[Global 40] Islands and Seazones

@chrisbump86 Does the attacker have to declare on their combat move which territory or sz they wish to continue to if they succeed w/o taking a casualty?Can they split their forces and go to multiple territories or sz?Can they return to another friendly spot or even to where they attacked from?Would a matter if the attacker needed more than 2,3 or more combat rounds to kill the defender?
If we playtest,these kind of questions are likely to come up.

@all-encompassing-goose Please try to adapt it & let me know how it goes! I have it balanced for global interactions, mostly with regards to the British & Russians.

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

@the-captain

Due to the fact that whilst most of your rules are historically accurate, their execution I have some problems with. To fix that, I wrote an article on changes to The Captain’s rules:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37504/let-s-make-the-axis-and-allies-global-1940-expansion-rules-even-more-accurate?_=1636385389023

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

Yo crusa, I don’t have those rules about Germany hiding ships.

LOL…I’m waiting for this reply!!!
U-Boat rules = Old rules, I forget to put it on english version.
For the warship. Take a look at WAW Port Rules. Chapter I or II.

Got a few more
Fritz X bomb (Germany) 5 points
Attack Britain with the rockets tech

United we stand (U.S and U.K) 10 points each
Preform a joint strike
This would only happen if there was a joint strike NA

All fail the commonwealth (Axis) 25 point
Control both British capitals at the end of turn three
25 points for the powers that captured the territories

Resistance what resistance (Germany) 10 points
Capture all three of the French home territories in Europe

yeah like the Dang-I-can’t-hit-that-transport migrane 8)