Explained: Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion

Update 30th March 2026: Total number of recorded Axis & Allies games in 2026 played by The Captain: 6

2026: Axis & Allies Global 1940 HRE:

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Finished the first game:

2023-8-13-World-War-II-Global-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

The game was certainly unique and spiced up from the original rules. It’s quite biased towards the Axis, with the “cannot move into pro-Allied territories while the Soviets and/or the Americans are neutral” is crippling.

I definitely could’ve been more creative as Japan, but overall it was still a fun and unique game.

I edited the Tacs in list.
Is there still a bid ?
BB & CR shore shot at 11 and 9 ?
How many table top games have you played ?

Greetings friends,

I have finished my first version of the Solitaire variant. I’m affraid I still have to test it. If there is any volunteer here to test it I will thank you!

Here you have it: http://www.mediafire.com/folder/jxx1jyxyhsbyh/Axis_%26_Allies

There are 3 files:

I will thank you feedback about rules if you can test them, your corrections and suggestions too.

Best regards,

Jose Manuel

Axis gets full advantage in the early turns, this forces them to get more aggression there for no reason for them to use peace as a shield and if I am playing as the allies, I’d rather have them be aggressive at turn 1 than turn 4.

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

Ah…way better flashman.
More realistic.

But Iraq must be pro axis at the beginning and should be annexed and or Attack by UK.
Persia = 2 TT. North and south.
North side should be annexed by USSR.
South side by UK.
All Yougoslavia was not pro axis. The Serbian and the Russians were friends
So Yougoslavia = 2 TT.
Croatia and Serbia.

ROMANIA is a problem in that it should still be in control of Bessarabia.  It was the grabbing of this province by Stalin in July that propelled Romania into the Axis camp.
Suggestion: Romania pro-Axis, Bessarabia pro-Allied? 
OR Romania combined is neutral, but invasion of one part by a power makes the other part pro the other alliance.
2 TT:  Romania and Bessarabie. If USSR attack or annexe Bessarabia, this will not declare war against Germany.

That non-aggro pact looks a little familiar.

But it should add this: the 2 signatories cannot allow their allies to attack the other signatory from their territory.

That is, for example, UK bombers based on Russian soil cannot attack Japanese units, nor land in Russia from such an attack from elsewhere.

The treaty should remain in force for as long as the power gaining the right to attack wishes.  For example if Berlin falls Russia and Japan are only at war when Russia declares war on Japan, which it can do at any time.  Japan would not have the right to attack until Russia declared war, or until it’s own criteria were achieved.
(Supposing Russia wanted to see a powerful Italy beated down a bit, or rebuild it’s own forces up after a hard German campaign, before risking war with a bloated Japanese monster.)