1939: World at War

I came up with an idea for one on one wars between two powers using the Global 1940 map. Here are the instructions for two versions (Soviet Union vs US and Germany vs Japan):

Common rules:

All other powers are neutral. No pro-Axis or pro-Allied neutrals are involved on either side. Attacking true neutrals is allowed with the usual effects of them siding with the other enemy of the attacker. Only territory of the belligerents (with exceptions detailed below) may be crossed.

For TripleA, use edit mode to make all powers neutral, including pro-Axis and pro-Allies.

An optional rule is to make pro-Axis and pro-Allied territories also true neutrals.

One side wins when all the units of the other side have been destroyed and all the territory of the enemy has been conquered.

Japan vs Germany:

To make the game faster, Trans-Jordan and Egypt will be under Japanese control and Gibraltar is under German rule.

All starting units and income is the same (Japan’s starting IPCs are still 26 even with the addition of Egypt and Trans-Jordan and the income effects of these two territories will only start at turn 2).

For TripleA, edit mode can be done to change the territories to their correct owners.

Additionally, Germany’s 10 IPC national objectives that are achieved (Iron Ore and Soviet trading) are kept, and no other national objectives are changed.

Japan’s trade with the US 10 IPC national objective is also kept.

For TripleA, edit mode is necessary for the US to be recorrected to be neutral as the US automatically declares war on turn 3.

Soviet Union vs US:

All starting units and income are the same.

The Soviets control Denmark, and like above the income change only applies starting at turn 2.

The US does not get their “at war” national objectives. This means that the US will only ever get 52 IPCs per turn until the US conquered Soviet territory.

Edit mode is required to make the US neutral with the Axis because the US automatically declares war on them at turn 3 for TripleA.

Soviet national objectives are the same. Due to not fighting the Axis, the Soviets will not achieve any. This intentional.

Remember to use edit mode to make all relationships between powers neutral.

Here are two test games I played on TripleA (TripleA is required to access these files) for both of these ideas. Keep in mind that since these were tests, what was done there may be inconsistent with what I outlined here, which are the definitive and final versions of the rules. Keep in mind I also used edit mode to change unit buys and to correct movement, but no moves or purchases were illegal. They might also give you some ideas of strategies.

Soviet Union vs US.tsvg

Germany vs Japan.tsvg

@All-Encompassing-Goose

Are the Canadian units in the out of box rules also converted into American units?

@all-encompassing-goose

Let me try sending it again:

@all-encompassing-goose

Axis And Allies 1932 seems too unbalanced for me. This was before the Nazis rose to power, and if the game is set in 1938 or 1939, the Nazis will just be killed by the Western Allies-if a game needs to be balanced, the earliest date that can be done is the date that the 1940 game starts with, when the French Army, the biggest threat to Germany, is more or less destroyed. I guess an early 1940 game, after German troops redeployed from Poland, could work.

The political aspect of the war has always been interesting to me. Whilst players simply making deals can work, I feel like it can be better, but I don’t know how. Having shifting alliances, however it’s done, can be a lot of fun though, as it adds a lot of unpredictably to the game, and can make the situation like Diplomacy (which I never played, I’m just basing it off of what I read).

Late war research and development sounds like a good idea, especially as military technology would have advanced faster than real life, as all countries would be at war, trying to advance technology as fast as possible. Nuclear weapons seem interesting, as I explore in this topic:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37409/nuclear-bomb-addition-for-axis-and-allies-global-1940/4

Switching sides, especially if they already are at the start of the game and can continue to change, can make the war last a really long time, and can make it crazy and fun-I wonder how will victory conditions work though?

@ossel:

@1Bean432:

Are we talking full-fledged rule changes or are we just changing the map around?

This particular thread is devoted to SIMPLE map changes (moving a border here or there) in order to make the OOB map more accurate to the actual borders at the time. No rules changes.

Alrighty.

The size of Tunsia, Morroco, Gold coast, and Togoland should be increased.

Angola should connect to Kamerun. I know its historically accurate the way it is now, but it just feels so strange to have two territorys so close to each other, but have to spend an entire turn in Belgian Congo.

Munich border with Switzerland should be a bit more obvious.

Another SZ that splits up SZ 17. This new SZ is connected to Sicily, Naples, Rome, Tuscany, Piedmont, Sardinia, SZ 16, and the other SZ 17. This new SZ houses all of the Italian navy.

I recently got a copy of Conquest Gaming’s “A House Divided The Brothers War”.  It is an area movement game that uses miniatures and, because of the railroad movement in addition to regular movement, 6 distinct theaters (3 per side),general and event cards that modify the fighting troops abilities, is a very interesting game to play.  It is tough for the North to survive the opening rounds because of their relatively weak starting generals and troop levels, but because of the reinforcement advantage, if it can hang on the game becomes winable for it.  Another interesting and historical feature is that many of the South’s generals have good infantry, cavalry and artillery modifiers while many of the North’s generals are lesser, but all the main generals are represented so eventually the North draws Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Grant, etc. But, of course, the South continues to draw generals each turn so Longstreet, Stuart, Pemberton and Lee appear (Beauregard and Jackson start the game in play).  You have to provide your own pieces, the pieces from the Napoleon Risk will work, but I had enough pieces from Battle Cry to play the game.  The game is only $13 and with about $10 shipping is still are good buy for such an interesting game.

@C_Strabala:

I am considering buying the pieces only to add to my exspansive collection of plastic miniatures. How well do the ships sit on the gameboard?

The submarines have bodies that are a bit narrow, so they can sometimes tip over, but the other pieces are stable.

In terms of pieces and map, it looks pretty much the same as what you get in Conquest of the Empire; I think the Eagle Games edition is still pretty widely available…

I play it like this:

Infantry attack at 2, defend at 3
Cavalry attack at 4, defend at 2 and have a 2 movement
Artillery attack at 3, defend at 5 and have a preemptive attack

Since I use CotE components, I use the income system from it, along with the cities, fortresses and roads and leaders

(and then I have 2 expansion levels beyond this by adding assorted other components)

During French innvasion Napoleon said: “If I’ll capture Kiev, I’ll take Russia by it’s feet, if I’ll capture Petersburg, I’ll take it by it’s head and if I’ll capture Moscow, I’ll destroy it’s heart”.

-http://spirit-of-moscow.com/journalofmoscou.shtml