Topics created by GeneralHandGrenade

I’ve finished my video series on house rules and I’m ready to move on to something else. The last one that I uploaded is turn 2 through the rest of the game playing all 10 of my house rules. It gives you a good idea of how they work in a game situation in case you would like to try them or maybe they will give you some ideas of your own on how to improve upon my ideas to fit your vision of what G-40 should be. Here is a list of them;

Special Forces Unit/Airfields
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkbTDATv1bI&t=1408s

Japan vs. Russia
I decided to go with a rule that split Asia from Europe. The only passage is south of the Himalayas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JoMX7mwLy0&t=9s

Heavy Tanks/Tankograd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aET6BEPAXNQ&t=6s

Heavy Tanks 2/ Partisans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8K4Vo5lORA&t=15s

American Minorities at War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO8gcDu6Pw4&t=24s

Railways/Hospitals/“The Spy”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSz5Il0CRyE&t=12s

House Rules First Turn Run Through
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWCCiFYgzA&t=21s

House Rules Turn 2 Through the Rest of the Game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUl4bBxZbfg&t=13s

Both Hospitals and Ships are off limits to enemy fire. They can move in either the combat or non combat movement phase but not in both. You could move your hospital out of an enemy occupied territory and keep moving once per turn until you have it where you want it. They never are lost. For example, when China has lost it’s last man simply move the hospital down to India or the Middle East where your Ally can use it.

Those particular 12 sided dice work perfectly because of the symbol on them to mark a 12. It looks like a red cross symbol. You can get a set of them here;
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Amerika-Custom-Dice-D12-x6_p_2142.html

The reason I started the game with hospitals already is because they would have had these heading into a war, not waiting until someone got shot to think of buying some bandages. Also, I didn’t want to take any money away from the game that could be spent on weapons. I thought that most players wouldn’t bother buying them because either they couldn’t afford it ( like China) or they would just rather buy tanks so it would be a waste of time to make the rule and buy the pieces.

Yeah, I get a spy isn’t a single unit. I don’t think an infantry is one soldier.

I refer you to my comments on the linked post.

The OP said it - virtually all adjacent industrialised areas were linked by rail. In the game, only a few routes over mountains and through jungle would not have such connections.

So the only use for markers I can see is for damaged links via interdiction i.e. bombing. Otherwise assume all tts are connected by rail. I never really understood the implication in the original game design that soldiers marched to the battle zones and that tanks drove there.

Generally I favour unlimited non-combat rail movement between friendly tts. It’s much simpler and doesn’t need counters or record keeping. One dynamic it changes is the relative value of armour, since this now travels at the same rate as infantry - the speed of the trains carrying them.

The other main counter argument is the relative movement of ships and aircraft. If a turn allow a train to rail artillery from Berlin to Moscow, how far should a ship be permitted to travel in the same turn? Should ships have any limit on their movement range? My solution is that every ship must demonstrate that it passes from, through or to a friendly port to refuel every turn. What’s to stop Japan loading up 10 transports and dropping them off in California? Why, the US Navy of course. The same thing can be applied to aircraft; rather than a maximum range peer turn, they must demonstrate fuel stops at set intervals on a turn. These idea also require more rules regarding enemy interception, radar range and so forth.

In general these rules mean many more units getting into battle per round. There is much less of units stalling in “mid move”, something that virtually ruined 1914 for the Central Powers until the revised rules came along.

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

@Gargantua:

14min+ - how to get an online degree in A&A in under 60 days by watching YG videos

Actually, we now recommend you take the quarterly programs which are condensed courses allowing you to graduate in just 2 short years.

:mrgreen:

GenHandGrenade, I applaud you for working on implementing a new unit. But of course not everyone is readily going to accept your HR idea.

I agree with Narvik in sentiment. I would play a HR described by him. Also, I think there should be no restrictions on the amount of units for purchase. No single unit should be so powerful that you have to put a restriction on the amount.

I think your HR over represents this type of unit and made it too powerful in retrospect to the representation of the size of the units in this strategic level board game.

I think the “SFU” should be: C5 / A1 /  D2 / M2 + Airborne attack movement up to 3 spaces from an air base (like the Airborne tech from OOB). Artillery pair up the SFU to +1 for attacks (not the other way around of SFU pairing up other units). 4 spaces is too far in this game I think and changes the game dynamics too much I think.

Combined Arms Explanation: Modern US Army Airborne Rangers call in artillery (or an A-10 Thunderbolt II) for support. So in the game, a “SFU” should be paired up by artillery, not it pairing up other units.

US Army Special Forces (SF as Soldiers say or “Green Berets” to the general public), Navy Seals, and Delta Force (off shoot of SF), usually don’t operate above a platoon sized element. Only Army Rangers operate up to a battalion level. Essentially, Rangers are just infantry, (bad ass elite infantry, but infantry nonetheless). Ranger units and Airborne Divisions were sized large enough in WW2 to “barely” be represented in this game as a single unit on the board.

Cost Explanation for 5 IPCs: 4 IPCs account for the 2 space movement ability like mech +1 more IPC to account for the cost of the airborne “transport” option from an air base. This way mech remain the main mobile infantry and tanks still roll overall better while being the justified higher 6 IPC cost.

I think the Mongolian rule should be changed. I can see an USSR player taking 30 ICP and just using it against Germany. Change it to any Soviet territory that becomes attacked by Japan, every single Mongolian territory has two infantry and joins USSR and each territory is worth 1 ICP which gets added to USSR.

I bought a full set of those from Shapeways about 2 months ago. They were much smaller than I expected, but that’s good anyways because of space limitations. I also ordered two different types of industrial complex models to be used as major and minor.

I can post pics of any of that if you’re interested since the pics on Shapeways are just computer generated images.

Does someone know if there has been any progress so far? It’s a pitty we always end up having new iterations of the global maps or pacific/europe scenarios and not other theaters of operations.