Review of first draft for phase one rules

@SEP said in [Global 1940] House Rules..:

@barnee said in [Global 1940] House Rules..:

@barnee
Air Transport is a A0 D0 M5 +1 w/AB C6 unit.

I like the stats for the Air Transport. Have you considered having it operate like a Transport Ship i.e. carries one infantry plus one other ground unit?

How are you differentiating between light, medium and heavy tanks and what’s your A/D/M/C ratio?

2/5/8/9000
sorry couldn’t help it

Issue is that if you’re going for historical set up, you need three access points of Lend Lease for USSR with Far East being the least amount and taking in only non combat equipment which I know is impossible to do for AnA so I say the Lend Lease point has to generate income no larger than 2.

Technically USSR was only moving factories and that was because it was easy to use farming factories to produce tanks, go figure.

@TheAandAClassicDude:

Germany: The Waffen SS: Costs 4 IPCs. Attacks and Defends on 2 or less. Moves 1 (Use Germany�s Infantry pieces from Axis and Allies Classic to represent them.)

Could we leave out the Nazi unit? The last thing I want are people falsely thinking this is game and website is some kind of alt right meeting place.

Besides, Germany doesn’t need any HRs help when they can churn out 5 IPC tanks.

Played our first game of 1914 tonight and had a blast. Afterwards, we brainstormed some additional house rules (because gamers, I suppose), and one stuck out. Before I say this, let me note this is a very casual crowd.

Rule: A neutral minor power when attacked by one faction or the other sides with the one that did not attack it. If it is able to repel the invasion, it becomes a fully functioning member of the alliance it joined. It has IPCs, builds units, deploys them, and attacks.

Cause: Almost no reason not to attack some of these nations. Defeat means nothing- the scale of units involved means a small handful of units lost is not a true blow. The potential IPC gain outweighs the risk in all but a few instances. By making neutral powers a bigger threat, hopefully players will only attack those they deem important to a war winning strategy and not just as random acts of violence for IPC gain. This can lead to silliness with Switzerland and the Nordic countries along with Spain among others.

Mechanics: New factions get 6/8 IPCs plus whatever IPC total is on their territories. From this point we had some disagreement:
1- They are a fully active faction with no restrictions.
2- They can only attack the faction that attacked them and their territories.
3- They can only counter attack into the territories that the attack against them was launched

––
I posted this in the 1914 forum, then I saw the House Rules forum.  I believe that is the forum suited for the idea. I would message the mods to move this thread but their profiles indicate they’ve been gone for a while. I apologize for my faux paus.

@Black_Elk:

I have done a lot of experimenting with the AA50 game board, but trying to use G40 rules on it is not something I have tried. I’m curious what you have in mind?

Do you mean like using G40 with an expanded unit roster? In that case it may be possible to include Tac Bombers or Mech, possibly G40 factories (with their restrictions) but I think the air and naval bases would be out, since the movement advantage would bust the map. Not using Air bases would handle the most problematic aspect of G40 on a AA50 board, since you wouldn’t have to deal with scrambling.

AA50 could probably support 2 hit carriers, though that might bust the opening battles. I suppose if you really wanted to retain the repair aspect on ships, you could just attach it to coastal factories, though that might give Japan a decisive advantage over the US in the pacific.

Beyond this, the Tac Bombers and Mech, I’m not sure what the payoff would be using G40 rules over AA50 OOB.

I think AA50 is a superior game to Global in many respects,  especially in terms of the learning curve and the total playtime to conclusion, so I’d be pretty excited to see it on offer if I showed up at someone’s house to find it set on a table.

I’m just spit balling, might be easier to just play by the AE rules rather than go though the work of making the G40 unit profiles compatible with the AE board. It’s been a long time since I played AE, but maybe it’s time to revisit it.

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

…which were quickly wiped out by Japan and not replaced.

The Soviet Navy had to build ships in Russia then sail them out to form the Pacific fleet.

I don’t buy the idea of complexes as staging areas - this can apply to any area where you build up forces, and doesn’t need a factory.  To me, “Industrial Complex” means a vast industrial base of economic production in which weapons of war are forged.  To establish such a base overseas from scratch is simply not realistic. Much, much cheaper and quicker to ship/rail the units from their base of origin in your home territory which is exactly what the game should reflect.

Industrial complexes (at least building new ones and using other player’s) are one of those hangovers from the original game design that somehow haven’t been updated because they feel like too much a part of the A&A tradition.  But, like the Sinai peninsular being in Trans-Jordan, or the disturbing re-appearance of the Hiberno-Caledonian land bridge, they don’t belong in a game which purports to represent World War II.

You mean of the map?  Hmm.  I have a digital camera.  When my kids get home, I’ll ask them if they know how to do it.