Goose's Axis & Allies 1940 House Rules Thread

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I crossed out my eighteenth point because I’ve changed my mind and those rules do make sense. I still think the new damage and repair rules are flawed with regards to historical accuracy.

Hi @nishav

I use Factory Limited from the Redesign Thread. I find them to work well.

“FactoryLimited” Air and Naval Bases now cost 12. All captured and newly constructed Minor Factories may only produce Artillery, AAguns, Armor, Mech Infantry, Mobile Infantry, Marines, Elite and Infantry. If a NB is present you may also build Subs, Transports, Escort Carriers and Destroyers. If an AB is present you may also build Fighters and Tac Bombers.

ABs are required to build Fighters, Tac Bombers, Bombers and Air Transports. Bombers and Air Transports may only be built in Factories on originally owned Territories that also have an AB. In addition, Bombers and Air Transports may not be built in the following territories: Kwangtung, Egypt, Norway, Alaska, West India and Korea. May not build at an AB with 3 or more damage.

NBs are required to build all Naval Units. BBs, CVs and CAs may only be built in Territories with originally owned starting Factories. These Territories must also have a NB (Need not be original NB). May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.

So similar to what you’ve suggested. Basically the Big Guns can only be built in original major factories.

@CWO:

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.

If you just using A&A Pacific, 1940 (2nd Edit.) as a “Stand Alone” game only, and using this as a “Special House Rule” scenario it wouldn’t be problematic and would make this interesting for the folllowing reasons - By the rulebook, the U.S. and Japan are not a war yet until Japan attacks first (which would be stupid to do outright) and if this is played in the “House Rules”, Japan may place their all of their units in the Sea and Land zone of Kiangsu Province. HOWEVER, they DO NOT recieve the IPC for it until either ALL American Forces in China (the 4th Marine Regiment and the Yangtze River Patrol at Shanghai) are either evacuated out of China and headed towards either the Philippine Islands (which both actually did do in 1941) or eastward towards Hawaii or one of the outlaying Island outposts before war is declared or Japan decides to “sneak attack” and goes after the American Forces in China and wins, that is when they finally recieve the IPC for the Province. Until then NOTHING, it would be a “Eyeball to Eyeball” scenario in the “Special House Rules” to see who blinks first. And thanks for reminding me about the AVG (the Flying Tigers") in China, i will definitely add them in the “House Rules” as well.

Gotcha, thank you.  :-)

that’s true didn’t think of that  :lol:

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)

Thats right. To me, the multiple collect income causes inflation.
Yes collecting income before combat does stop this.

Regarding the essay on a pad that can be reduced. For example in AARHE the Axis/Allies sequence makes. Its not 4 turns between Russia 1 and Russia 2. So you don’t have to hire an accountant to keep track of things even if we collect income before combat.

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D