Posts made by Chris_Henry

@CWO:

• Greater Southern Germany
  The area labeled “Greater Southern Germany” on the game map corresponds essentially to Austria and Czechoslovakia.  Austria was annexed by Germany in March 1938.  The Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany in September 1938; most of the rest of the country (except for some territorial adjustments such as the creation of the Slovak Republic and the transfer of South Dobrudja to Bulgaria) was annexed by Germany in March 1939.

Another little fun fact about this was that Poland actually got a small piece of the Czech pie as well, annexing a few majority-Polish-speaking areas at the time of the partition.

Another one was that Burma had a puppet government set up by Japan and had an army, the Burma National Army, that actually assisted the Japanese limitedly for a time, until they realized that Japan had no real intentions of honoring Burma as an independent nation.

Just some extra tidbits  :-). Very nice outline of everything, I enjoyed this!

@SJS063:

Why not build a naval base in Greenland  then? get some men into uk fast in case of sealion, especially if a J1 happens?

Well if it’s a J1 then you’d be better off just having a NB built on Iceland on UK’s turn, that way you could reach the UK from the Eastern US in 2 turns. If you build a NB in Greenland you can’t reach UK for 3 turns. Sure, you could reach Scotland in 2 turns, from Eastern US via Greenland, but in terms of assisting during a Sea Lion there’s not much of a difference there.

@Black_Elk:

I like that last point above regarding belligerence predisposition. There was a conversation in Argothair’s neutrality thread, where a kind of "belligerence point system was suggested as a way to determine which side a neutral leans.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36503.0

I wonder if something like that might be worth perusing as an alternative to the OOB system, where the eventual leanings are ignored entitely (treated as true neutral) or else sort of pre-set and backloaded into certain neutrals at the earlier start date (treated as pro-side neutral.)

You’re probably at least partially referring to my thought processes from that thread (maybe the build off from my original post appeals to you more). I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I won’t detail completely what I said there since people can check it out themselves, but it’s something I think could certainly be interesting that could lead to a randomization of the game. It’s something I’ve been trying to concoct for quite some time. My initial thought was a pre-war start date, 1936-1939, where minor power alignment would largely be unresolved.

To make an example, let’s use Greece. Greece would be considered a true neutral at this point in time, but perhaps a slight lean to a Allied sympathy on the scale mentioned in the thread Black_Elk linked to. Political influence could be used to lure them to one side or the other. The Axis may find Greece important enough to not want to invade and instead incorporate the Greek armies to their fold and so use political capital to gain favor. Or they may find a neutral Greece in their best interest and do what they can to keep it that way (ie: if the Allies are expending political capital to sway Greece their way, the Axis may counter to keep it neutral leaning). Events can also change the scale. If the Axis invade a neutral Yugoslavia you could have that be something that knocks Greece closer to Allied alignment, or the fall of major cities could alter the scheme one way or another, or if Greece joined one side a major defeat of say 6 units in one battle (probably pretty large for a minor power) might knock them a point on the scale back towards neutrality.

Take that concept with all the other neutrals and it could become really interesting I think. You’d have some that were forgone conclusions like Austria, where they would be so far Axis sympathetic that it wouldn’t be worth the Allies trying to coax them away, but might see political maneuvering in Spain, Norway, Denmark, etc. where either side has a chance to influence. This could change game to game easily depending on what side focuses where to expend their political capital. You may even have games where no neutrals are brought in at all. This would take some work to get a scale put together with fairly accurate ideas of where nations would fall on said scale at whatever your start date is, but is definitely doable.

I’m getting a bit off base from a 1940 start period, as I know that’s your objective, but this could be applied with the 1940 map as well, just on a smaller scale of course, with Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Argentina. If the Axis takes Cairo for example, that could politically influence Spain and Turkey to sway towards the Axis, or at least farther away from the Allies. Or “X” amount of U-boats in the Atlantic influences Argentina. It would of course be much less complex given the much smaller amount of neutrals on the board in the 1940 map, so may not have the same desired “randomness effect” one may want, but could be a start.

