Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@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 said in Converting Revised To The Modern Era?:

I’ve heard this game can last for days and can be a real slog. Is there a setup for this game that makes it better?

djudication System:
The determination of who wins a game will be based upon the control of Victory Territories (VTs). The Victory City method of determining a winner will NOT be used. Each side controls 12 Victory Territories at the beginning of the game. The Victory Territories are listed below.

AXIS POWERS

GERMANY
Germany
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Eastern Europe
Ukraine SSR
Norway

JAPAN
Japan
Manchuria
French Indochina
Philippine Islands
East Indies
Borneo

ALLIED POWERS

USSR
Russia
Caucasus
Archangel
Novosibirsk

UK
United Kingdom
India
Anglo-Egypt
Australia

USA
Eastern US
Western US
Hawaiian Islands
Sinkiang

If a player holds 18 (or more) VTs for a full round of game play (from the end of a countrys turn to the beginning of that same countrys next turn.), then that player automatically wins.
In the event of a VT tie at the end of the game, whichever side increased its IPC total is the winner. If the game is still tied after reviewing the IPC totals.If a player chooses to concede before the game has reached the 18 VT automatic win threshold or the game time limit 6 Rounds. The winner will be give a victory total of 19-5.

If no time limit, call it after 6 rounds (bid of 3-5 to Allies is the most balanced) if you have a time limit 4.5 hours for experienced players or 5 hours if less experienced/will play slower. Just ensure you get 5 or 6 rounds in.

@nolimit

As you’ll see, when the complete rulebook with set up charts is released, the outcome of the War is not settled yet.

1943 was the year, when Germany finally implemented the Total War concept. The Axis Powers still had options to alter the outcome of the War - not by outproducing the Allies - but by taking advantage of every single advantageous opportunity. And by planning a decisive and superior strategy - without any flaws. And carry it out with determination.

In the game there is no bureaucracy - no internal conflicts in any Nation, that could weaken the War effort. Every single decision is made with one goal only - to win the War.

The game depends solely on what strategy players might choose - and how these strategies are carried out.

It is truly a big challenge for the Axis to win the War. And there is no room for errors… or else, Germany & Japan will have to fight for their lives.

You’ll experience massive Panzer Armies and Army Groups from the very beginning of the game. Within a few rounds, some of the most famous combat units of World War II are available to the players. This will bring even more options to get your Nation closer to Final Victory.

The Axis & Allies Global 1943 House Rules Expansion will definitely bring tons of fun and challenge - even though the game is playable in a few hours.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in When USA not at War:

@Marshmallow-of-War ANZAC DOW is not always dumb. Sometimes it allows a key ship block or prevents transports in disputed zones from picking up soldiers. I have seen it happen a handful of times.

Completely true! The ANZAC declaration following a UK Pacific ship move is a classic! I can’t imagine anyone taking issue with that.

However, you’re ignoring the second half of that…

It’s taking the Carolines after initiating a war that leaves the US out of the fight that is the issue, leaving the transports vulnerable and stripping defenses from ANZAC itself. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would be wise.

The problem with 1936 is that Com China is so weak at the start of 1936 that KMT can easily destroy them within two turns and USSR can’t do anything about it since they can’t Lend-Lease due to Com China not boarding USSR.

I’m with CWO Marc here – I think at the point where you are trying to run a balanced March 1943 scenario, you’re not talking about a few minor revisions to history for game balance; you’re talking about totally re-writing history. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do, but you’ll have to be bolder about your edits.

It’s a little hard for me to read your scenario setup from a wall of text; a graphic or illustration of some kind would be helpful. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made in interpreting your scenario. That said, the problem with your scenario, as I see it, is that there is no credible Axis path to victory. The Axis have to simply wait around and hope the Allies make a mistake. Maybe the Germans can press on to Moscow and get lucky there, but they have no time to build up additional reserves, no way to wear down the Russian economy, and no ability to threaten London, so there aren’t really any strategic choices to be made – just march every man east to Moscow, and hope you get lucky. Similarly, Japan is earning much less than the USA, is not in position to do devastating damage to the US Navy, and is not in position to capture enough of China, Siberia, or ANZAC in time to achieve parity against the US. They can fight over the Dutch East Indies but not hold them, which means that’s a losing strategy for Japan, because it will cost them more in lost transports and destroyers than they earn by holding the islands. Maybe Japan can get lucky against India, but, again, Japan has no real options in this scenario – they have to just send every man west and hope they roll well.

