Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?

Hello everyone!
This is just a fun little scenario I created in my spare time, when a) I don’t have 1914 and b) I wanted the scale to be bigger. So without further ado, I give you my G40 Russian Civil War.
I will post the setup shortly for those who are interested in giving this whirl. Of course, let me know what could change to make this scenario a little smoother. Feedback is always welcome!

G40 Russian Civil War

Turn Order:
Bolsheviks (1940 Russian pieces)
White Army (1914 Russian pieces with 1940 Italian mech infantry OR 1940 Italian pieces)
Separatists (1914 OR 1940 German pieces)

Winning the Game:
The game will last until either Russian faction wins by controlling of Russian territories. The Separatists win if at the end of 10 rounds none of their territories are occupied by the Bolsheviks. If this does not occur, then the Separatists become a strict neutral power, and all original Separatist territories cannot be entered. All Separatist units on the board are also removed.

British Karelia:
As part of the Allied intervention during the civil, Britain had deployed troops to occupy Murmansk before withdrawing them in October of 1919.
The territory Karelia is a British minor power controlled by the White Army player, with a starting setup of 4 infantry and 2 artillery. White Army units may move into and through Karelia. British units may move into and through White Army territories as well as invade Bolshevik territories. To receive reinforcements, British Karelia may roll one die and add, in any combination-
1 infantry per dot
2 mechanized infantry per 2 dots
1 artillery per 3 dots
At the end of the third round of the game, British Karelia, along with any territory occupied by British forces becomes a White Army territory. Remove all British units on the board. In their place, place 2 White Army infantry each territory formally owned by British Karelia.

The Separatists:
The Separatist are made up of countries formerly part of the Russian Empire and are at war with the Bolsheviks.
Separatist units cannot move outside of Separatist territories unless invading and capturing a Bolshevik territory. If the Separatist go strict neutral, territories captured by them are up for grabs for whoever moves into them first. The Separatists do not require factories to build units.

Czechoslovak Legions:
The Czechoslovakian Legions had been part of the Russian Army, and during the civil war were allowed to leave to France. However, they ended up dispersed along the Trans-Siberian, and the Bolsheviks set out to disarm and arrest them.
Czechoslovakian Legion infantry are controlled by the White Army player and are able to move unlimited spaces through the territories of Russia, Samara, Novosibirsk, Timguska, Yenisey, Yakut, Buryatia, and Amur. These territories do not need to be controlled by the White Army. If it is hostile controlled, however, combat begins. Outside of those territories, Czechoslovak Legion infantry can only move 1 space. The Czechoslovak Legions cannot be rebuilt.

Unit Restrictions:
Only infantry, mechanized infantry, and artillery can be built in this game.

Unit Stats:
Infantry- Attack @ 2 Defend @ 2 Move @ 1 Cost 3
Mechanized Infantry- Attack @ 2 Defend @ 1 Move @ 2 Cost 4
Artillery- Attack @ 3 Defend @ 3 Move @ 1 (2 when paired with Mechanized Infantry) Cost @ 5

1940 combat rules, not the 1914 combat rules.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

As the War progressed it became apparent to all Major Powers, that Weapons Production needed a significant increase.

The Total War rule reflects the efficiency in production as War materiel were mass produced.

G40 Total War.pdf

I would use these rules:

(1) if the defender sees a key battle coming and can predict that they’ll want an unusual order of loss, they can leave a note, send an e-mail, etc., informing the attacker of their preferred order of loss, and the attacker will then follow that order.

(2) if there is no note, the attacker will provisionally use a standard order of loss.

(3) after seeing the results of the battle, the defender can pay 2 IPCs to the bank per casualty that they want to switch. You didn’t want to lose your bomber after all? Fine, pay 2 IPCs, and you can have your bomber back in exchange for one of your infantry. This should be expensive enough to deter casual abuse but still cheap enough that if you would really be upset about the order of loss, you can fix it without too much drama. Don’t think it’s fair that you should have to pay to set up your order of loss exactly the way you want it? Well, then, you should have foreseen the battle and given orders in advance. Don’t feel like thinking that hard every turn? Well, then, you can always just cough up 2 IPCs. It’s a way of speeding up the game while making sure that nothing unacceptably bad will happen because of order of loss issues.

Thanks YG.  Please keep the ideas coming.  I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.

@Wolfshanze:

Have you ever done or thought about doing something about the lack of Neutral Nation rules in 1942 SE?

I feel like introducing neutral rules would make things far too gamey in some areas, like Mongolia, Sahara, and Turkey. Plus what’s the incentive to attack these regions? No IPCs, the only appeal is strategically positioning yourself, and the Soviets would be screwed because of this. Honestly I would much rather make my own board than add any extra rules for this one, at least I could then place IPC values or redesign territorial positions.

@Young:

1. Air units and submarines can’t hit one another… ever.

Here is one of my post with links to historical depictions of the Aircrafts and Anti-Subwarfare relations.
Exploring this subject lead me to the other direction than OOB on planes against Subs.

About your HR, I can add that I was influenced by your DD vs Sub pairing when I develop some game mechanics on Convoy Raiding for 1942.2 first, then G40 with the help of Black_Elk.

