Small but impactful balanced changes. Global 1940.

@bakerbei

Haven’t played 42 hardly at all. His other mods, 41 and 39, especially 41, seem very balanced. I think if you haven’t played it much, I’d just roll with no bid for starters.

Also slowly working on making my own pieces and designs for my new resin printer. I’m going to open up an online store for new pieces, boards, rules, and other items in the near future.

@The-Captain

Great way of putting it. It applies to pretty much all Axis and Allies games.

@gen-manstein great, I look forward to see it.

My friend and I have been developing some rules for a Free For All on the Global 40 Board. Each country has a special unit and unique national objectives. Here is a rough outline, let me know what you think:

Countries:
Germany - 30 IPCs - Blitzkrieg Ability
Russia - 37 IPCs - Movable Factories & Factories placeable anywhere (movement of 1)
Japan - 26 IPCs - Yamato (24 IPCs, 3 hits to kill, 4 - 4 combat value)
America - 52 IPCs - Marines (4 IPCs, 2 - 2 combat value, +1 attack during amphibious assaults, destroyers & cruisers have can carry 1 each similarly to a transport)
Communist China - 4 IPCs - Cavalry (4 IPCs 2 - 1 combat value, can move two spaces, no blitz)
China - 9 IPCs - Cavalry (4 IPCs 2 - 1 combat value, can move two spaces, no blitz)
United Kingdom - 21 IPCs - Commando (5 IPCs, 2 - 3 combat value, can be paradropped by a bomber in which the first hostile territory the bomber goes over it has to be dropped, or can just be a noncombat)
Italy - 10 IPCs - Armoured Car - (5 IPCs, 3 - 2 combat value, can blitz)
ANZAC - 10 IPCs - Commando
Canada - 7 IPCs - Commando
India/FEC - 17 IPCs - Gurkhas (4 IPCs, 2 - 3 combat value)
France - 19 IPCs - Fortifications (5 IPCs, up to 3 per territory, +5 IPCs for every existing fortification in the territory, enemy armies cannot blitz through and enemy infantry cannot pair with artillery)
Netherlands - 12 IPCs - Colonial Infantry - (3 IPCs, can place in any originally owner territory)
Middle East - 8 IPCs - Jihad - Does not have to wait a turn after declaring war
Nordic States - 5 IPCs - Finnish Winter Soldiers - (3 IPCs, 1 - 3 combat value, no enemy blitz)
South American Federation - 8 IPCs - T-Boats (4 IPCs, can carry 1 unit, 3 movements)

Rules:
Ideally each country is controlled by one player.
All nations begin at peace; war takes 1 turn to declare.
Each country has its own national objectives.
Some units have been changed around with the setups; however, the majority of the setups have remained the same.
If you conquer a country you may choose to puppet a portion of it.
There are no pre-established alliances.
When two nations are at peace they gain a trade bonus.
Countries may form alliances, non-aggression pacts, request military access, declare war, and lend lease.
Oil derricks give the controlling power 1D6 roll of IPCs.

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

Germany:
http://www.mediafire.com/?duc0i56nloytkr0

Japan:
http://www.mediafire.com/?p17vuxrevhd9c76

Italy:
http://www.mediafire.com/?86c8pi8ghttdmnq

Soviet Union:
http://www.mediafire.com/?4un2eblj2z5p7c3

USA: China/ ANZAC
http://www.mediafire.com/?axixf35q3zn1s1c

UK:
http://www.mediafire.com/?5kwbnbiwey8aci1

This uses all the Alpha rules except as follows:

On the first turn all Allied Naval and Air units defend at ONE. Land units fight normally.

2)The Japanese may attack the Soviets only by announcing one turn before this intention. The Soviets can attack japan only if all Soviet territory’s are under Soviet control.

The new turn order: Soviet Union, Axis, Allies

Lend Lease: The US or UK player can send income to the Soviet Union. Procedure: Buy a transport(s) and place it off board in a Lend lease Box. These transports can’t be used for any other purpose and the Allied player can just exchange them back to IPC’s as he wishes. Roll one D6 for each transport and place the IPC’s under the transports in the holding box. This money is deducted from a players treasury and the Lend Lease can never exceed a total of 30 IPC’s

Interdiction: Any axis Submarine, Plane, or Surface ship located in open sea ( not Baltic, Black, Mediterranean) can deduct 2 IPC each from this total. If they are located in a convoy box, they can cost 3 IPC each from this total.

Minor Axis Allies: Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary have unique forces ( use German pieces) these automatically join the axis on turn 2. They can freely move on that turn and Germany can move into them or build units ( Romania).