So, if you want a balanced March 1943 scenario, consider some or all of the following changes:

Germany controls and can hold Leningrad

German battles in Stalingrad were inconclusive; Germany still has significant forces in Rostov and Caucasus

Britain lost the Second Battle of El Alamein, resulting in Italian control of Alexandria and Cairo; British forces are defending in Sudan and Trans-Jordan

Italian navy was warned of the Taranto raid, and so more Italian navy survives, maintaining local naval superiority for now in the central Med

America was slow to recover from Kasserine Pass, and holds Morocco but not Algeria

Japan won a bloody victory at the battle of Midway, and so Japan currently has four carriers to America’s two, as well as control of Midway, Wake, and the Aleutian islands

Japan won the battle of Guadalcanal, and so Japan currently has control of the Solomon Islands and both territories in New Guinea

The goal of these changes would be to give the Axis additional (any?) strategic options so that the Axis have multiple credible long-term paths to victory and feel like they are somewhat in control of their destiny, instead of just serving as a punching bag for the incoming Allied invasions. I like the idea of a balanced 1943 scenario very much, but you’re not going to get there by starting with historical 1943 borders and tweaking the unit counts a bit. Contrary to popular belief, the war was lost for the Axis by March 1943; after the Axis failed to knock any of their opponents out of the war and the Allies secured naval lines of supply to France, Africa, and Indonesia, an Axis defeat was just a matter of time. This dynamic, unfortunately, will be well-captured by OOB A&A rules, and will result in your Axis side getting defeated 19 out of 20 games unless you make drastic edits.

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.)

Global 1942: Quick Start Guide

This module uses Alpha 2 and original out of the box rules unless specified here. This scenario begins in Dec 1941 with the Japanese attack at Hawaii. Germany is at the gates of Moscow and pushing her last strength to capture Moscow. Positions and units quantity, and type are based on actual positions for Dec 41.

Japanese Surprise Attack: On the first turn all Allied Naval and Air units on the Pacific maps defend at ONE against Japanese attacks. Land units fight normally.

Soviet-Japanese Non aggression Pact:  The Japanese may attack the Soviets only by announcing one turn before this intention. The Soviets can attack Japan only if all Soviet territories are under Soviet control. Note: if Japan attacks the Soviet Union any Mongolian forces bordering any Japanese forces are automatically at war with Japan
(Exchange units with Russian Infantry).

The new turn order, starting IPC total and control changes:
Soviet Union: 28
Control lost: Baltic States, Vyborg, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Smolensk, Western Ukraine, Bryansk, Bessarabia, Ukraine.
Germany 41
Control lost: Romania, Hungary
Control gained: Baltic States, Vyborg, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Smolensk, Western Ukraine, Bryansk, Bessarabia, Ukraine, Normandy, France, Yugoslavia, and Crete
Italy: 12
Control lost: Ethiopia, Italian Somaliland
Control gained: Greece, Tunisia, and Cyprus
Japan: 28
Control gained: French Indo China
USA: 52
UK: 30 Europe, 16 Pacific
Control gained: Ethiopia, Italian Somaliland
ANZAC: 10
China: 12 Territories
Vichy France: 7 (strict neutral)
Control gained: Southern France, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, and Madagaskar

Lend Lease: The US or UK player can send a total combined aid to the Soviet Union of 30 IPC. Procedure: Buy a transport(s) and place it off board in a Lend lease Box. These transports can’t be used for any other purpose other than Lend Lease. Each Transport sends a fixed 5 IPC (place IPC under transports). No more than 6 transports can be allocated for this purpose. Lend Lease aid is first available on turn 1. However, the Soviet player does not actually get the aid until turn 2. The IPC sent can only purchase non-infantry land units and air units of any type. Lend Lease cannot be used for Naval, Infantry, or factories, etc.

Interdiction: Any European Axis Submarine, Plane, or Surface ship located in open sea
(Not Baltic, Black, Mediterranean) can deduct 2 IPC each from this total. If they are located in any convoy box, they can cost 3 IPC each from this total.

Note: If Japan and the Soviet Union are at war, Japanese Submarines, Planes, and Surface ships located in Sea Zones in 3, 4, and 5 can cause reductions to Lend Lease payments.

Minor Axis Allies: Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary have unique forces (use German pieces) these automatically join the axis on turn 2. They can freely move on that turn and Germany can move into them or build units (Romania). Germany does not gain the income from these areas until they are activated on turn 2, or attacked earlier by the Soviet Union. The factory in Romania can start producing units on turn 2 as well.

This module does not use technology or National Objective rules. However, Paratroopers and Mechanized Infantry technology are standard rules. Paratroopers however are restricted to a one sea zone rule, which means they can’t cross any more than one sea zone before landing.

Changes in Strict Neutrality:  Attacking a strict neutral only activates other strict neutrals within 2 spaces of the invaded neutral. Vichy France is a special case. It is strict neutral; however, axis units may fly over or move thru these areas without triggering any change. Also, an attack from any player results in only war with the area under attacked; all other Vichy areas still remain neutral.

