Axis and Allies Expanded Global Scenario

I had a few ideas on this too, since HBG and CCM 3D print various pieces:

light cruisers 2/3/2/10
heavy cruisers 4/3/2/14
light aircraft carriers: 1/2/2/12 one AC
tank destroyers: 3/2/2/5
med tank: 2/2/2/4
heavy tank: 4/3/2/8
self propelled artillery: 3/2/2/5 can blitz
medium bombers 3/1/4/10 can strat bomb

Feel free to add ideas, or comment / modify mine

This rule is part of the G40 House Rules Expansion

Please note, that this set up is in addition to the OOB set up.

The fighting in The Pacific Theatre now has a new dimension. “Island Jumping” is a crucial part of the Total Economy for both sides.

As part of the intense fighting in The Pacific, the Increased Ship Building rule is also implemented (soon to be posted at this site).

G40 Expanded Pacific Additional Set Up.pdf

@gen-manstein yea i’d almost go at it the other way and make the CAs and fast BBs go 3. But that will create it’s own issues. Besides 19 knots is over 20 mph anyway

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  :-D

@CWO:

@EvenkiNatlOkrug:

A VC in South Africa could mean more Japanese and British involvement in the Indian or South Atlantic Ocean, and also prevent a large chunk of the map being relatively empty.

Madagascar might not rate having a VC, but it could potentially be a house rule National Objective for both the Allies and Japan.

I would agree - anything to make that theater more interesting would help.

My other idea was to potentially have Dakar (French West Africa) or Brazzaville (French Equatorial Africa) as a VC. This might be more applicable to Europe 1940, but Dakar was a significant objective for the Free French, and Brazzaville was their “capital” for a couple of years. The British made a significant attempt (Battle of Dakar) to take it from the Vichy forces.

First play test is complete.  Zombies took over half of Asia after starting in the Philippines but then were wiped out shortly after Germany fell and Japan surrendered.  There are a bunch of tweaks and fixes needed to the rules.  The Zs seem formidable at first, but once you get some large stacks attacking them they are easily subdued.  I’ll post here when I have them.

You make a good point there. Hadn’t really put that much mathematical thought into it.