Hey,
We’ve played about 10 games with these rules, and we find they’re balanced. The most recent game resulted in an Axis win. The extra units and infrasture are pretty neat. I find they add dimensions to the game that make it more dynamic in terms of strategizing in a seamless way.
I’m posting here to see how this set of house rules gets picked apart, because feedback is always great if it’s not too negative :). By no way am I looking to change the official rules of course, I’m just looking to refine some ideas for my games.
Fortifications may remain after a territory is conquered. They can be removed by the controlling power on its turn (they’re not automatically destroyed). If it’s there, why not use it just in case you need it? The defenders can’t dismantle anything if there’s no defenders left, and they used it instead of destroying it before they got defeated, so it should be up to the player who’s in control of it to decide on his/her turn what happens to it. Another point here too: do you really see big concrete walls and bunkers being completely obliterated by an attack? I don’t. I know there’s damage, but not enough for them to be complete rubble.
AA guns only fire at 3 targets maximum each, and are considered as equipment, not an expendable unit (they do not fire at the X amount of aircraft if the amount of aircraft exceed 3; they’re not destroyed unless target by a SBR). I took this one straight out of G40. It’s a rule that all the people I play with and myself like. I don’t know, love it or hate it lol.
Subs are detected by Destroyers 2-1 (not 1-1). The technology was there to allow this kind of thing, so I don’t see why not. This can be researched, whatever makes more sense. I don’t know what that research would entail exactly at the moment. Subs are fairly powerful in this version…
The values of the following territories are:
Canadian convoy zone: 2 (not 3)
British Columbia: 2 (not 1)
Helsinki: 2 (not 1)
Viedma: 2 (not 1)
Santa Cruz: 2 (not 1)
Corrientes: 0 (not 1)
I switched these around so that Factories could be built in most cases, mainly for gameplay purposes, but also to say that there could’ve been production on the land territories in the real war. I took away from the Canadian Convoy zone just to keep Canada’s base income unchanged. I added one value point total (which makes it out to be 4 overall) for Argentina to make it a little more viable to go there for the European Axis, but took one away from Corrientes to not make it five, and make it more of a more strategic territory than anything else. I added one value point for Helsinki to make it legal to have a factory there. It makes for more interesting gameplay as well.
If Finland and Argentina are activated, they each collect 4 IPCs per turn. (instead of Finland and Argentina collecting 3 IPCs per turn). Redundant, I know, I’m just being Mr. Obvious haha.
Santa Cruz/Sea zone 61 has a naval base there (instead of nothing being there). This was done so that Argentina could at least consider building a navy there, and the Axis force controlling it.
Argentina may be activated by Italy. They may build any unit available to them (Argentina not being able to produce anything except one infantry per turn in Viedma and only activated by Germany). I made this one because it’s just not ever viable for Germany to go down there. At least Italy has a shot. I know it doesn’t make sense politically, but I thought this compromise was worth the gameplay.
All of the national objectives are directly taken from the A&A Global 1940 edition (instead of the Global War 1939 edition). Some territories are amalgamated for balance purposes, which are Finland (for one of the Russian N.O.'s), French Indo-China and Saigon (for one of the Japanese N.O.'s). All of the Dutch East Indies are included with the exception of Dutch New Guinea (for one of the other Japanese N.O.’s). There are some unique N.O.'s for Canada as well. The Canadian N.O.'s will be at the bottom of the post. The game has more I.P.C.'s than any other game variant (I’m comparing heavily to G40), so you can look at it in terms of inflation. Units are worth less because there can be more of them. Why would the N.O.'s go the opposite direction in terms of how much they provide? G40’s N.O.'s make sense and are worth more than the ones in GW39, so this follows the inflation trend I mentioned.
Sea zone 28 is divided in two, creating sea zone 28 and 141 (or 28a), with sea zone 28 bordering sea zones 23, 24 and Northern Spain, making sea zone 141 / 28a border sea zone 24, Bordeaux and Northern Spain (instead of having only sea zone 28). This was done to prevent the Americans from doing an amphibious assault on France from New England. This can’t even be done effectively to this day, so how would they be able to in the '40s? Transporting men and equipment to friendly territory across an equal distance is a different story, considering the circumstances and logistics. D-day was launched from England, not New England haha.
French warships that have Vichy allegiance may move and attack on Germany’s turn (instead of being immobile and only able to defend). I don’t actually know what the Vichy government did with their warships, but it would make sense to me if the Germans pressured them into using them to their advantage. I guess there was a threat of increased resistance within France if too many demands were made, but it’s a two way street, and occupying military can also be brutal.
