Explained: Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion

@guillermo

Have you been able to try these house rules, Guillermo?

@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.

Some suggestions in the order you posted great ideas;

reduce Bombay factory to minor
play G42 instead then switch back the diplomacy is a great module…or just start everyone at war!
Yep.  Agree on split neutrals easy mod
Pro-neutrals under control…  Germany too powerful and positioned though.
islands of 2 IPC; or more agree.  too abusive on Hawaii/wake etc.
scrambling seems a crucial deterrent power, its too weak as it is…stratbombing is devastatingly powerful
transports should only defend, otherwise they are better than destroyers as cannon fodder
agree, convoys everywhere, no problems.
I like that destroyers can carry 1 guy from the pacific game but since they can only noncom or combat it makes it kinda limited…

I think you could just announce that it’s a recon force and which ships would be passing through if it succeeds… maybe put the recon force into the territory for combat and the rest of the fleet could be put on the line between the territories until combat is resolved.  If the recon force takes out the blockers in the first round of combat, the ships on the line could then pass through the territory or use their shore bombardment in the territory: but the recon force could not pass through with them and could not bombard with them (they would be out of position, expended munitions, etc.).  If the recon force fails to take out the blockers, then the remaining ships may join the combat or they could stay in the previous zone and either way can’t pass through or bombard the shore.  The recon force would then have to continue to engage in regular combat or retreat.

@UltimateChaos:

Yea you are correct. I guess POWs would never really work in this game because unlike real war it does not matter how many men you lose

I’m not convinced the idea couldn’t work, only that the current idea of it wouldn’t work.

How about a situation where, for every 3-5 infantry you kill, you gain a PoW that can be placed anywhere. PoWs need to be protected from liberation and every PoW in a province over it’s IPC value costs you 1 IPC/turn in support.

Results:
You don’t muck with the balance around attack/counter attack and amphibious assaults.
You’ve got incentive to distribute the PoWs you capture and risk their liberation, rather than stock them in your capital.
The Axis, generally considered the stronger side, will take brunt of the downsides since they are killing large numbers of Russian and Chinese infantry. Might actually balance the game.

its another house rule that I had dug up in another forum that allows artillery to “shell” or bombard an adjacent territory for 1 ipc per shot

:-D these are all great ideas i am using many ofthem does any one have any more…?

that’s one of the great things about this forum.  It practically already is a house rules “think thank”.