Posts made by GeneralHandGrenade

How about some way of turning one strict neutral nation into a pro-axis or pro-aliies nation? Would it be plausible for an apparatus in WW2 to turn a nation using some sort of cloak and dagger method? I know coups have been staged since then but I’m not aware of it happening in the war.

If so how would that work if you chose that option? It should be something difficult to achieve like rolling a specific number and perhaps paying the bank the number of IPC’s that territory is worth.

Any thoughts on that choice and how to make it work?

@CWO Marc. In my original post I stated that there would be a whole range of espionage activities going on during the war. The concept of “The Spy” was to signify that one nation had the upper hand during that round of play. It could be that they had a major breakthrough of some kind in breaking a code or gathering intelligence or stealing technology or whatever.

I also mentioned the ninja in the game Shogun. What I really liked about that was the fun that it brought to the game between the players (not the pieces on the board). We would all have to tiptoe around the guy that had the ninja and hope that he would use it against someone else. That’s the element that I want to bring to this game-the fun and the not-so-subtle razzing between the players. I could see my friends renaming the spy “The Sh!t Disturber” or something like that. By having only one piece that represents spying instead of everyone spying every round you would create a dynamic between the players that would transcend what is happening with the pieces on the board. Obviously this rule would be much more fun if there were more than 2 people playing the game because there would only be one player that you could use “The Spy” against.

I’m starting to lean away from using dice to determine what action to use. The thing that makes Research and Development in this game a total failure is that there is only dumb luck and not sound strategy involved. Players should be rewarded for the choices that they make more and punished less for the dice that they roll IMO. I want to provide 3 or 4 clear, simple choices that the player has at their disposal for that turn. For example; France wins the roll in the first round. If given the 2 choices that I provided in my original post and maybe something to do with research and technology, the choice to move a fighter out of France before Germany invades would be hands down a better choice than taking money that they would surrender in 10 minutes or developing a weapon that they will never use. To do it this way would also keep the other players guessing as to how it will be used and would inform the choices that they will make. If you’re invading a territory of the nation who has “The Spy” you might want to bring extra units in knowing that they could move an extra unit into that territory. See what I mean, more strategy.

@ Ichabod. I really like your idea but it would seem unlikely to pull off since any person would be lucky to have enough table space in one house to set up one board let alone 3. It would be a heck of an idea for playing on the computer.

@seancb. Wow that is a lot to digest, I had to read it a couple of times to understand it all. Lots of good ideas there. Do you have to write it down after all of that rolling at the start of the turn to state who does what each turn or did I miss something and only one of those things happen to one nation.

I could see adding some of those ideas to my house rule. I was hoping to have 6 different things so “The Spy” had to roll a die to see what action they picked during their turn. Having a counter-espionage thing on a roll of 6 is a wicked idea for turning the tables on the nation with the spy. You could have some kind of action against them instead of negating their action.
I like the tech thing too, it would be a way of getting some tech into the game finally without having to sell off one of your kids for IPC’s.

Keep the ideas coming!

I say switch it and then all of us vow to never grow up in honour of this rockin’ development.  :wink:

Not long ago Young Grasshopper had started a thread about Combat Commanders;
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38860.0

That got me thinking about the game Shogun and how you could bid on the ninja and have him for one round of play. That would give you the opportunity to spy on another player or kill one of their commanders. I thought that it would be a cool idea to add something to G-40 where only one player won the ability to do something in a round somehow.

What I came up with is “The Spy.” As you all know espionage was a big part of WW2 but there has never been an attempt by the creators to incorporate it into the game. All nations would be involved in spying on each other but what I would like to do is have one nation “win the day” so to speak in each round. How that would work is that each nation that still owns it’s capital would roll a die at the beginning of each round. You would re-roll ties until only one nation was left and then they would get the token/card/whatever to display on the board to remind everyone else that they own “The Spy” for that round. I have been scouring the internet and toy stores in town to find something that looks like a secret agent but so far no luck.

The question is what would the spy be able to do? I’m hoping you can participate with some ideas here because I can only think of a couple of plausible ideas. I thought maybe you could be given a choice of;
a) Roll the die against another nation. Take the # IPC’s from them and add it to your own greedy little hands.
b) Move one of your units up to the number of spaces it can normally move after someone else’s combat movement. The reasoning for that is you received intel that there was an attack coming and you either decided to move an expensive unit out of that territory to save it or move a unit in to help defend the territory. This does not mean that you can’t move it on your own turn as well (like scrambling or intercepting).