@CWO:

Theoretically this is a great concept…but how would it work in practice?  Game balance depends on some things that are hard-wired into a game’s basic architecture – things like game objectives and winning conditions – so how could starting set-ups that are random in nature always manage to give all the players an opening position that is always balanced?

This is a big point for me in terms of a randomized start that is balanced. I think the most difficult thing to “balance” the start game is the geography of the board. If you give each power 5 INF to start the game (obviously an exaggeration, but you get the idea in terms of balance), the UK is still going to be at a disadvantage having to come from an island/having a dispersed empire. In other words, balance doesn’t just mean equal troops (as I’m sure you know), as a German or Russian player would have a large advantage by having their troops consolidated in one place and on the mainland, where a UK, Japanese, etc. player would need ships to start with as well. Point being, I’d hate for you to go about trying to find a “starting balance” to just come full circle to having starting setups not so unfamiliar to what there may be now.

I for one like the idea of keeping a historical perspective in the game. I of course don’t want a scripted game play (I want to win as the Axis of course), but it’s a lot of fun for me to feel like I’m also re-enacting historical events as well, like fighting island for island, and storming the Normandy beaches. Reasons like this are why I like the idea of a earlier start date, where alliances can still be formed, minors absorbed, Spain is in the Axis, etc.

What I’m saying is, it will be hard to have a balanced game at the beginning as well as have a historical perspective as well with the 1940 start since most allegiances were already drawn by that point.

I may not be helping much with my input here, so I apologize if that’s the case. I’m just trying to throw food for thought out there.

I have to agree with CWO Marc’s (and others) post above. A randomized variable would certainly add a flavor of uncertainty to the game that could make each experience different.

To piggyback off of his example of special units, I have long thought of the same thing to add some different powers to each nation separately. Afrika Korps and/or SS units with special capabilities, Elite Guard for USSR, etc., each with a different capability.

While this wouldn’t pertain as much to a 1940 start date as proposed here, I posted an idea that I had for dealing with neutral powers under another HR rule thread that would (potentially) add a certain unknown to who would join what side in a conflict with an earlier start date. Point being, while this particular idea doesn’t necessarily work in a 1940 start date, other ideas might, where a widespread part of the gameplay is fluid.

I also agree with the above in that everyone is always going to have their own/new/unique ideas for HR’s and will HR anything that is thought up here. It seems like you all have a lot more experience than me in being able to play test these ideas and what not, but in my opinion you’d be best served stating ideas, rules, whatever, that you really want in the game (or as stated above, has a decent consensus of people liking the idea) and just making that the base of what you have and tweak from there.

I’ve always thought about making essentially everything worth at least 1 IPC anyways, hoping that that if nothing else would get some fighting. Maybe you’re right and pushing a couple IPC’s for each might do the trick as well!

I’ll have to try it out and will let you know how it does. May try the prerequisites that were mentioned as well. Always wanted to do that with the Med as well (Allies must control Sicily before they can attack mainland Italy), so I may expand that and see if it brings some of those small territories into it. A Midway battle would be pretty sweet!  :-)

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, this was similar to the UK taking control of Iceland after Denmark fell. It became a UK protectorate so it couldn’t fall to the Germans. Same with Greenland. I think for the sake of gameplay they just made it U.S. earlier since there is no Denmark as a separate nation on the board. Of course, in saying that, that doesn’t explain having the DEI’s actually being Dutch still. Details details  :-)

Thanks barney. I’ve been trying to find threads with similar thoughts to mine to add to before starting new ones, just didn’t see that one!

Looks like General Veers’ idea is awfully similar to mine. I like it, I like he went a step further even and added prerequisites for the Japanese in attacking Australia and India as well, it re-balances from my prospect. I think it’s a good way to add the islands in while still keeping the basic mechanics of the game, which is my goal as much as possible.

