Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@all-encompassing-goose

By the way, do the US and Japanese neutral rules still apply? As in the rules prohibiting the US to park ships near Japanese territory or the rules prohibiting Japan to move ships within a certain amount of sea zones to the continental US.

Can nations remain neutral if they want to?

@Eric-Poppleton well I tried it by myself some and it sorta worked. My goal was to get my buddies into the game and try it with them but we’re still in the learning phase-figured it’s only a valid test if they have developed strategies in the normal game

I figure there aren’t too many things classified as Islands that would have air bases so far away as to make them invulnerable to shore bombardment. The air fields on Guadalcanal and Wake island certainly got hit and both Hickam and Pearl could be hit from the sea. By definition, this ability assumes no defenders. Even a single scrambling fighter or defending destroyer nullifies the ability.

The map in playtest 9°

M0.Base1940v2.png
M1.OIL1940v2.jpg

@Young-Grasshopper
cool stuff but half hour is a bit much for me. Be nice if you could summarize in a paragraph or two :)

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.

Thats it right there…a lot of realism is sacrificed for ease of play.
Personally, i think global is complex enough and long enough without this add on. I must admit, it is an interesting and simple mod.

Hi, Taamvan.  thanks for the comments.

Sorry, the values are all 4 IPCs for National Objectives.  The NOs came from Argothair, but with some tweaks by our group (I think originally came from a different A&A version).  More money on the board makes the game a little more fun, but in theory it should last longer (which is not desirable), but I feel like we get to the climactic battles faster than we would with minuses…

I do feel like the board is still tilted for the Axis, but Russia having an extra 8 IPCs per turn is a bigger impact than Germany having an extra 8 IPCs.  We maybe could nerf the values down for the Axis, maybe.  I feel like the paratroop rules and the Russian fighter conversion support the Allies.  We’re trying to steady the board without tilting it to the Allies; and meanwhile trying to make some other strategies playable.