What do you think of those options? Can you think of any other options?

Congratulations!
I thought there were more products on your page than normal yesterday.

Does this mean that the order that I placed with you yesterday will be delayed because you are filling back orders for FMG?

I will do a video of how it works out but I wanted to get some input first on how to go about implementing the railways. One key feature that I’m not willing to compromise on is limiting the number of markers on the board, other than that I’m open to suggestions.

As far as being too obvious about what your strategy will be, due to the limited nature I see these probably being used in more no-brainer type of way such as building a railway from one side of Europe to the other through German territory so Germany can move troops easily from one front to another. Of course you’re not limited to using them like that, that’s the beauty of not having a specific setup. You can totally dick with your opponent by placing them in a place where you have no intention of attacking.

It could be fun if you use your imagination.

You may have missed the part of the video where I said that there are only 5 units per nation allowed for the whole game. You can have 2 pass through the same territory but they have to finish their movement with only 1 allowed per territory. The only exception is that you can have 2 in the same sea zone but they have to be on separate ships. The result is the role of tanks haven’t diminished at all, they are more of a compliment to them.

I was searching around here for a thread on railways and came across this one;
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34455.0
I would have posted there but the thread went off the rails (pun intended) so I’m going to start a new one.

I have 20 of those railway markers and 5 damaged rail markers from HBG and I’ve been pondering how to use them so I’ll bounce this off the forum and see if any good ideas come out.

I was thinking that perhaps one way to add a little flavour to the game would be to not have a particular initial setup in which the markers are placed the same way every game. I did a bit of research and found that there were railways all around the world in 1940 (although with different gauges in some cases). It seems to me that you could put them just about anywhere you wanted and it would be plausible if you ignored the different gauges in the interest of playability.

Rather than give the markers to each nation to begin with I think it would be cool to give them to the players sitting around the table to place on the board before the game begins. They could put them in any land territory they want, including those belonging to the opposition. An example of that is the axis player may want to place markers in French territories or Chinese territories. Either side my want to place markers connecting neutral territories they plan on annexing or invading in the first or second round. The only place I can’t see wanting to place one is connecting to a strict neutral territory.

I would give 8 markers to each side to place before the game begins. After that any nation could purchase one of the remaining 4 markers for 3 IPC’s to place on a territory which they control (only 1 per turn so others have a chance to purchase a marker). I would limit it to those 20 markers because I don’t want to litter the whole board with them.

The nation controlling the territories where the markers are located and their allies can use the railway to move 3 land units up to the entire length of the railway on non-combat movement only. These units do not have to begin or end in the same territory. Units that have a movement ability of 1 (infantry, artillery, AAA) have to be in the territory to jump on the train. Units with a movement ability of 2 (tanks, mechanized infantry) may move one space to get on the train or non-combat move 1 space after getting off train. This is so that there is still a difference in movement ability between land units to respect the mechanics of A&A. There are no rail stations, it is assumed that there is one in each territory the railway passes through.

You can only use a tactical bomber to damage a railway (1 die per bomber at 2 or less).The marker is on the border between 2 territories so the bomber can attack it from either of the territories. The only defence against a bombing raid on a railway is an anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) so it might be a good idea to place one in territories containing a railway. It costs 2 IPC’s to repair a damaged rail marker on the controlling nation’s place units phase during their next turn. The reason they have to wait for that phase is so they can’t use a damaged railway for 1 turn. Why else would you even bother bombing one if there is no effect other than making your opponent pay a couple of IPC’s?

What do you think of those those ideas? Do you have any to improve upon that?

You could also take your units down to the craft store and try to match them up with the can of spray paint. They put the colour on the lid, just hold up the unit to it and see if it matches. You should also get a can of clear enamel to coat them with after the paint dries so the paint doesn’t chip off. Don’t overdo it on the enamel you only need a thin coat.

My markers came in for them. Each nation has a different marker under them now except U.K. and ANZAC who both have the same commando marker. Germany has SS. Japan has SNLF. U.S. has Rangers. Italy has Bersaglieri. Thanks for the idea though, it might be a good idea to do that anyway to help identify them from across the map.