To answer your question, yes, you could still convoy SZ 6. You could even strafe it still in my opinion. Just the physical invasion of Japan couldn’t take place until the prerequisite islands have been controlled as well.

If I’m the Japanese, I would put serious thought into garrisoning three of those islands to stall the U.S. invasion of Japan. And if I know going into it that I have 6 land units against 6 land units (with whatever amount of supporting naval and air units in the attack and defense), I know there’s a chance I could hold an island for more than one turn, thus slowing the Allied advance one turn. While this seems to favor the Axis in terms of slowing down the Allies, it must be remembered that you’re potentially taking 18 INF and an assorted amount of airpower to defend said islands that would normally be able to make the march to China or India.

I like the ideas on there, but in my opinion, adding Seabees, different AB and NB rules, etc., is something where we start getting a bit too convoluted at times in terms of the game play of this particular game. You run the gambit of altering the game entirely, which I’m not opposed to by any means, but there may be others who want to try and keep the basic mechanics while still adding to the game. I like the idea of adding value to the islands in the form of +1 IPC, I just wonder how much that money could actually change events.

That being said, I will definitely be giving some of those a look and try them out in our games!

Hey all. As with my other posts so far, just trying to spit ideas out there that I’ve tried a few times, some I’ve just thought about a bunch. Helps to get opinions of course and brainstorm.

Always tried to think of some ways that could improve island warfare in the game. It seems every here has similar experiences to me in that the islands are largely ignored in the Pacific.

What if pre-requisites were made before the invasion of Japan could happen. Similar to the Danish and Gibraltar Straights, and Suez and Panama Canals, what if you required the Allies to hold “X” amount of Japanese islands before they could attack Japan herself? Say 6/8 originally Japanese held islands need to be held. This could work to make both sides go for the islands. The obvious part is that the Allies would need to take the islands in order to finish Japan. This could also force the Japanese to actually garrison the islands to delay the Allied advance. While it may not force island fights everywhere, if we assume 6/8 islands need to be held, the Japanese would only need to truly defend three islands, Okinawa and Iwo Jima almost assuredly being two of them. This would/could tie up Japanese troops for garrison duty that may otherwise have been used in China, India, or Sydney.

A second part of this idea would be limiting the number of units that could be on an island. Maybe islands are limited to, say, 6 land units (or whatever number) and three air units in the garrison. Same goes for invading forces, same amount of land units (but more than three air units could attack of course). I only mention this as a possibility to take away the potential of Japan just stacking tons of INF on islands, while at the same time not making it pointless to hold the islands (if the Japanese know only 6 land units and “X” air units can attack an island each turn, they could be more inclined to put a full garrison on three islands). This also wouldn’t make them focus everything entirely to the islands.

What do you think? Does this maybe hurt the Allies by forcing them to assault the islands? Does the potential garrisoning of Japanese units slow them down enough in China to more balance the game? Will the Japanese even bother trying to hold the islands? As always, all thoughts appreciated.

I have to agree with TheWell-KnownSoldier here. Even if your scenario is played out, the German air force can finish the job, leaving an Italian navy in the Med that is still formidable.

Put into a bigger perspective, remember Italy only makes 10 IPC’s to start with. Losing those ships in Taranto is a blow that they can’t easily replace. Even bigger perspective, that means that many less ships in the Med whenever the Americans come.

Thanks for the feedback Argothair. Best way to make things matter is to bounce ideas off each other!

Sorry in advance, I meant to/should have been more clear in my original post on a few of your questions.

@Argothair:

1. What does it mean for the Free French to have “a government set up in London?” Can they build units there? If Germany occupies London, do they loot the Free French treasury? With 4 IPCs / turn in London, will any new Free French recruited during the game typically do anything other than garrison London? It seems like it’s hardly worth a pair of British transports and an escort to get, e.g., 2 French inf + 2 French art into the action, because they can’t attack jointly with the British, but on the other hand if you save up for a French transport and French escort, then you’re talking turn 10+ before the Free French start landing troops on the front lines.