SETUPS:

SOVIET UNION:
Sea Zone 127: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 115: 2 Submarines, 1 Destroyer
Karelia: 3 Infantry
Novgorod: 6 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor,
1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base, 1 Minor Factory, 1 AA gun
Archangel: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Vologda: 2 Infantry
Russia: 10 Infantry, 4 Mechanized Infantry, 3 Artillery, 2 Armor,
2 Fighters, 1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Bomber, 1 Major Factory, 1 Air Base, 1 AA gun
Tambov: 3 Infantry
Rostov: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Volgograd: 6 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor
1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Air Base, 1 Major Factory
Urals: 1 Minor Factory
Kazakhstan: 1 Minor factory
Sea Zone 100: 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine
Amur: 4 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 5: 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 4: 1 Submarine

GERMANY:
Normandy: 2 Infantry, 1 Minor Factory, 1 Naval Base
Holland: 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Paris: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Minor Factory, 1 AA gun
Denmark: 1 Infantry
Norway: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Sea Zone 113: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 2 Transports
Western Germany: 1 Infantry, 1 Major Factory, 1 Naval Base, 1 Air Base, 1 AA gun
Greater Southern Germany: 1 Infantry, 1 Minor factory, 1 AA gun
Germany: 2 Infantry, 2 Bombers, 1 Fighter, 1 Air Base, 1 Major Factory, 1 AA gun
Poland: 1 Infantry
Eastern Poland: 1 Infantry
Yugoslavia: Control
Greece: 1 Artillery
Crete: 1 Infantry
Vyborg: 2 Infantry
Libya: 1 Armor
Tunisia: 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Baltic States: 3 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor
Belarus: 6 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber
Smolensk: 6 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor
Western Ukraine: 1 Infantry
Bryansk: 6 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 1 Fighter
Ukraine: 6 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber
Sea Zone 103: 1 Submairne
Sea Zone 107: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 118: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 125: 1 Submarine

JAPAN:
Manchuria: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter, 1 Minor Factory
Korea: 1 Infantry
Jehol: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Shantung: 1 Infantry
Kiangsu: 1 Infantry
Kiangsi: 1 Infantry
Kwangsi: 2 Infantry
French- Indo China: 1 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber
Siam: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Japan: 1 Infantry, 1 Major Factory, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base, 1 AA gun
Sea Zone 6: 3 Battleships, 1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyers
Sea Zone 19: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 20: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 36: 1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Formosa: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 25: 3 Carriers, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 3 Fighters, 3 Fighter-Bombers
Caroline Islands: 1 Cruiser, 1 Naval Base, 1 Air Base
Marshall Islands: 1 Naval Base

ITALY:
Northern Italy: 3 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Air Base, 1 Major Factory, 1 AA gun
Southern Italy: 3 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter,
1 Bomber, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 95: 2 Battleships, 1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, 1 Submarine, 2 Transports
Sardinia: 2 Infantry
Sicily: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 94: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 96: 1 Submarine
Yugoslavia: 1 Infantry
Albania: 1 Infantry
Greece: 2 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry
Tobruk: 2 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber
Bessarabia: 1 Infantry
Ukraine: 2 Infantry

MINOR AXIS ALLIES:
Finland: 5 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Hungary: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Romania: 6 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor,
1 Fighter, 1 Air Base, 1 Minor Factory
Bulgaria: 4 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry

VICHY FRANCE:
Southern France: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Naval Base
Morocco : 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Algeria: 1 Infantry
Syria: 1 Infantry
French West Africa: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Naval Base
French Madagaskar: 1 Infantry

UNITED KINGDOM:
Sea Zone 106: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 111: 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 119: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
United Kingdom: 3 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor, 3 Bombers, 1 Fighter,
1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Major Factory, 1 Air base, 1 Naval Base, 1 AA gun
Sea Zone 110: 1 Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber, 2 Cruisers, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 125: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Gibraltar: 1 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 91: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Malta: 1 Infantry, 1 Air Base
Alexandria: 1 Infantry
Egypt: 2 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 98: 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Trans-Jordan: 1 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Armor, 1 Fighter
Anglo Egyptian Sudan : 1 Mechanized Infantry
Union of South Africa: 1 Transport, 1 Minor Factory, 1 Naval Base
Iraq: 1 Mechanized Infantry
West India: 1 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kwangtung: 1 Infantry
Shan State: 1 Infantry
Burma: 1 Infantry
India: 2 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Minor Factory, 1 Air Base
Ceylon: 1 Carrier, 1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Destroyer, 1 Naval Base
Malaya: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 37: 1 Battleship, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 41: 1 Submarine

UNITED STATES:
Eastern United States: 1 Infantry, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Armor,
2 Fighters, 1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Major factory, 1 Naval Base, 1 Air Base, 1 AA gun
Central United States: 1 Major factory, 1 AA gun, 1 Naval Base, 1 Air Base
Sea Zone 101: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 89: 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 64: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Western United States : 1 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Bomber, 1 Major Factory, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base, 1 AA gun
Sea Zone 10: 1 Carrier, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer, 1 Fighter, 1 Fighter-Bomber
Sea Zone 31: 1 Destroyer
Hawaii: 1 Fighter-Bomber, 1 Naval Base, 1 Air Base
Sea Zone 26: 2 Battleships, 2 Destroyers
Sea Zone 13: 1 Submarine
Philippines: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 35: 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport

CHINA:
One Infantry on each Chinese territory and one Fighter in Szechwan

ANZAC
Sea Zone 42: 1 Cruiser
Northern Territory: 1 Infantry
Queensland: 1 Infantry
New South Wales: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Minor Factory, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 62: 1 Transport
New Zealand: 1 Infantry
Sumatra: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter ( ANZAC does not control Sumatra for income purposes)