Using the Global War 1914 Diplomacy Model In G40?

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

Anyone have any alternate setups or house rules for this game?

Hello folks, I’m continuing my trend of creating alternate scenario’s to make A&A games quicker for face to face play. This is in part personally driven because most of my local players feel many A&A variants are about an hour too long. I’m pecking at most variants, but today I settled a modification for 1914.

1914 quick-mod
-Summary: Removes ottomamns/africa and modifies turn order to encourage quicker game especially, with multiplayer. Estimated to shave 1-2 hours off a 1914 game while maintaining the core experience.

-Balance was (attempted to be, play testing needed) maintained by examining the ratio of Axis/allied economy and TUV(Ground and sea), and maintaining those ratios fairly closely after mod. (See image at bottom)

Mod rules
-Mod is intended to be applied with the Official Tournament rules/setup as a base. (see http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18335&sid=46c5a040ae6a0378950ae08747d6f942)
-In addition, apply the following changes.
-You may considor removing the “collapse/surrender” rules from the tournament setup, but I feel that defeats the purpose and I will be utilizing them still.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Setup changes:

-Remove units on from India and the continent of africa. Remove all ottoman units.
-All ottoman, African, and middle eastern territories+India are not part of the game and so do not give IPCs to any powers

Remove the following navies:
Russians in SZ 71
UK in SZ 19, 29

Remove the following units
Wales: 2 infantry
London: 2 infantry
Scotland: 1 infantry(empty)

-You may wish to simply fold the bottom third of 1914 map board underneath as with the exception of the two russian territories it is unused.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Summary of new starting IPCs by power:
AH:26
RU:25
GE:31
FR:18
UK:18
OT:N/A
IT:12
US:20
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Summary of timed events(including changes)

-UK gets bonus income of 2 multiplied by the turn number to a max of 10 IPCS(representing historical and typical standard game gains in africa/mideast and resources coming back to europe)
-Tanks buildable beginning turn 3
-US enters enters war and at beginning of turn 4

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Turn order changes(optional)

To encourage again quicker play (particulary in team games with 4-5 players), use this portion for an “axis go, allied go” game, allowing alliance players to perform all actions at once.

(In effect, every nation by russia is basically already doing this)

Turn order will be a 3 step process:

1)“special turn 0: Russia Only”
-Russia alone performs a turn.
2)- After this Russian turn, the turn order is now Axis powers.
3)- followed by all allied powers(including russia).

All powers in an alliance build at same time, then perform there moves as a single turn, etc. However… To maintain balance in the combat phase, multinational attacks are still disallowed. To resolve these combats, attackers will perform their attacks one country at a time, using the order from the unmodified rules
(Allies: Russia followed by France,UK, Italy, US)
(Axis: Austria followed by Germany.)

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Numbers!

b5d02a1e-d6cd-4b34-831f-34fc9ca0ff07-image.png
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;

The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected. There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here). The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest. I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space  reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.

Some optional play for 1914 fans.

Modified rule 12/22/17 to denote that 8 markers are given to each side for play.

1914_German_sub_patrols.jpg

Yeah exactly. Another huge problem I have with this game is as said in the other forms, that units should have different attacks and defense against certain units. Transport craft in WWII have basic defense abilities against aircraft and fast attack craft so I still argue that it should have a defense of 1 for the sake of logic in this game.

Today I removed the “Beach Head” rule and added this…

Enola Gay
During the SBR step in the combat phase of America’s 12th turn, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.

Hello,

Recently a few A&A.org members collaborated on a simple house rule variant called “Halifax Rules” in order to balance 1940 Global 2nd Edition in a way that is both fun and fair. These rules are based on 3 game mechanics which are a single economy for the United Kingdom, the creation of a small Commonwealth nation, and a 3rd production unit that may build up to 5 units. You can view the thread here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

For a long time the G40 community has been looking for something universal to balance the game between the two sides. However, Larry Harris does not seem interested in addressing the problem, and the forum members can’t agree on which house rules to implement, so we always fall back and use the boring bid system.

Halifax rules offers something that players have been wanting for a long time, like freedom to spend the UK income where they wish, and with less restrictions. The idea of a Commonwealth nation has been around since to conception of the 1939 Variant Global War. Halifax is particularly special because Krieghund himself has called the project “interesting” and has even offered his own ideas to improve the set.

All I’m asking is to visit the thread, read the house rule, and give it a +1 rating if you like it. If you can find time to play test it and share your results with the rest of the community… that would be fantastic. However, all we need right now is your vote. If we can unite the G40 community around this, we could get sticky thread status, and hopefully an endorsement from Krieghund… this is our goal.

Thank you

YG

@BJCard:

Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).

With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber.  And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London.  Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3).  No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1).  Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.

I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.

If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.

The obvious Allied counter would be to prioritize aircraft production, like in the real war (see: Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, Battle of Kursk), which isn’t as daunting as your projections would indicate.

Because planes can’t land in newly-conquered territories, each side could use their air units to cherry-pick the other fellow’s best offensive units on their respective turns, resulting in a mutual neutering until somebody finally broke through.

It would be a bloodbath in the sky for the first few rounds, but the Allies have the economic clout to pull off air superiority in the long run… and with this targeting prize, air superiority would really mean something worth fighting for, for a change.