Should have been more clear on the Free French. Yes, I meant that they would be able to build units from London. I think it would be fair to also have Germany loot their treasury in the fall of London as well. You’re right, 4 IPC’s a turn isn’t much. But if you wait two turns, get 8 IPC’s and build a transport, it’s only one move to French West Africa with the naval base, from where you could further support the Allied effort in Africa. It’s not much, but the way I see it those 4 IPC’s wouldn’t be used otherwise unless taken by the Axis and retaken by the Allies. Couple extra infantry or mec, etc. once every couple of turns couple potentially help in the defense of Egypt, or at least help blunt a potential breakthrough of Italians if they take Egypt.

@Argothair:

2. What happens to the French navy?

I meant to answer this above, maybe I forgot. The French navy in SZ 93 would become Vichy, the destroyer in SZ 72 and the navy in the Channel stay Free French (thought the channel navy is probably dead).

@Argothair:

3. What happens if Germany (or Italy) invades and conquers Southern France before invading Normandy, or, for that matter, before invading Paris?

This was the question I thought would come up. To make Southern France the Vichy capital it could be similar to the liberation of Paris by the Allies. Once Paris falls to the Axis, the earlier mentioned Vichy territories revert back to Vichy control if they were in Axis hands before. So they could take Southern France if they wanted, but it would fall back to Vichy. This one could certainly be tweaked, but could work.

@Argothair:

4. Even if the Vichy troops stay loyal 50% of the time, i.e., on a roll of 3 or less, why would Germany bother to build them? Wouldn’t Germany be just as happy leaving southern France empty?

This can be answered two ways I think. 1) The French player controls both Free French and Vichy forces, Vichy can’t do anything anyways, and France just needs to do what makes the most sense for the defense of French territory, or both sides could decide together what is fair to build. 2) You let the German player decide, and you’re right, they could decide to not use the money, but then that’s still 9 IPC’s (7 if we just assumed Japan takes French Indo China) a turn that won’t get used for anything at all. Germany could decide that’s the best course of action, or take the gamble that the units will fight for them.

@Argothair:

5. Do you really want to make it impossible for Hitler to invade France before the Allies land in Morocco? What if the Allies ignore north Africa – is Germany just stuck with a whole bunch of neutralish French territory on his doorstep for the entire game?

I must have worded that wrong. I didn’t mean the Hitler couldn’t invade France. They still take Paris and Normandy G1, but after that and there’s a Vichy government the rest is generally an ally. This is very true that the Allies could just bypass North Africa and you’re right, Germany would be stuck with neutrals. But that money still wouldn’t be used against them any way at least. We could add that once the Allies attempt any landing in Europe the Axis can have the right to decide to attack Vichy territories or not. If they want the money badly enough at that point they’ll do it. Or if they like the security of North Africa being untouched they can do that.

@Argothair:

6. Have you tested the impact of Vichy on Sea Lion? Does Germany wind up with noticeably more troops in Normandy that can be used to invade London on G2/G3, or is Sea Lion still balanced?

We admittedly don’t have a ton of Sea Lion attempts in our games, but have tried it. True, a few less German troops have died by not taking Southern France (if any). But you’re also taking 7/9 IPC’s away from the Axis treasury each turn that would maybe normally be spent building two INF a turn to help defend on the eastern front while Sea Lion is attempted. Add in the 4 IPC’s of the Free French in London, and there’s an extra Allied INF a turn in London to help defend as well. Seems like kind of a wash to me, though would have to be tested more to see.

Hopefully those answers make sense. But again, the input is appreciated. The crux of it is that there’s an 11 IPC/turn swing (+4 to the Allies, -7 to the Axis), as well as the unknown of what Vichy units might do when presented with combat.

