[Global 1940] Alternate Win Conditions instead of Bid

@general-5-stars said in [Global 1940] Funny How...:

We play Uk 1 inf or art can use the hump from Assam to Yunnan if China controls Yunnan.

You could have roll a 1 and it blocks the piece based on lost planes.

Or a 2 blocks it like all limits said. Think using a bomber plane is to much. Just lose the 6 icps.

Come on. Test test test.

@crsluggo

Thanks, we have tons of fun playing with the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

It’s impressive to see how dedicated all our play groups are to these rules.

The feedback we receive is of high value to us - and inspires when new house rules are molded and prepared for play testing.

Thanks for your comment:+1:

Rule set we are currently playing by
.IMG_20201119_190421912.jpg

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?

Why don’t you post the rules here for all other people to see and if they want ? Be easier.

I like the concept. Maybe not so much if I’m the U.S. or Russian player unless there is some option or hope of getting in the war sooner.  But, varying their  entry into the war mixes up each game.

@Ichabod:

@Argothair:

Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.

I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.

I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).

Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.

I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.

Axis can grab lands such as South Africa or Australia but I don’t think it might be optimal for Axis.
Such are out of position and, if Germany waste money in Africa, this is less units against Russia.
Same for Japan wasting resources against US instead of crushing India, then going Caucasus or Moscow.

I do agree about Archangel and Karelia, it is on the north way toward Moscow.

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?