[Global 1940] One rule to balance it?

@barnee

You’re absolutely correct.

While in playing games against myself which are lower stakes I sometimes try it, when it comes to actual, serious games against other players I stay well away from it.

It’s mostly if you just want to spice the game up and you don’t care about winning or losing.

That being said the technology does give you great advantages depending in the power and technology.

Super Subs+Improved Shipyards almost guarantees US or Japanese (depending on who got both of them) dominance in the Pacific.

Of course getting those two technologies is not easy, but it’s not impossible.

@all-encompassing-goose

I think this a great idea-I just think it’s too complicated. Make it so the Bulgarian infantry can only move in three territories: Bulgaria, Greece, and Yugoslavia.

I have been reading about your house rules, and you should put them into one giant rulebook like The Captain. Keep up the good work!

All fair points. I look forward to your upcoming house rule releases!

Is it possible for this game to be set it up so that every country could fight on it’s on; with one country destroying everyone else as the only victory condition? Say, combine Italy and France (with Spain and Portugal?) and let them go first? Britain goes 2nd? And perhaps add about 1 guy to every Chinese territory? What would the outcome of THAT game look like?

@Narvik:

I guess the map designers made all this mistakes on purpose, just to start an extra conflict inside the original conflict, man. Dont tell me they made the map wrong seven times in a row just by accident, I dont buy that, man.

I love how Narvik says man after every sentence.  It carries with it an air of sincerity and character.
:-D

Hi all,

Been a long time reader on the boards, but this is my first time posting! Been an avid AA player and history buff for a long time. Sorry to post here at such a later date, but I wanted to get an opinion.

My take on adding Canada to the game without too much drastic effects on the playability involved a couple of moving parts.

Give Canada the 7 ipc income of the Canadian territories to spend each turn, but that same ipc value still counts towards the UK as well, with the UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Do the same thing for South Africa, giving them both South Africa territories and Rhodesia for a 4 ipc total. Again, UK still controls the money as well, with UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Both Commonwealths still play as part of the UK, buy, move, combat, etc. Essentially just adding 11 ipc income.

To counter this so it’s not unfair to the Axis, do the same thing with Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Slovakia-Hungary on the map of course). Those four powers would have a total of 9 ipc value between them. I figured the extra two ipc’s would have minimal effect.

Essentially all I did was add ipc’s and therefore troop numbers to the game, just forcing them to be used at their respective locales.

My only thought with this was would the immediacy of the minor Axis powers being on the front lines basically effect gameplay on the Eastern Front more so than the added Commonwealth powers would in Africa and Europe? I don’t want to hurt the USSR unfairly.

Any feedback would be great! Glad to finally post and be a part of the community!

Yeah, that’s pretty much what it is.

if even larry thinks that heavy bombers are op, why aren’t his optional rules for it the regular rules? 
or why not:
Heavy Bombers = roll two dice at 3 (instead of at 4)