Yes, 100 point scale was more of an example than a reality, but you get the idea. The good thing about a scale is anyone could modify it to their own games based off of how quickly they want action. If you like the idea of a longer peace period (potentially, you never know when the other side might strike) and more political intrigue, then you make your scale bigger, thus taking longer to get minors one way or the other. If you want action from the minors ASAP, you go with a smaller scale. The biggest thing, as you pointed out, would be tracking all the minor’s. Chips on the table is definitely a good route. I completely agree that only one point could be used per country per turn, I should have been clear about that in the first post.

I’d also toyed around with the thought of other actions besides political intrigue to “tip” the scale. By that I mean, If Germany takes a capital, say Warsaw, it maybe bumps pro-Axis countries one tick closer to war because they want to jump on while the going it good, while at the same time, other “true neutrals” that border said country move a tick that way as well, fearing a similar fate. But same as when a capital is taken. As in, assuming Finland is Axis, and the USSR takes their capital at some point, perhaps all other Axis minors move a tick closer to peace, fearing the writing on the wall at some point. Historically Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria all jumped ship before the going got really tough. Could force early exits from the war that way, or Germany to use more political capital to keep them in the war longer.

Another thought along those same lines would be the views of the “home front” on the horrors of the war. By that I mean, say if an Axis minor loses more than six (or whatever number you want) units in a single battle, the citizens at home start losing their stomach for war and head a tick towards neutrality again.

One thing that would have to be figured out though would be how to deal with the USA and USSR. Both would be major powers, but also neutral. Perhaps they both automatically move a tick (chip, whatever we want to call it) towards the Allies each turn automatically, regardless of political capital being used for them, but the other Allied players can also chose to use politics to speed the process up. That way you don’t have a fixed timetable like AA 1940 currently does. You know they’ll both join eventually, but the process could be sped up or slowed down based on the active Allied and Axis participants.

Maybe getting too convoluted at this point, but just some thoughts.

This has always intrigued me as well, largely because it would be fun to have a less scripted game. While I love AA Global 1940, the idea of greater politics is intriguing to me. What if Spain joined the Axis? Norway in real life thought it was 50-50 who may attack them right up until Germany invaded.

An interesting thought from that perspective to me was some kind of “point system” or scale to see where the minors tilted towards joining one side or another and into the war. You could have some nations farther up or down the scale based on their historical alliances and leanings at the time. Say like a 100 point scale. 1-40 is leaning more towards the Allies, 41-60 is neutral, 61-100 is towards the Axis (or some variation on that). You start nations on the scale similar to historical perspective. Poland was allied with France and the UK, put them at like 20. Norway was neutral, put them at 50, Finland was mildly Axis (this is after the Winer War of course), put them at 65, etc. etc. Once you reach, say, the top 20 of the political spectrum for one side, you would join the major powers you’re aligned with in war. Example below:

1-20 - Minor country goes to war on the side of the Allies whenever it comes.
21-40 - Is sympathetic to the Allied cause, but public opinion doesn’t want war, or they are scared to anger the Axis. They allow Allied units to pass through or fly over, but will not fight.
41-60 - Country is strict neutral.
61-80 - Is sympathetic to the Axis cause, but public opinion doesn’t want war, or they are scared to anger the Allies. They allow Axis units to pass through or fly over, but will not fight.
81-100 - Minor country goes to war on the side of the Axis whenever it comes.

From there you can use “political intrigue” to lure minors to your side. Maybe paying like 1 IPC shifts a nation one point your way (or three points, etc.). So if Spain starts at like 68 points (so leaning towards the Axis), the Germans could spend IPC’s to trend that score closer to an military alliance where they would fight. The Allies may want to stop this and use IPC’s to bring the score back down, keeping them out of the war, or maybe even turning them neutral entirely. Do that so on and so forth. Of course, if a major power attacks a minor that minor automatically climbs the ladder to at war to some degree.

