Global 1940 Combat Engineer Unit

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

Hi @blaze-the-action-junkie

This is an interesting way of getting more tech rolls as well

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/13543/research-facilities-and-infrastructure-simple-rule-additions

@Charles:

If you want to have the full experience, also use this neutral expansion ruleset along with the new powers:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.msg%msg_id%

All playtests of this addition of 11 powers used these new neutral rules, and I definitely recommend you play these two house rules together.  It allows for fun things like South Africa invading Portuguese colonies, Bulgaria and Italy invading Turkey etc.

We are currently working on implementing the 20-power ruleset for other Global setups.  If you would like to play this add-on in a Pacific/Europe solo game, I can post the theater rulesets on request.

Charles De Gaulle, has your group worked on any other setups recently besides 20 powers in 1940?  I am formally putting in a request (or fan vote) for 1936 with with 20 powers.  Maybe some of the smaller countries that weren’t conquered by Germany yet could act as pro-allied neutrals.  I just think 20 powers would work well from an early starting point.  More variables to “rewrite” history to some extent.  Anyways thanks for your efforts.

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

Thank you kind sir. If you get the chance, try it out and give me the results. I am adding Romanian today. :wink: I am changing a few things for Finland as well.

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.)

The 1939 game can be played like Global 40, actually the rules are Global 40 rules with some exceptions and optinal rules for the hard core gamer. It also incorporates a D12 combat system which is alot more fun in my opinion. Its Axis and Allies with a Xeno games World at War Twist!

Lately I play them as 8 Ipc defenseless units that can transport 2 inf. there range is 5. So typically they have a round trip range of a fighter unless they take off from airbase and then the round trip is that of a bomber.