Hello! I’m a young man in my 20s who comes from upstate New York and now lives in Texas.

I was introduced to Axis & Allies around the age of 12 by a pair of childhood friends. They’re brothers who played the Revised edition with their dad and whomever else they could convince to join them. I played several games of Revised with them throughout my teens, and then got my own 1942:2E in the summer after I graduated high school. I’ve only had two opportunities to use it, unfortunately, but I’m looking to establish personal group now that I’ve settled down.

I like to keep the gameplay experience very close to what the designers intended. My metagame interests include:

• simplifying rules to assist new players
• porting newer gameplay systems to older editions (e.g. adding R&D to 1940:2E)
• low-cost cosmetic improvements (e.g. physical IPCs)
• mathematical and computational modeling of A&A combat

Thank you to the enthusiasts before me who built and maintained resources like this website.

Hello, all! I’m seeking feedback for a simplified national objective (NO) system.

Motivation

Although I’d love to try Global 1940 one day, its rules are pretty intimidating even by A&A standards. In my opinion, the NO system is its most conspicuous case of overly complicated rules.

The NO system contains nearly thirty rules. Most of them have multiple conditions. Many of the them are very idiosyncratic, with several requiring players to memorize lists of territories. Moreover, some of the effects are very large relative to their respective territories, and it’s easy to confuse effects with one-another (e.g. misremember +2 IPCs as +5). For all of these reasons, it takes a lot of cognitive effort merely to identify the true income value of territories. Not only are the computations tedious, but getting them wrong can lead to serious strategic errors.

Consequently, I believe that a simplified NO system would lead to a game that’s faster to learn, faster to play, and more fun to play.

Design Goals

Here are the design goals in their approximate priority:

1. Have simple conditions. Absolutely no lists of territories.
2. Have only one objective per nation.
3. Maintain or improve the balance between the two sides.
4. Be historically sensible. (…not necessarily accurate.)
5. Resemble the original rules.
6. Maintain or improve large-scale play patterns.
7. Make rewards commensurate with territory values.

Rules

Without further ado, here are the simplified national objectives:

Germany: with respect to each originally non-Axis territory that Germany controls, +2 IPCs or double its value—whichever is less. Themes: industrialization and exploitation of its people.

Soviet Union: +2 IPCs for each territory or victory city it controls that was originally German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral. Themes: propaganda value, spread of communism.

Japan: +1 IPC per island territory in the Pacific hemisphere that it controls. Themes: ancestral proficiency with island geographies and economies.

United States: +2 IPCs per victory city controlled by the Allies. Themes: political isolationism, geographic isolation.

China: unchanged.

United Kingdom: with respect to each economy, +5 IPCs if all of its original IPC-yielding territories remain under its control. Themes: maintenance of the British Empire.

Italy: +1 IPC for each territory in or along the Mediterranean Sea (sea zones 92-99) that it occupies. Themes: restoration of the Roman Empire.

ANZAC: +2 IPCs for each territory within 3 spaces of mainland Australia that it controls or occupies. Themes: defensive perimeter.

France: unchanged.

Balance Analysis

I tallied the IPC bonuses that each nation begins with and can reasonably hope to achieve, both for OOB and house rules. The numerical results look encouraging.

This analysis doesn’t account for changes of how easily these bonuses can be achieved. For example, Germany now has immediate access to multiple territories that provide IPC bonuses. For qualitative reasons like these, I expect these rules to mildly favor the Axis in the western hemisphere and mildly favor the Allies in the eastern hemisphere.

Feedback

Do you think that this would both fun and helpful to new players? Do you think it’s balanced? Do you have any suggestions for tweaking or substituting specific NOs?

I welcome criticism, but please be clear about whether you’re criticizing A) the design goals themselves, or B) how well these rules achieve these design goals.

Introduction
Hello! I’m sorry if this is posted in the wrong place. I’m new to the forum, but not A&A, and I’m inquiring about a way to help new players.

