[Global 40] Grand Strategy Game Mode

@all-encompassing-goose Please try to adapt it & let me know how it goes! I have it balanced for global interactions, mostly with regards to the British & Russians.

Rule set we are currently playing by
.IMG_20201119_190421912.jpg

There was a bit of discussion recently over here…

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=42496.0

…about what the victory conditions ought to represent from a realistic viewpoint.

@Charles:

For several years, my team and I have been working on a 1945 setup called “The Game to End All Games.”  It follows what would have happened if Russia remained neutral and Great Britain fell.  China and India are considered to have signed a separate peace   The main Axis power is Germany which controls most of Western Europe (Eastern Europe, Russia, and mainland Asia are out of play), Iceland, French Equatorial Africa, Gibraltar, and Nigeria and Gold Coast.  Italy Controls Egypt and East Africa and is poised to march to South Africa with a German expedition to Free French Cameroon and Vichy (a new minor power) troops supporting.  South America has United and is a new playable ally.  German navies are ready to attack the Americas anywhere.  Meanwhile, Japan is planning to attack Australia and Hawaii and Alaska.

For potential inspiration, you might want to have a look at interesting (but short; it’s only a page long) essay by David Fromkin in the book “What If? : The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been”.  The essay is called “Triumph of the Dictators”, and it points out that in early June 1941, just before Barbarossa, most of continental Europe and large portions of Asia were under the control of the Axis powers and of either their allies or of powers with which Germany and Japan had non-aggression pacts.  It paint a grim picture of the U.S. and of the surviving democracies as being (if I remember Fromkin’s phrase correctly) isolated in a hostile world.

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

@Narvik:

@simon33:

If you use the same logic you should get rid of the Japanese NOs for Calcutta, Hawaii and Sydney. Not sure I like that change.

That would actually help Allies a fair bit and also keep peace between Germany and USSR for longer on the average. Would more peace make the game better? I’m not sure that it would. It would increase the number of Sea Lions though - perhaps that would be good.

Yes and no. It would be crazy if Japan can squeeze 5 more IPC out of a rocky island than the original owner can. But, if we change the words in the rule, and say that anyone who control Hawaii island and the adjacent seazone 26 with its convoy zone, will get a 5 IPC bonus, representing international trade with South America or something. Do the same with Sydney and seazone 62, and now I can endorse it, man. Now it makes sense to me.

About your other topic, the possibility of longer time of peace between Germany and its partner in crime, Russia, who knows man ? The current OOB NOs sure reward aggressive play, since Germanys choice between a 5 IPC peace NO dont catch up with the 15 + wartime NOs. But, the OOB NOs also make it a scripted game, but not a historical correct scripted game, since in the real war Germany first had to try a Sea Lion before it would attack Russia. Now, since the designer obviously want a lot of action, and not a sit and wait game, he trough in a lot of NOs to speed up the pace. And that is why we can see everything that happened from 1939 to 1941 in the first Turn of any A&A game. But if you ask me, I think its too many NOs in play, it should be max 3 to each nation, and they should represent something abstract like international trade, shipping, oil etc that is not already printed on the map. Actually there are no need for NOs, you only need Victory Cities to win. If Germany want to win the game, it should attack Russia because of the VCs there, not some derogatory NOs.

IMHO, NOs only have a meaning in this game if they are a part of some bidding system.

Increasing the peace time economy with russia (10 IPCs for both) while giving the wartime Leningrad +5 bonus NO to Russia, can give a better balance toward allies while giving more incentive to attack UK early and Leningrad later, to block the new russian income.

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.

@Micoom:

Germany had Already Radar in place to defend the “Atlantic wall” in Early 1941, long before “Barbarossa” would begin… So Radar shouldn’t be a UK advantage at all in a 1942 scenario. Only in a 1939…

We are working here on a Historical edition for A&A, so for this game timelines are essential and therefore more important then game flexibility, IMO.

Germany had short wave radar only, hence did not pick up a signal on airplanes being long away and the warning was too late sometimes!