Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@all-encompassing-goose

Okay then. I would rather the Axis win, so…

As part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 & 1943 House Rules Expansion, Naval Mines are being play testet during the 2023 Autumn & Winter Axis & Allies gaming season.

Final results will be posted here.

Feel free to play test on your own. Rules are attached below.

Captain

1. G40 Naval Mines.pdf

Some good ideas here. A few things I’ve done were to have bmbrs hit at 3 unless paired with a ftr. Makes taking solo blockers out more risky and unless used with carrier aircraft, not as powerful with the big range they have.

Also give tacs +1 when paired with inf the same way artillery does. Makes them a lot more popular in my test games.

None of the Prices change. The ftr still has the big hit on D and can boost the bmbr. Also still the cheapest for fodder. Tac boosting the inf is really nice for small counterattacks and is somewhat realistic as well.

So some minor changes but makes for a more balanced air buy as opposed to just going huge with bmbrs imo.

Indeed!
The “Empire Highway to India” must be controlled by the Allies.

And maybe the risk of loosing 4 of 5 transferred IPCs is compensation enough for the option to support the defence of India or gain assistance in the Battle of Britain.

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.

As a huge fan of Imp Games’ East & West, these kinds of games always intrigue me. It’s set in 1948, so there are some similarities to the '46 scenario.

IMHO, 1948 is sort of the high-water mark for NATO (i.e. the European empires) however, East & West is a bit non-historical in this sense.

• NATO was not formed until 1949
• Turkey and Greece did not join NATO until 1952, but are part of the Alliance in-game
• Pakistan, India, and Burma were all independent of Britain in 1948; in E&W they are still part of the empire, and a huge thorn in the side of the USSR
• The breakdown of Indonesia between Dutch-controlled areas and independent(ish) ones is not in line with history

The other high-water mark of the Cold War (based on my research) is around 1975-76. Off the top of my head:

• The Vietnam War was over; Cuba, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were all ruled by communist regimes. The USSR (or Warsaw Pact) was at the height of its influence
• The Arab League had expanded across all of north Africa; the Islamic Conference also greatly increased its membership around this time
• The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) including Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand were still in existence, supported by the major NATO powers of the US, UK, and France
• China had annexed Tibet and fought a small war with India

I’ve done work on 1975-76 scenarios for both the Original A&A as well as E&W and have done a fair bit of study on the cold war era “map” so to speak. If anyone wants to discuss the subject/games here or in a PM, I’d be very happy to respond. :-)

This is what I have come up with:

Rommel allows all panzer and infantry divisions in the same province to travel +1 and two divisions gain +1 attack.
Zhukov gains one free infantry division each turn in the province he is in.

Montgomery’s troops gain +1 defense and two or less tank divisions gain +1 attack.

Patton’s advantage is that three or less land units a battle gain +1 attack.

Yamamoto’s fleet can move +1 and airplanes on carries in his fleet can go on kamikaze missions with +1 attack. (In a kamikaze mission, the plane can go its full range and is lost after attacking.)

A general is dead if his unit is killed.