Every time a neutral country is attacked though, all other neutrals will knock 3 points in the direction of the other side, not liking the belligerence of the attacking country.

Conceivably you can have war start at any time then. Germany could take it’s time and recruit Austria into the Axis, or maybe they jump right away and just invade little Denmark to the north.

Thought it was interesting. Brings a little politics into the game that way. Thoughts?

Hey all,

I’ve played AA for a long time and, as many others on here, find 1940 to be awesome. Most of our games almost always have consisted of my dad, brother, and myself over the years. The play is something that, I wouldn’t call predictable, but you of course don’t see as many different things happen with different/experienced players. While I usually win regardless of which side I am, that’s certainly more of a reason for a lack of diversity in players I am sure.

Point being, we haven’t ever done a whole ton of HR’s, though they are something I’ve always wanted to do, though my dad is a bit hesitant on change in these games. As I’ve read posts here over time and see that the general consensus is that the Axis is too strong. While I would love to add HR’s to add Canada (and South Africa), Axis minors, paratroopers, etc., there is certainly a lot of balancing to take into consideration. While it may work for my own HR’s (because of that lack of difference in playing styles I pointed out), I’m trying to think of ways to try and evenly balance everyone’s games in this community at large. One thought I have on that is adding Vichy France rules.

• When the France and Normandy/Bordeaux territories are overrun, the Vichy regime is set up. The territories of Southern France, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, and French Indo China become Vichy controlled, as well as the units on them and the naval forces in sea zone 93. The remaining French territories and units are considered Free French.

• Vichy France gets it’s small income of 9 IPC’s to produce units in Southern France, while a Free French government is set up in London, using the remaining 4 IPC’s of French territory. Germany is still allowed to build units in Southern France, but the combined German/Vichy French forces can still not exceed the production amount (this is to allow Germany to build a navy in the Mediterranean still if they chose without having to build a minor in Yugoslavia if they don’t want to).

• European Axis units are not allowed to enter Vichy French territories. They are only allowed to do so once an Allied invasion of North Africa happens (or we can just say once Allied units enter a Vichy French territory). Historically, the Vichy French government/cooperation with the Axis was very shaky, and Hitler did everything he could to make sure this wasn’t disrupted, for fear of the Vichy government turning on him. Mussolini wanted to take control of French North Africa, but Hitler would not allow it for fear of angering Vichy into war. It took a lot of diplomacy to get Vichy to agree to stage the Luftwaffe in Syria, which was only thwarted by a small, but difficult invasion by the Middle East Command.

• The Japanese are still allowed to invade French Indo China as they normally are without any political repercussions. Historically, Japan was feeling pretty big about their Axis partners defeating France and wanted to get their share of the pie. They waltzed right into French Indo China and staged units there, essentially saying they had no choice as a defeated power to Japan’s ally Germany. This ended up a huge and important staging ground for Japanese units in the invasion of Malaya and Burma later on.

• When the Allies attack, they roll a dice to see what the Vichy forces in that territory will do. On a role of 1-2 the Vichy forces will fight the Allied landing. On a 3-6 they refuse to fight and join the Allied side (this can be change to 1-3, and 4-6 if the odds don’t seem fair). Historically, neither side had much of an idea how Vichy units would react when Operation Torch (the American invasion of North Africa) commenced. Some were certain the French army would refuse to fight, but the French Navy was seen as more sympathetic to the Axis cause. Each time the Allies move into a Vichy territory this same sequence is done.

• After the Allied landings the Axis are free to move in as they please, though it will be an act of war against the Vichy government and would have to fight as they normally would against them. So the Axis has the choice of hoping the Vichy units will stay on their side and fight the Allies, or chose to not risk it and attack to keep the ground.

I feel that this generally will not help the Axis, and potentially balances out a bit. Germany and Italy loose out on the potential money of the Vichy French territories. Even though they don’t need to risk the units to kill the French, thus preserving some forces, they also don’t get that money and also don’t know for certain what the Vichy units will do once the Allies invade. They also won’t have the same kind of defenses set up to stop a Torch invasion because of it.

