Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@all-encompassing-goose

Though if Japan could take India, they would’ve taken Yunnan already.

It’s virtually the only way to move from Europe to China.

@barnee

We decided to create a new set of Tournament Rules for general use in all Wiking-Cons as well as the 2026 World Championship.

This set of Tournament rules is described at the “Events” thread, inkluding the Wiking-Con Tournaments.

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

@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.

FBC9643C-5703-4B6B-8E07-557FA9698BAA.jpeg

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.)

Yo crusa, I don’t have those rules about Germany hiding ships.

LOL…I’m waiting for this reply!!!
U-Boat rules = Old rules, I forget to put it on english version.
For the warship. Take a look at WAW Port Rules. Chapter I or II.

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.