I just downloaded the one I wanted and took it down to a local print shop on a memory stick (plus you can check the quality before you fork over your money). I had this one printed on paper and then laminated. If I had to do it again I would get it done on vinyl instead because the laminate provides glare that blinds you when the curtains are open on the windows. I got Imperial Leader’s 1914 map printed on vinyl at the same print shop as well. It was actually a bit cheaper to go the vinyl route. Both maps were ready the next day.
Once you start using one of these maps you’ll never want to go back to using the boards with all of the creases in them. Ambilzi & Young Grasshopper did a wicked job recreating Global 40 and putting player aides on the sides of the map.

I’m using a house rule from an expansion set for the Global War 1936-1945. The rules didn’t translate very well to the A&A Global 40 game so I wrote some of my own. I have a video which will explain the rule that I will give you a link for. I also made a chart to use the tokens that you get with the set.I’ll provide a link to download the chart if you are interested in using this rule. The file is a re-writeable WORD file so you can change the rules to whatever you want them to be.It only cost me about 6 bucks to have the file printed on both sides and laminated.

Video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO8gcDu6Pw4&feature=youtu.be
Chart;
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ys92hu0h082u0zh/American+Minorities+at+War+G+40.docx

The test went very well. As expected only Russia and Germany built heavy tanks in numbers. Neither America nor ANZAC built any in the first 9 turns of the game. Limiting them to one per territory ensured that they didn’t dominate the game but did add an extra element of strategy. I’ll edit my original post to reflect the changes and to add this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8K4Vo5lORA&feature=youtu.be

Does the player automatically get the breakthrough for the cost of 5 IPC’s or does he have to roll a 6 first? Unless I’m reading it wrong it doesn’t specify how a breakthrough is made.

Put a special forces unit on it and go kick some butts.  :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkbTDATv1bI

This is all great information and I appreciate it very much. Here’s what I’m thinking;
Cost-8 not much explanation needed for that.
Attack- 3 More firepower but less mobile than a medium tank which equals them out for the most part.
Defence- 4 heavier armour and not as much mobility needed in a defensive position.
Movement-1 Slower than a medium tank and I want to clearly differentiate between the 2 or else why bother?
Ability- First hit in a battle is free( shell bounces off). Second hit is damage which cost 2 IPC’s to repair on player’s next turn during Repair Units Phase. This gives others a chance to take it out while it’s damaged. If owner doesn’t repair it for some reason (like no money) then it can’t move but can still defend itself. Once repaired has 2 hit ability again for next battle.

I’m not in favour of creating a unit that isn’t available to all nations but that doesn’t mean it can’t be accomplished by other means. My initial setup would be;
1 on Moscow
1 on Germany
1 on Western Germany
1 on France
To be fair and not add any caveats to the unit by limiting it to only 2 nations;
Heavy Tanks can only be built on a major I.C.
They take up 2 spots on a transport
They do not take part in an amphibious assault but can land after if assault is successful. (they shouldn’t anyway because they’d be such a pain to unload how could they fight at the same time.)
Only 5 can be built by any nation for duration of the game.
No more than 1 heavy tank per territory per nation.
These rules would apply to all nations.

Only Germany, Russia, India, and Italy have a major I.C. on the dual continent of Eurasia. America, Anzac, Japan, and U.K. would have a difficult time employing them which is probably one of the reasons they didn’t have them. U.K. had 3 Tortoise tanks but they never left the U.K. during the war. Italy would have a tough time getting one to Africa. India would take forever to crawl one to Europe.

These rules would make them rare in the game except for Germany and Russia. India  and Italy would have a hard time purchasing them due to economic constraints. My goal when starting down this rabbit hole was to make them an interesting addition to the game while avoiding a proliferation of them allowing it to dominate the game. This might work.

I will test those parameters and let you know how it turns out.

As usual Marc you are a wealth of information. I knew taking this on was going to be an impossible task to create a heavy tank unit for the game and be completely accurate. I did research the unit and could see that there were no tanks in this class that were comparable to each other and it would take some poetic licence to add it to the game. The articles that I read must have been referring to pre-war use of heavy tanks (maybe ww1). When I was trying to design them the thought actually popped into my head " Hmm…I wonder what CWO Marc would do?"