The minor industrial complex in Calcutta can only produce 3 units, and can produce any unit. It may also be upgraded to a major factory (instead of being forced to build 3 infantry first then 3 units of any kind except capital ships, and not being able to be upgraded). I don’t really understand the restriction here in the original rules. I’m guessing they reflect how the F.E.C. actually operated in WW2. The F.E.C. and the Indian government had ample enough resources and probably funding for infrastructure upgrading. I’m not aware of the specifics of the relations between India and the U.K. during that time, I know they weren’t favorable, but could they not have made agreements for economical and military developments?
The minor industrial complex in Sydney can produce any unit (instead of being restricted from building capital ships). What’s actually stopping the Governments of Australia and New Zealand from deciding to produce these ships? It’s certainly not lack of resource, and maybe funding. The infrastructure was there to build ships. The Australian and New Zealanders’ governments in the '40s, I assume, simply chose not to allocate the funding in those types of projects.
Industrial complexes may be built on friendly territory if the territory is not under control of another allied nation’s capital (instead of only building on original territory). I took this one from G40 somewhat. The local populous is supportive of your cause, so what would stop you from co-operating with them in terms of industry and economy?
Ex. : Any Axis power can build a minor industrial complex in Iraq, and industrial complexes may be built on Minor Axis territories by the power that activated them. The U.K. may build an industrial complex on Free French territory, or Russian territory if Russia no longer has a capital (if the U.K. has units claiming the territory), or a pro-allied nation’s territory. If the capital of a Major Power is liberated, then all of the infrastructure on the territory it formerly controlled is reverted back to its control. (This is an agreement between all player controlled powers).
Japan may build a major factory in Siam (instead of only being able to build a minor one). With the Thai manpower, Japanese know-how and available resources, I figured it wouldn’t be impossible to get something like this done.
The Nationalist and Communist Chinese can place all of the units produced anywhere on territory they currently own, including the ones conquered/liberated in the same turn (instead of being limited to 3 per territory previously owned). This was pulled out of G40, which I found was a good mechanic.
The Communist Chinese may purchase artillery, mechanized infantry and tanks if Urumqi is under Communist Chinese control and Novosibirsk is under Russian control (instead of only being able to build infantry). I know this one’s really debatable, but I figured since the U.S.S.R. is very close by, the Communist Chinese have direct access to these kinds of equipment, the same way the Nationalist Chinese do with India (although the Nationalists only have artillery, obviously).
I also downgraded the factories in Fukuoka and Karelia, because the territories are only worth 2.
Just for some extra info (totally unnecessary): we also play with naval & land mines, 3 tiers of factories (minor (3), regular (10), major (12) ), rail and railguns.
I hope to hear from you soon!
Canada’s N.O.'s:
5 I.P.C.'s for having Sea Zones 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 & the Canadian convoy zone free of any Axis warships (which means aircraft carriers and transports don’t count, but aircraft on aircraft carriers do). This N.O. is supposed to represent the fight for the Battle of the Atlantic, in which Canada was a primary participant.
5 I.P.C.'s for having at least one land unit in either 2 European territories (excluding the U.K., Scotland & Ireland), or 1 European territory (excluding the U.K., Scotland & Ireland) and 1 African/Middle-Eastern Territory, or 1 European territory (excluding the U.K., Scotland & Ireland) and 2 territories on the Pacific side of the map, or 1 African/Middle-Eastern territory and 2 territories on the Pacific side of the map. This N.O. is supposed to represent the Canadian contribution to the Allied effort and the propaganda campaign.
2 I.P.C.'s for having a minimum of 4 warships (excluding transports) at any given time. This N.O. is meant to show that resources and manpower are freed up for other objectives and projects, because the need to have a navy large enough to sustain a war effort overseas is met.
(I posted these in another thread about G40)
I build fortifications in Moscow and don’t let any units die defending Leningrad. Even though it’s an important strategic point, it’s just not worth fighting for against all that German armor. I just do a fighting retreat 'til there’s a western front. Other than that, I don’t really know what else a guy can do.
I’m aware that this is an older thread by now, but I figure it’s worth posting still.
Those 4 German subs that are placed near Stettin just let the German navy dominate the Atlantic in the opening turns, which are crucial. Were they setup there for balance purposes or were they setup there to reflect historical accuracy? From what I can gather, the British home fleet didn’t get sunk so brutally in 1939, which other setups and some research suggest. I realize that the game is not actually WW2, it’s just based on it. After playing with this setup about ten times though, the 4 extra subs just seem unnecessary and maybe overpowering. Before this setup was published, the U.K. navy barely survived, often with just one damaged battleship and maybe a couple planes left. That was with Germany not building a single navy unit. It’s Germany’s air force that has the punch behind the attack, now more than ever with more subs.
