Global 1942 with General 6 Stars advanced game.

You should make one, I don’t have a 1940 copy but have friends who do and would love to have one. Still I always like to put in a Bismark no matter what time period, just to stress Britian because they have vast, if thin superiority in the Atlantic ocan.

@SEP said in [Global 1940] House Rules..:

@barnee said in [Global 1940] House Rules..:

@barnee
Air Transport is a A0 D0 M5 +1 w/AB C6 unit.

I like the stats for the Air Transport. Have you considered having it operate like a Transport Ship i.e. carries one infantry plus one other ground unit?

How are you differentiating between light, medium and heavy tanks and what’s your A/D/M/C ratio?

2/5/8/9000
sorry couldn’t help it

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’.

Well I’m still not sure how simple it is to implement a group phase like the warchest concept I mentioned.

Might be advisable to keep regular war bonds in the back pocket. And the +5 for capturing an enemy VC as outlined in the master thread would be good to have as a toggle. Since at least we know both of those mechanics work in tripleA.

But yeah I think the warchest VC concept has promise, if it can work in 1942.2, I’m pretty sure it will work even better in Global.

@phd_angel

Thanks so much! Sorry for the delayed response here. I was on parental leave with my son, so I wasn’t online much the last few months!

I definitely appreciate the feedback. I’m with you, my hope for any houserule is to keep a semblance of realism while working out whatever game play issues there were that made the houserule pop up in the first place!

The uncertainty of allegiances pre-battle is quite interesting. But I try to minimize dice randomness. IRL (in real life), Vichy troops (just like Italians) surrendered as soon as seeing enemy superiority: thus, in the game, if Allies send more land + air units than defending Vichy units, there is no battle but surrender. Or, make it unlikely that a battle would ensue (for example, need to roll a 1).

I definitely agree overall here, I think this one got away from A&A mechanics the most. Part of me didn’t want to make it completely against the Axis, but I think something like you suggest on bringing more men (or maybe twice as many), would void any combat.

IPC system, however, is historically inaccurate (as in most, if not all, Vichy mods I’ve seen): IRL, Nazi Germany profited handsomely on Vichy which had to quite richly sustain 300,000 German troops stationed in Northern France! So, in the game, Germany should actually gain IPC bonus, whereas Vichy and Free France gain nothing. How much, certainly 3 IPC, at least.

I also get your point here. However, the main goal for me in creating the Vichy France rule was an overwhelming thought by players that the Axis has too great an advantage. By creating Vichy in this scenario it weakens the Axis some by taking away from them, as well as adding to the Allies by adding the Free French. I think if we were to give the Germans more IPC’s, it takes away the point of creating the rule in the first place (which again, was to try and help weaken the OOB Axis advantages).

Finally, Germany never fought Vichy. IRL, with Operation Torch, Germany simply occupied Vichy in 1942, with no resistance whatsoever. Vichy units were disbanded. That can be also the case in the game.

I also agree that combat did not really happen, at least on a large scale. I suppose I don’t know enough to understand every potential action that might have happened, no matter how small. This was again something designed to make the German player think twice before just invading the Vichy territories. It’s going to cost them a bit. Again, just a device to hopefully help balance.

I personally don’t like the idea of bids at the beginning of a game. We try and either house rule to help change, or just deal with it how we can. But yeah, the main hope/goal here was to have a somewhat realistic scenario, while also hopefully tipping the scales a bit away from the Axis, while not ruining gameplay and design too much.

Thanks so much for your input! Hope 2021 is treating you well!

Chris

that would be cool :-D

You just know that everyone’s Sealion plans will go up in smoke if Larry gives us a workable SBR rule in Alfa+3.

@Cmdr:

Yea, but I just dont see tanks having the ability to hit bombers and fighter/tbombers.  Maybe tanks can select any ground unit they want to hit, but then to rebalance, prohibit them from hitting aircraft.

Yes, my intent was to limit the targeting to ground units. The other units not directed by the general could hit aircraft in the first round if the defender does not have enough fodder. The planes could be hit in the second round of combat by anything as normal.