Axis and Allies Global 1940: Armies vs Navies (compatible with TripleA)

@Witt

Yeah. after 1943 the US advance was more slowed down by logistical considerations rather than Japanese resistance.

Using the 1942 Second Edition map I made a smaller version of Axis and Allies Pacific. All German territories were made neutral. Similarly, most British, Soviet, and American territories in Europe were made neutral (with exceptions). No income may be collected from any of these territories and they may not be crossed in any way.

Britain and America’s capitals on the Europe side of the board were left open and controlled by their respective powers. This means that even if Western United States and/or India were captured, the US and/or the UK still collect income and may still build units. The US and UK still collect income from these “European” territories.

The Soviet Union still has a turn and is at war with Japan. However, they may not collect income or build units (treat them as if their capital has fallen). The Soviet Far Eastern units may behave as normal. It is recommended that the Soviet player control another Allied power.

To win, the Allies first need to capture Tokyo. If, by the end of the next Japanese turn, the Allies still control Tokyo, they win. Japan needs to capture 5 victory cities (they start with 3) and hold it until the next American turn to win the game.

All other rules from 1942 Second Edition stay the same.

Axis and Allies Pacific on 1942 map.tsvg

Let me know if you would like to play this version with me.

@jostermann

I saw this a few days ago. I am going to try this out it sounds like fun :smile:

…
…
…
.
.
.
.
.
.
…
…
…
.
.
.

.
…
.
.

.
.

Oztea also has a 1942 setup

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/20575/oztea-s-1942-global-setup

Thank you Knp.
Glad Midnight Express thinks it needs tweaking.
Are definitely too many Allied units(Air and Naval):

– Personally I would like to discuss the distribution of nations.

5,5,6,6,5 distribution might not be the ideal numbers… I moved china up to regional and dutch and turkey into minors to facilitate more middle map and southern asia play.
I guess the main question is, would the selection be more balanced if it was 6,6,6,9 or 6,6,6,6,3 instead of having the odd numbers in major and regional, and if yes, what list would make gameplay sense, as well as somewhat historically correct in their potential of projected power.

to quote the list as per first post:

Major Powers:
US (+Asia)
Japan
Germany
Briton (+Africa)
Russia

Regional Powers:
Italy (+Africa)
France (+Africa, Asia)
India (Asia)
Anzac
China

Minor Nations:
Canada
South Africa (Annexed: Angola, Mozambique)
Finland
Hungary  (Annexed: Romania, Bulgaria)
Turkey
Dutch territories (Holland, Asia islands)

(active) Neutral Influences
Scandinavia (formed between Sweden and Norway)
Poland (Annexed: Baltic States)
Spain
Greece (Annexed: Yugoslavia)
Iran
Thailand (Formed between Siam, French Indochina, Saigon)

(Idle) Neutral Influences
Communist China
Mongolia
Brazil: South America
Chile: South America (formed between Chile, Peru, Columbia, Venezuela)
Argentina: South America (formed between Corrientes, Viedma, Santa Cruz)

Oil Conglomerates
Saudi Arabia (Formed between Medina, Riyadh, Rub Al Khali)

in order to maintain a semblance of balance on the board I would consider moving India into the major powers list, renaming it as the British empire (with no tie to briton of course)

This would even out the totals to 6,4,6,6,5  The only real draw back of this would be in larger games of 6+  the 7th, and 8th player would need extra balancing in order to compete (ie extra nation or something)

@Lunarwolf:

will you also use the I-16 for Spanish fighters

Probably, but not for certain.

@Warplayer12:

Maybe a islamitic union instead of the mid east coalition. BTW, there is on World War 3 game on BoardGameGeek

necro!