Lately, I’ve been reading through the rules to Spring 1942, 1914, and the 1940 versions as I’ve tried to form a new gaming group. In my opinion, these rule books are vastly too wordy. (Examples below.)

To that end, I’m wondering whether anybody has rewritten the rule books to make them more concise–and if not, whether anybody would find it a valuable thing for me to do.

To be clear, I’m not asking for a set of beginner-oriented house rules; I’m asking about alternative drafts of the rule books with equivalent gameplay.

Examples
I’ve noticed a few kinds of ways that the rule book can be improved. Here I provide a description and an example for each. (All excerpts are from Pacific 1940, 2e.)

1. Eliminating redundant explanations and examples

Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. Each AAA unit in the territory may fire up to 3 shots, but each attacking air unit may only be fired upon once. In other words, the total number of air defense dice rolled is 3 times the number of AAA units, or the number of attacking air units, whichever is the lesser. For example, 5 fighters attacking a territory containing 2 AAA units would have 5 shots fired against them, while those same 5 fighters would have only 3 shots fired against them if there were only 1 defending AAA unit.

This can be drastically shortened by eliminating the redundant examples and explanations:

Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. The AAA units in the territory collectively fire a number of shots equal 3 per AAA unit, or 1 per attacking air unit—whichever is fewer. Roll 1 die per shot.

Even the remaining sentences could be shortened considerably, but that’s beyond the scope of this point.

2. Eliminating redundant caveats

Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber (but not for tactical bombers), then total the result.

I don’t think that this parenthetical note is necessary. If the instruction didn’t mean to exclude tactical bombers, then it would have said “strategic or tactical bomber”, or simply “bomber”. It should read:

Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber, then total the result.

3. Utilizing existing keywords

Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy industrial complex, air base, or naval base. Such an attack on a facility is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).

The word “facilities” is used a dozen times throughout the document, and the meaning of that term is explained in the Unit Profiles section. This should read:

Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy facility. Such an attack is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).

4. Introducing new keywords

I don’t have a clean before-and-after for this one, but I’ll provide two ideas.

• The mechanics of offshore bombardment, anti-aircraft fire, escort & interceptor fire, and perhaps even kamikaze strikes seem like they could be usefully generalized to the concept of “opening fire”.

• Just as battleships and carriers are grouped into “capital ships”, it may be helpful to group battleships and cruisers into “gunships”—ships that are capable of offshore bombardment.

This technique can negatively impact readability if it’s overused or used poorly, so I would appreciate specific suggestions here.

5. Side-barring historical context

I sincerely appreciate the historical nature of A&A, but the free flow between historical context and the instructions themselves makes finding a rule unnecessarily difficult.

While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units. They can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

This can be split to an instruction section:

Chinese units can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

…and a flavor-text section:

While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units.

Ideally, I would place this section in a box on the side of the page, similarly to the Combined Arms graphic.

Conclusion
I know that was long-winded, but I think that underscores my point; there are a lot of ways that the rules can be made more concise.

I’d be happy to hear any of the following:

• whether you think that a rewrite like the one I envision would be useful to new players
• critiques of the techniques that I’ve identified, or the ways that I’ve used them in the examples
• ideas for new keywords
• if I were to rewrite the entire instruction book, would anyone have the time, interest, and graphic design skill to turn the new version into a pretty booklet?

If you’ve made it this far, then thank you very much for your time and your consideration. GL HF!

Hello, all! I’m seeking feedback for a simplified national objective (NO) system.

Motivation

Although I’d love to try Global 1940 one day, its rules are pretty intimidating even by A&A standards. In my opinion, the NO system is its most conspicuous case of overly complicated rules.

The NO system contains nearly thirty rules. Most of them have multiple conditions. Many of the them are very idiosyncratic, with several requiring players to memorize lists of territories. Moreover, some of the effects are very large relative to their respective territories, and it’s easy to confuse effects with one-another (e.g. misremember +2 IPCs as +5). For all of these reasons, it takes a lot of cognitive effort merely to identify the true income value of territories. Not only are the computations tedious, but getting them wrong can lead to serious strategic errors.

