worth of volunteers but the effect was marginal.

All of this points to the direction that it may be more realistic and in fact solve some of the games issues, by  doing the following:

what does this mean?

It means that for example the Soviets, Americans and Germans had economy that took time to mature and that can be presented in the game, by setting benchmarks to illustrate its growth over each turn or following the nations victory conditions.  For example: Germany avoids Moscow and instead takes the oil fields of Baku… they would be rewarded each turn with a set value in IPC, but otherwise they maintain the original income.

Secondly, note that each nation has DIFFERENT IPC starting values… so the question would also be how do the Axis try to get more money than what they start with?

They can invest in building the economy. Say they have 45 IPC basic income, they decide to save 10 IPC and you multiply the 10 IPC to the nations growth rate ( say Germany is at 50% growth rate) , so on all future turns her new starting figure will be at 50 IPC  ( remember: this is just an example).

–Nobody is gonna keep taking stuff just to collect the money
–It saves alot of time to figure out what money you have
–it will boost SBR campaigns which done seem to really be part of the game
– it will encourage submarine warfare and ENR attacks
– All these silly invasions would keep happening
– effective elimination of a game phase ( collect income), also solving that issue about double collection.

Now im sure some of you will say it will extend the game and make it longer, but if you also adopt the all Axis/ All Allies move sequence the time is a washout.

I try to implement a scale when it comes to Russia and the US.  Russia whenever it takes occupied nations back from the Germans can either add it to her territory and recieve IPs for it or she can liberate it without gaining any IPs.  The more territories she takes for her own the closer she goes to war with the US and Britian.  Eventually aid is suspended and after a while war is declared.  After that my friends and I have many rules about what happens afterward.  Also the scale to which these consequences occur varies, but it works.