Global 1940 Combat Engineer Unit

My friend and I have been developing some rules for a Free For All on the Global 40 Board. Each country has a special unit and unique national objectives. Here is a rough outline, let me know what you think:

Countries:
Germany - 30 IPCs - Blitzkrieg Ability
Russia - 37 IPCs - Movable Factories & Factories placeable anywhere (movement of 1)
Japan - 26 IPCs - Yamato (24 IPCs, 3 hits to kill, 4 - 4 combat value)
America - 52 IPCs - Marines (4 IPCs, 2 - 2 combat value, +1 attack during amphibious assaults, destroyers & cruisers have can carry 1 each similarly to a transport)
Communist China - 4 IPCs - Cavalry (4 IPCs 2 - 1 combat value, can move two spaces, no blitz)
China - 9 IPCs - Cavalry (4 IPCs 2 - 1 combat value, can move two spaces, no blitz)
United Kingdom - 21 IPCs - Commando (5 IPCs, 2 - 3 combat value, can be paradropped by a bomber in which the first hostile territory the bomber goes over it has to be dropped, or can just be a noncombat)
Italy - 10 IPCs - Armoured Car - (5 IPCs, 3 - 2 combat value, can blitz)
ANZAC - 10 IPCs - Commando
Canada - 7 IPCs - Commando
India/FEC - 17 IPCs - Gurkhas (4 IPCs, 2 - 3 combat value)
France - 19 IPCs - Fortifications (5 IPCs, up to 3 per territory, +5 IPCs for every existing fortification in the territory, enemy armies cannot blitz through and enemy infantry cannot pair with artillery)
Netherlands - 12 IPCs - Colonial Infantry - (3 IPCs, can place in any originally owner territory)
Middle East - 8 IPCs - Jihad - Does not have to wait a turn after declaring war
Nordic States - 5 IPCs - Finnish Winter Soldiers - (3 IPCs, 1 - 3 combat value, no enemy blitz)
South American Federation - 8 IPCs - T-Boats (4 IPCs, can carry 1 unit, 3 movements)

Rules:
Ideally each country is controlled by one player.
All nations begin at peace; war takes 1 turn to declare.
Each country has its own national objectives.
Some units have been changed around with the setups; however, the majority of the setups have remained the same.
If you conquer a country you may choose to puppet a portion of it.
There are no pre-established alliances.
When two nations are at peace they gain a trade bonus.
Countries may form alliances, non-aggression pacts, request military access, declare war, and lend lease.
Oil derricks give the controlling power 1D6 roll of IPCs.

@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.

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

@knp7765:

Hey Jennifer,
I like your ideas. I think they more reflect how strategic bombers worked. One thing that always bothered me is someone sending transports for an amphibious assault escorted by bombers to fight any scramble planes. For the game it does make sense, bombers attack @4 so they would be great to deal with scrambling fighters and/or tacs. However, in reality, it is just ludicrous.
Also, I think the idea of defending bombers having a defense of 0 is a great idea, as well as your “chosen last as casualties” idea.

Hey KNP,
I agree on what you found ludicrous.

I provided a way of turning things a bit differently not only for Strategic Bombers but mainly for Tactical Bombers,
in this more defined HR on aircrafts units:

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

Hope, you can like it.

I’ll be able to post set up this weekend any comments on it will help

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.)

Cavalry should attack on a 1, defend on a 1, and move at a 2. They could be combined with other units to up their abilities. For example, they could defend on a 2 if paired with infantry. THey could attack on a 2 if attacking with infantry. They should cost 3 IPCs.

The real role of cavalry should be to harass the enemy. If cavalry are in a battle, the other units cannot retreat nor engage another contested territory until the Cavalry are cleared out of that territory. In effect the unit is stuck there. This would simulate cavalry cutting supply lines and communications etc.

Also, cavalry could disrupt IPCs by entering into a vacant territory and in effect scorching the earth. The territory would lose 1 IPC for every Cavalry performing this task in that territory. A marker could be used to denote the territories new value. Cavalry themselves could not conquer a territory by themselves. They would need to be paired with an infantry.

On the map, all the territories on the Western front are occupied so this tactic would not really be used. However on the Eastern Front there are a couple of open territories mainly in Russia where it could be used.  Also, The middle east and Africa are more wide open. This rule conjures up images of Lawrence of Arabia!