This also allows the extra 4 IPC’s of French money to be put to use for the Allies under the Free French government, instead of wasting in purgatory waiting for the Axis to take them or Paris to be liberated.

I understand this takes away an Italian NO in not allowing them to take control of the French North African territories. This either further balances the game against the Axis, or another NO can be featured for them. Perhaps +5 IPC’s for the Axis holding Malta, Crete, and Cyprus.

Again, I’m more just spouting ideas out to see if anyone thinks this will help with balance. Too much in favor of the Allies? Just trying to think of ways to not have to include a bid. Please let me know what you think, I’d love to see. Brutal honesty is appreciated if you just hate the idea.

Happy Gaming,

Chris

I also didn’t enjoy the cardboard pieces. I usually play with my dad (I’m 27) and he has a hard time noticing the flat pieces. Shapeways, link below, has some great pieces. I bought a bunch specifically from eBard (I am not allowed to post links I guess, but it’s at shapeways.com, under “eBard Models”, and they are perfect. Naval bases, airstrips, and I even bought his capitals sets to add some nice flavor to the board  :-)

He was really great and actually only made the Sydney and India pieces because I and a few others had asked about them, so he was great to work with. Got them to me in a timely fashion as well.

He also has some factory pieces, but I had bought some from Shapeways through HBG’s site before, but am not seeing them there now. Perhaps that’s because they’re out of stock as was mentioned above.

Anyways, check out his stuff, was very happy with it.

Hi all, been a long time lurker on these forums, but haven’t commented much on anything. Hoping to be a more active part of the community. Been a long time AA player as well.

Sorry to post here on something that is largely settled (I read this whole thread today). First off, I love this ruleset YoungGrasshopper, great job to you and all the others.

To comment on the recent question of CW capitals and lack of Japanese objectives, what about having a limited cash haul? If the Japanese take Sydney or Ottawa (or Praetoria if you’re so inclined) they receive maybe half the CW bank? Or maybe you role two dice to decide how much they lose? This way the CW can still act on their next turn from their other production centers, while still maintaining an objective/purpose for the Japanese to invade Australia. If we’re nervous of lack of Japanese goals because of a lack of capitals for them to take, perhaps you keep a similar system for Calcutta even though it isn’t a capital anymore?

This is more a thought on if we’re truly worried about a lack of Japanese direction, as the others above have alluded to.

Any feedback is great, glad to take part. Look forwarding to getting to know you all.

Hi all,

Been a long time reader on the boards, but this is my first time posting! Been an avid AA player and history buff for a long time. Sorry to post here at such a later date, but I wanted to get an opinion.

My take on adding Canada to the game without too much drastic effects on the playability involved a couple of moving parts.

1. Give Canada the 7 ipc income of the Canadian territories to spend each turn, but that same ipc value still counts towards the UK as well, with the UK also able to build from IC’s there.

2. Do the same thing for South Africa, giving them both South Africa territories and Rhodesia for a 4 ipc total. Again, UK still controls the money as well, with UK also able to build from IC’s there.

3. Both Commonwealths still play as part of the UK, buy, move, combat, etc. Essentially just adding 11 ipc income.

To counter this so it’s not unfair to the Axis, do the same thing with Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Slovakia-Hungary on the map of course). Those four powers would have a total of 9 ipc value between them. I figured the extra two ipc’s would have minimal effect.

Essentially all I did was add ipc’s and therefore troop numbers to the game, just forcing them to be used at their respective locales.

My only thought with this was would the immediacy of the minor Axis powers being on the front lines basically effect gameplay on the Eastern Front more so than the added Commonwealth powers would in Africa and Europe? I don’t want to hurt the USSR unfairly.

Any feedback would be great! Glad to finally post and be a part of the community!