@Baron:

Once this said, I think TacB is the newest (except for AAA guns) unit introduced and can have a better place and much more historical feel in relation to SBR escort and intercept (air vs air combat) rules, and vs regular combat: ground and naval.
(As for now, I’m just thinking that TacBs should have a combat value against Subs (not Fighters), even without DDs, they represent Dive and Torpedos bombers after all.)

I was curious to look what was the historical background and basis of this assumption about TacB against Fg vs Subs.
I was surprised that my intuitive thinking have some truth behind:
I just discovered that the Fighter F4F Wildcat was part of Antisubmarine Warfare and was able to sink 21 Submarines U-boats but never by itself. All of them were credited to another aircraft also.

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

Best known for their contributions in the Pacific, the Wildcats and Martlets also gave reputable service in the Atlantic. This usually took the form of operating from an escort carrier attached to a convoy or a hunter-killer group. These Wildcats were responsible for intercepting German bombers and, in conjunction with other types, finding and attacking U-boats. The six-gun armaments of the F4F-4, Martlet II, and Martlet IV were particularly effective in suppressing the anti-aircraft guns of the U-boats so that larger, slower bombers could more safely attack with depth bombs or homing torpedoes. The threat of strafing by a Wildcat would often persuade a U-boat to submerge, reducing the chance of catching a convoy. Additionally, the Wildcats could summon bombers and surface escorts to engage U-boats. Known to be rugged and forgiving, the Wildcat’s performance limitations were not a significant handicap in the Atlantic, where there were no enemy fighters to contend with.

U-boats lost to Wildcat/Martlet aircraft

(When fighting U-boat Wildcat normally shielded her larger sister the Avenger while the latter dropped depth charges or acoustic torpedoes. Both planes were given credit in such cases.)

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/wildcat.htm

On the contrary, TBF Avenger were clearly part of Submarine killing:

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

In the Atlantic, the Avenger was the obvious choice for use aboard British and American escort carriers in screening convoys and hunting down U-boats. Avengers would sight surfaced U-boats, and swoop down on them in a glide bombing approach, releasing multiple 250-pound, 325-pound, or (most often) 500-pound depth bombs. If the U-boat put up accurate flak, the Avenger pilot might choose to circle out of range wait for other aircraft to assist. Grumman Wildcat fighters, with either four or six heavy machine guns, were often effective at subduing the U-boat’s flak battery so that the Avengers could more safely make their attacks. Later the Avenger’s arsenal included rockets for use on surfaced U-boats and, after mid-1943, a super-secret anti-submarine homing torpedo known as the Mark 24 Fido (also called Zombie). Various versions of the Avenger were fitted with radar for finding submarines or surface ships, with sonobuoys to track submerged submarines, and with flares and searchlights for illuminating potential targets at night. Avengers were known to carry combinations of these devices, such as two 500-pound depth bombs, one Fido, radar, flares, and sonobuoys.

American escort carrier air groups sank, or assisted in sinking, 35 submarines in the Atlantic. Most, perhaps all, of these kills must have been made by Avengers. To this total must be added the achievements of British Avengers. Additionally, Avengers flew anti-submarine patrols from land bases, and laid mines.

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/avenger.htm

This means to me that, from an historical POV, against submarine unit, a TacB unit should be better over the Fg unit.
So I think there is room to improve the historical representation of TcB and Fg units in A&A G40.

Maybe TacBomber unit should have (along with StBs) a specific capacity against Submarine unit.
Or
While giving Fgs an Anti-aircraft capacity, at the same time, making them unable to destroy Submarine unit.
This could better reenact somehow the historical difference amongst these 2 G40 sculpts and sharpen the role of this new TcB unit, given each a more clearer identity, even with a strategical game level such as A&A G40.

As a side note, here someone talking from first hand:

Here is a canadian !!!  :evil: CVL HMCS Magnificent (a Majestic-class CVL-21) Launch in nov. 1944 but only commissionned 1948.
25 knots, 12 000 nmiles, 37 planes on board.
Around 4min. 40s. the captain of this Light Carrier unit says:
He had 2 types of planes on board:
anti-submarines aircrafts ASW (Avengers) and
fighters aircrafts against planes to protect the carrier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zvnz06-MRc

@CWO:

Cruiser sculpts are actually fairly easy to distinguish from destroyer sculpts because the destoyer sculpts nearly all have transom sterns, which means that the back part of the ship is square or, in a couple of cases, rounded.  The cruisers have cruiser sterns, which are pointed.  (The first version of the German Hipper-class cruiser had a transom stern, but it was changed to a cruiser stern later.)

This is a good point.  The ‘flat’ stern of the Destroyers is a distinguishing feature except in the case of Russia, whose Cruiser also has a transom stern.  You’re right, I mean – to the discerning eye, the pieces are certainly distinguishable.  Our play style, however, is usually more on the ‘pushing plastic’ side.  We want to keep it fast and fun and the Crusiers have been by far the biggest source of confusion all the times that we’ve played.

I read numerous posts about historical rules like a separate Canada and rules for Vichy (just to name those two)

Since most of you seems to agree that the game is in favor of the axis, how do you (re)balanced the game if you use those two rules(canada and vichy) or any other one that sesns to slow down allies or advantage axis ?