Germany can still have a naval presence in the Atlantic if it chooses to build some navy, maybe build those 4 subs that were added in the setup. The commonwealth in the Atlantic becomes severely set back with the U-boats there as it is.
Maybe there’s a reason that I’m not aware of about why the setup is where it is. I just figured I’d bounce my ideas off here. Everything else in the setup is great. Without guys actually doing this kind of stuff, things would get pretty boring haha, so we appreciate it!
@jluna
Well that’s good to hear.
The Starcraft game I was refering to is a different one from the risk version. It’s far more complex.
Well I guess I might as well try this list out. I’ve got a post here in this section of the forum already, but w/e, this will work just as good.
I’m in Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada
I have Global War 1939 (the big one), and G40. I also have a much less known game called Starcraft.
I have an ad on kijiji with pics and details, the link is in the topic I started. I’ll post it later if need be.
Yeah, I suppose 400+ kms make a bit of a travelling distance eh, haha.
I have a basement dedicated to A&A and other games. Â I know Grande Prairie is remote for most people if they’re not living near or in the city, but I figured I’d try my luck on this forum… Â
I have an ad on Kijiji as well for a lil’ more info; grandeprairie.kijiji.ca/c-community-activities-groups-Looking-for-people-who-like-to-play-complex-board-games-W0QQAdIdZ496233461.
@knp
Thanks for the feedback man, greatly appreciate it. Still familiarizing with how this site works, interaction-wise. I don’t usually go on forums to post…
I’ve discussed the U.K. issue with a good friend of mine, who’s been playing A&A for a long while now. I seem to have a way for specializing in playing the Allies, so by default he ends up on the Axis side 95% of the time lol. Every time he’s attempted to do Sea Lion, at least in G40, I’ve always managed to position Russia in such a way that allowed them to 'knock on Germany’s door and say “hello, we want to play now” ', and have them play more offensively than defensively, which eventually allowed for an Allied victory pretty much every time. Russia was allowed to consolidate and produce offensive units. This was even before Canada was introduced. I’m sure many games in the community have gone in the favor of the Axis when Sea Lion was performed, but, redundantly saying here, on my table the Allies always pulled through ahead of the Axis with that strategy. Sure, the U.K. is more vulnerable now, but with the introduction of Canada, Germany now has to worry about two other Atlantic powers, not just one. Sea Lion seems as viable as it has before, in the short term picture.
This comes into the turn order play now. I do have a few reasons for positioning Canada where I did, so at least it wasn’t an impulsive decision. The first reason would be for minimizing one’s boredom when it’s a full game, say with 6 or 7 players. A player controlling all of the minor Allies in a 7 player game, which would be Canada, ANZAC, China and France, would have at least one turn between each Axis turn, because they do offer limited amount of playability individually. This reason is the least relevant though. In a 6 player game, assuming a player has all of the commonwealth nations, it would allow the U.K. to make interesting plays. Canada could secure certain territories ahead of the rest of the Western Allies, which would allow for safer landings, especially when permitted to land aircraft in the subsequent turns (especially if Sea Lion comes into question). This is counterable, believe me, especially seeing how Germany can push off a substantial amount with all its armor it can guard with. Having Canada moving at the same time as the rest of the commonwealth seems to make it less significant in G40, because its role would almost be solely to reinforce, instead of more offensive as I intended it to be. You don’t really hear of Canada making stellar defenses in the war, except in the battle for Britain and in Hong Kong (I think?..) earlier on in the war. They made attack plans more rather than defensive ones. I’m not admitting I’m absolutely right, I’m just saying that’s just the way it seems at the moment. I’m completely open to debate.
As for Canada’s NO’s, I was just trying to make them go from easily achievable to difficult to achieve, and make them historically accurate and situationally relevant. Of some of the NO’s I’ve read on other threads, I saw one that stated something about having an objective in the eastern Mediterranean. How is anything there, resource wise and maybe even politically, going to affect Canada directly? There’s another about having the U.S. at war, which I can understand, but that’s just way too easy and irrevocable to have, IMO. There’s some others I won’t bother posting here. So that is why I came up with the NO’s I posted, partly.
I figured the modified Neutral rules would appeal to most people. It’s good to hear you share the same view :) . If there are topics about this on this forum, I was unaware of them at the time of posting. Hope this answers your questions, knp.
