Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

The Play Testing has now ended.

This has resulted in the following:

"From the moment that Germany, Japan or Italy declares War on - or attacks the Soviet Union, the Soviet player receives 1 Tank unit in each round, to be placed in Urals.

The Soviet player must control Urals from the start of the Soviet players turn in order to receive this Tank unit.

If Germany, Japan or Italy are not at War with the Soviet Union by Early 1941, the Soviet player receives this Tank unit from the start of the Soviet players turn in Early 1941.

Other rules concerning this Soviet Tank unit are still according to the rules described at page 13.

This rule will be part of the updated Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion (expected release Summer/Autumn 2022).

@nolimit said in defending Sub question:

@commander-jeff 2, they retreat to One sz Area wherever any of the Transports came from- also the Units stay on the Transports!

To elaborate on this, the transports may retreat to a sea zone from which any of the original attacking sea units entered, so if the destroyer and/or sub actually entered from a different direction than the transports, that sea zone would also be valid for the retreat.

Also, if none of the sea zones from which any of the attacking units entered were friendly (they all started in enemy-occupied zones) or all of the attacking units were already in the contested sea zone to start with, no retreat would be possible and the transports would be automatically destroyed. Of course, in the latter case the attacking units could combat move out of the sea zone and then back in in order to establish a retreat route, assuming there were an adjacent friendly sea zone.

@crsluggo

Thanks, we have tons of fun playing with the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

It’s impressive to see how dedicated all our play groups are to these rules.

The feedback we receive is of high value to us - and inspires when new house rules are molded and prepared for play testing.

Thanks for your comment:+1:

But other than that I haven’t seen any errors so great work! They’re especially good for newbies since it has the NOs and Political situations

@bakerbei

maybe you can get a message to him here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NHFOPGhzfI

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

5. Atomic Bomb  rolleyes Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

The war would have gone on till 1946. The two bombs dropped changed that. japan figured it could get a negotiated peace if it soiled the beaches of Japan with American blood. The bombs changed that completely. It was also dropped to get political advantage over the Soviets who wanted spoils in Asia and to deny them the same. The bomb was the most important invention of the war and it above all other techs must be represented. Obviously, it would be had to obtain and require alot of research to have. The idea is also to have one tech that changes the game and makes it end. Some games require such an outcome because players sometimes never surrender and Atomic weaponry will finish the stalemate.

And that is exactly what it did.

In some games you can play and not obtain an outcome, while with this technology you are assured that the game will finish up soon. In most games that last of normal duration it wont be developed and thats the charm of it.