G40 Strategic Rail Movement

The Waffen-SS Panzer General unit and 1st Waffen-SS Panzer Army are now included in the rules for these events:

All fair points. I look forward to your upcoming house rule releases!

@the-captain said in Axis & Allies Global 1940 2nd. House Rules Expansion:

…Some players in our play groups have used online TripleA since september 2020.

We have created a House Rules Basic Expansion - and I believe these rules are implemented in TripleA online. …

Would you ask them to post the file ? I couldn’t find it on map DLs. I’m reading through everything again and while edit will be required for some of the rules, I think it can get close to 90-95%. Maybe 80% edit free.

At any rate, I’m gonna take a crack at it.

@1940_Fan These are great, thank you for sharing! How do I download these flash cards? Do I have to make a quizlet account?

@barney:

Looks like you’ve got it tuned in pretty good to me YG. Those all look good and equally obtainable for each side. Good work!

Thanks Barney… I agree, a couple are easy for both sides but they get really hard after that. Using it tomorrow in a game where it’s the only house rule.

@Young:

Thanks for the reply KNP, while I was reading your post I got the idea that the combined 18 IPCs for strict neutrals can be taken for strategic purposes, and for collecting income, however, IPCs from strict neutral territories will not be added to your sides total when calculating for an economic victory. Thanks for the brain food.

Interesting idea YG. Only problem I would see was having to keep track of 2 incomes, one without the strict neutral income and one with.

I finally found a different HR intended to fix Subs vs planes:
@deslock:

IMO, subs are too weak if they can’t be used as defending fodder (I know some other user agree as I read posts complaining about this).  To illustrate, suppose USA approaches Japan with an invasion force and Japan strikes first:

Japan (attacker):
8 ftr
2 bmb

USA (defender):
2 CV
4 ftr
8 sub
2 dd
4 trn

The rules are fairly clear that in this battle the USA can’t choose to take subs as losses, which means Japan has a ~90% chance of victory (killing everything except for the subs).  I’m contemplating a house rule that states:

Defending subs can be hit by any air/sea units regardless of whether or not an attacking DD is present.  However, if no enemy DD is present, the subs may submerge before any rolling.  If subs attack and no defending DD is present, then defending air units can’t hit subs (even when they’re on the surface).

(I believe that the last two sentences are how it already works, but I included them with the house rule for clarity)

This way subs’ current capabilities are preserved, but they can now be used as defending fodder. Does that seem reasonable to the more experienced players here or does it throw off the game mechanics? (I’ve only played AA50 a couple times)

And there is also this thread about how to limit the DDs vs Subs ratio (same problem):
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6367

OK, that makes a lot more sense now. One other thing I do see is someone abusing this rule to get an extra move for some of their units–if I owned a territory that was inaccessible from the territory my army was in, but my enemy owned a territory (with a factory in it) that bordered both of my territories, I could launch a strategic assault against my enemy’s factory and then “retreat” my forces into the inaccessible territory.

For example, a German army could launch a strategic assault against Karelia S.S.R with the sole objective of moving an army from the Baltic States to Finland, or launch a strategic assault from the Eastern Ukraine into Russia, and then “retreat” their forces into the Urals or Novosibirsk once the first round of combat was done (assuming the Urals or Novosibirsk were controlled by an axis power). In each instance, the assaulting nation could attack with a force much too small to actually take the territory, yet still get the advantage of moving through the territory as though they had actually conquered it.

I like the idea of strategic assaults, but if I was going to play a game with them I would require all assaulting land units to retreat back into the territory they had originated in once the assault was over.