Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion

@ando101

I wasn’t saying that your idea was bad.

But yes, that makes sense.

@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

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

@the-captain said in Lend-Lease to the USSR:

@gen-manstein

Interesting,

So, if I understand correctly - UK & US do not send war materiel to USSR - instead the USSR rolls dice to determine what “Lend-Lease” units they get - and place these units directly at one of the territories that are mentioned…?

yes

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

I like all the special sea zone restrictions. Gibraltar and Danish straights. Any thoughts on Suez going through Egypt.

Also like the inclusion of aaafire and some limited transportation capability. Anything that makes for more attractive ship builds always seems good to me.
:-D

On the air, the main impediment to ready testing FtF is the requirement to buy more stuff than comes in the boxed game. With a G40 expansion you still only have 3 sculpts.

I was thinking about this issue for the C5 strategic bomber concept in 1942.2.

One thought I had about Tacs in 1942.2 for the Defenseless Strat B idea I had, was that some aircraft might be represented on the map by a scult that always has a green chip under it (saving all green chips for this use). So with that idea, I was thinking you could represent 3 air units with only 2 sculpts. For example

Strat B = C5 SBR only
Green Chip Fighter = Tactical Bomber
Fighter (red or gray chip) = Fighter

Or you could use a roundel, or paint a tail, but the green chip seemed pretty easy to work with.
Fighter can still fit on a deck that way.

Perhaps if its a game designed to use G40 sculpts for 1942.2 you could just do the same thing with the bomber sculpts? Like
Medium bomber = normal sculpt
Strat bomber = green chip sculpt.

Just an idea to make it easy to test, without a big commitment in painting or purchasing new stuff.

For the factories, I do worry that it takes any series threat to Tokyo from the Americans pretty much off the table. It’s very hard to get onto the mainland in an effective way with US, without expanding production on the money islands. Is this what you are trying to avoid? Or are you trying to prevent Japan from using one on India/Africa/Australia?

For my part I enjoy the factory unit, so rules that restrict where it can go aren’t as appealing to me. Basically the 3 islands affected, Philippines, East Indies and especially Borneo, are pretty much the only interesting territories in whole the Pacific, by virtue of their production potential, so it seems a shame to lose them.

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  :-D

That non-aggro pact looks a little familiar.

But it should add this: the 2 signatories cannot allow their allies to attack the other signatory from their territory.

That is, for example, UK bombers based on Russian soil cannot attack Japanese units, nor land in Russia from such an attack from elsewhere.

The treaty should remain in force for as long as the power gaining the right to attack wishes.  For example if Berlin falls Russia and Japan are only at war when Russia declares war on Japan, which it can do at any time.  Japan would not have the right to attack until Russia declared war, or until it’s own criteria were achieved.
(Supposing Russia wanted to see a powerful Italy beated down a bit, or rebuild it’s own forces up after a hard German campaign, before risking war with a bloated Japanese monster.)