This map looks badass. You could see some success if you finished it, I think.
Do you think octagons would work instead of hexagons? I have next to no idea how to go about creating a map like this, but I figure suggesting doesn’t hurt. I haven’t thought out how octagons would work.
I’m also wondering what your rules are going to be; similar to GW39, or G40, or something entirely designed by you? Tigerman’s rules don’t seem too bad lol, those are what I like to use, for the most part.
I’m not sure if it’s a good idea posting on this thread or not (I’m brand new to posting here), seeing as how it’s been inactive for quite some time. I’ve been looking up some other threads on the Canadian addition to G40, and even though there’s no active discussions, I’m sure many people still come up with their own ways to have Canada represented. I figured I’d share my modifications here and see what other people make of it. In my most recent G40 game, which was a 1v1, Canada ended up being the second most effective fighting force of all the allies, second to the Americans (since I managed to have both of them land and produce overseas). Moscow and Calcutta were taken (by the Germans and Japanese, respectively), however Berlin fell to the Americans, and Canada effectively revived the U.K. by freeing up Africa from the Italians and provided resistance to the Japanese advance in the middle-east (the pacific was a disaster for the Allies). This was an Allied Victory. I’ve had other successful Allied games with the setup I came up with as well, which is as follows:
- British Columbia (which has a value of 2, instead of just 1): 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Naval Base
- Alberta: 1 Infantry
- Ontario: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
- Quebec: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 AA gun, 1 Air Base, 1 Minor IC
- Nova Scotia: 1 Naval Base
- United Kingdom: 1 Infantry (replacing a British infantry)
- Sea Zone 1: 1 Cruiser
- Sea Zone 106: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
The N.O.'s are:
5 I.P.C.'s for having Sea Zones 106, 107, 108, 109, 117, 118, 119 & 123 free of any Axis warships (which means aircraft carriers and transports don’t count, but aircraft on aircraft carriers do). This N.O. is supposed to represent the fight for the Battle of the Atlantic, in which Canada was a primary participant.
5 I.P.C.'s for having at least one land unit in either 2 European territories (excluding the U.K. & Ireland), or 1 European territory (excluding the U.K & Ireland) and 1 African/Middle-Eastern Territory, or 1 European territory (excluding the U.K. & Ireland) and 2 territories on the Pacific side of the map, or 1 African/Middle-Eastern territory and 2 territories on the Pacific side of the map. This N.O. is supposed to represent the Canadian contribution to the Allied effort and the propaganda campaign.
2 I.P.C.'s for having a minimum of 4 warships (excluding transports) at any given time. This N.O. is meant to show that resources and manpower are freed up for other objectives and projects, because the need to have a navy large enough to sustain a war effort overseas is met.
Canada’s turn comes between the Russian and Japanese turn.
- Germany
- Russia
- Canada
- Japan
- The United States
- China
- The United Kingdom
- Italy
- A.N.Z.A.C.
- France
For balance, I added 1 extra production point to British Columbia to give Canada stronger early builds and the option to fight more effectively in the Pacific. This gives them a base income of 8 I.P.C.'s / turn. I also added German and Japanese units where I thought would be most effective but not too overpowering, which are as follows:
Germany
- Northern Italy: 1 Infantry
- Southern Italy: 1 Mechanized Infantry
- Libya: 1 Tank, 1 AA gun
- Tobruk: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
- Sea Zone 97: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
This opens up an African campaign for the Germans much more quickly, if at all, which I find is appropriate and historically accurate.
Japan
-Sea Zone 33: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport (in addition to what’s already there)
Figured this would allow a little more flexibility for the Japanese, where they really need it.
Aside from the modifications for Canada, I played with few other mods in conjunction. Attacking a strict neutral territory would only make all the others in the region align to the other side, not all the others worldwide. Ex: If Portugal was attacked by the Allies, all the other strict neutral in Europe would re-align themselves, but the ones everywhere else, such as in Africa, the Middle-East, South America and Asia, would remain neutral. Another mod would be making Spain pro-axis if Paris and one of the Russian cities were under Axis control, Sweden would be pro-axis if Moscow, Finland and Norway were under Axis control, and Argentina starts the game as pro-axis. Turkey would become pro-one side if all the adjacent territories to it were under either Axis or Allied control. This was done in an attempt to balance what Canada could do.
What are your thoughts?
Just a suggestion, not promoting anything. You could go check out the Historical Board Gaming site, they might have a few things you’re looking for. They pretty much have everything.