So do you think there’s any way to add a heavy tank unit to the game and be close enough to accurate that it would be plausible? I accept that this game isn’t a WW2 re-creation but rather a way for all of us to re-fight the war in our own way.

This is all great feedback guys. I made this post this morning before going to work so I didn’t have much time to go into any detail. I agree with Der Kuenstler that there should be limited quantities. I hadn’t made a decision yet because I wanted some feedback first.

Your point is well taken Narvik about capital ships being unlimited and so should the tanks. However, the cost of those ships provides an economic barrier to filling up the map with too many of them. At most you could only buy 3 battleships in a turn but you could buy 9 heavy tanks for the same price. Putting huge stacks of heavy tanks on the board would not only change the game too much but also would not be consistent with the reality of how many were used in WW2.

The values that I used were a fairly accurate comparison to the values of medium tanks historically. I was also uncomfortable with giving them 2 hits to soak up but theses things were really that hard to put down on the battlefield. Everyone on both sides would be fully aware when a heavy tank was on the field and would have given them the extra attention (and fear) that they deserved. I fully expect that everyone would have a different take on heavy tanks because none of them were created equally and we all might have a different tank in mind.

This unit would be an early war true “super-heavy tank.” When they built these things they typically put a medium tank engine in them which was under-powered and therefore made them slow and prone to breakdowns. There’s no way you could blitz with one of the super-heavy tanks, you could probably walk as fast at a brisk pace as they moved. They were initially designed to use in conjunction with infantry but they found that they were more effective against other tanks. Later in the war they built them better with more power but I elected to go with the earlier version because they was a very noticeable difference between them and the medium tanks that are already in the game.

My goal when creating a new combat unit is to bring a new element to the game. Although there are a lot more units you could create for the game, I will probably stop at the 2 that I have already made because I don’t want to create units that are just like other units with slightly different values. The game already has a lot of different units with a lot of rules. The reason I chose a heavy tank was because I envisioned it as sort of a “land battleship.” It takes some effort and strategy to eliminate a battleship in the game and so it should as well to take on one of the heavy tanks. The reason players use the Taranto strategy in the first round is so they can take out the Italian battleship before it has a chance to be surrounded by other ships to protect it. Similarly I can see wanting to use an overpowering force to attack a zone with a heavy tank or use a heavy tank of your own in the battle to counter the soaked up hits. Remember it only gets 2 hits if you allow it to live into the second round of battle. That would add an element of strategy to land combat.I might still amend the 2 hits to one after more testing.

I was hoping to get feedback on how to limit the number of tanks in the game. I could limit it to 5 tanks per game for each nation with maybe a chance to buy another after your last one was eliminated for the rest of the game. I could also limit the number that you could purchase in one turn. I could also limit the number that could occupy the same territory to avoid stacking them. Super heavy tanks were also very difficult to get to the battlefield so I thought about limiting their transport ability as well. I’m speaking specifically of making them the same as transporting 2 units because of their weight on a ship or railway. You may have seen the railways I was testing in the video, there would be a limit to how many units they can transport per turn. I’m also hoping you can help me out with the initial setup. I thought I might start the game with Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K., France, and Russia each getting one on any of their ic’s.

More ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Here is my take on Heavy Tanks;

Heavy Tanks can only be built on a Major Industrial Complex. Each nation can only build 5 units during the game. There is a limit of 1 per nation per territory.
Cost: 8
Movement: 1
Attack: 3
Defense: 4
Ability: Unit absorbs one hit in each of the first 2 rounds of firing in a battle on both offence and Defence. The first hit bounces off the tank but the second hit damages the tank. To remove the damage you have to wait until your next turn in the repair damaged units phase. It costs 2 IPC’s to repair the damage. They can still defend themselves but they can’t move and one hit will destroy them until they are repaired.
With the movement ability of only 1 there is no blitzing.
They take up both spots on a transport ship. They do not take part in an amphibious assault but can land in the territory if the other units are successful in capturing that territory, however they must be moved there during the combat movement phase. If the battle is not successful they remain on the transport.

Initial Setup;
France-1
Western Germany-1
Germany-1
Russia-1

Check out the video;
https://youtu.be/aET6BEPAXNQ
Heavy Tanks Part 2;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8K4Vo5lORA