Consequently, I believe that a simplified NO system would lead to a game that’s faster to learn, faster to play, and more fun to play.

Design Goals

Here are the design goals in their approximate priority:

1. Have simple conditions. Absolutely no lists of territories.
2. Have only one objective per nation.
3. Maintain or improve the balance between the two sides.
4. Be historically sensible. (…not necessarily accurate.)
5. Resemble the original rules.
6. Maintain or improve large-scale play patterns.
7. Make rewards commensurate with territory values.

Rules

Without further ado, here are the simplified national objectives:

Germany: with respect to each originally non-Axis territory that Germany controls, +2 IPCs or double its value—whichever is less. Themes: industrialization and exploitation of its people.

Soviet Union: +2 IPCs for each territory or victory city it controls that was originally German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral. Themes: propaganda value, spread of communism.

Japan: +1 IPC per island territory in the Pacific hemisphere that it controls. Themes: ancestral proficiency with island geographies and economies.

United States: +2 IPCs per victory city controlled by the Allies. Themes: political isolationism, geographic isolation.

China: unchanged.

United Kingdom: with respect to each economy, +5 IPCs if all of its original IPC-yielding territories remain under its control. Themes: maintenance of the British Empire.

Italy: +1 IPC for each territory in or along the Mediterranean Sea (sea zones 92-99) that it occupies. Themes: restoration of the Roman Empire.

ANZAC: +2 IPCs for each territory within 3 spaces of mainland Australia that it controls or occupies. Themes: defensive perimeter.

France: unchanged.

Balance Analysis

I tallied the IPC bonuses that each nation begins with and can reasonably hope to achieve, both for OOB and house rules. The numerical results look encouraging.

This analysis doesn’t account for changes of how easily these bonuses can be achieved. For example, Germany now has immediate access to multiple territories that provide IPC bonuses. For qualitative reasons like these, I expect these rules to mildly favor the Axis in the western hemisphere and mildly favor the Allies in the eastern hemisphere.

Feedback

Do you think that this would both fun and helpful to new players? Do you think it’s balanced? Do you have any suggestions for tweaking or substituting specific NOs?

I welcome criticism, but please be clear about whether you’re criticizing A) the design goals themselves, or B) how well these rules achieve these design goals.

@MAG Austin! My fiance is attending grad school here, and I followed her down. Do you live in Texas?

Introduction
Hello! I’m sorry if this is posted in the wrong place. I’m new to the forum, but not A&A, and I’m inquiring about a way to help new players.

Lately, I’ve been reading through the rules to Spring 1942, 1914, and the 1940 versions as I’ve tried to form a new gaming group. In my opinion, these rule books are vastly too wordy. (Examples below.)

To that end, I’m wondering whether anybody has rewritten the rule books to make them more concise–and if not, whether anybody would find it a valuable thing for me to do.

To be clear, I’m not asking for a set of beginner-oriented house rules; I’m asking about alternative drafts of the rule books with equivalent gameplay.

Examples
I’ve noticed a few kinds of ways that the rule book can be improved. Here I provide a description and an example for each. (All excerpts are from Pacific 1940, 2e.)

1. Eliminating redundant explanations and examples

Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. Each AAA unit in the territory may fire up to 3 shots, but each attacking air unit may only be fired upon once. In other words, the total number of air defense dice rolled is 3 times the number of AAA units, or the number of attacking air units, whichever is the lesser. For example, 5 fighters attacking a territory containing 2 AAA units would have 5 shots fired against them, while those same 5 fighters would have only 3 shots fired against them if there were only 1 defending AAA unit.

This can be drastically shortened by eliminating the redundant examples and explanations:

Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. The AAA units in the territory collectively fire a number of shots equal 3 per AAA unit, or 1 per attacking air unit—whichever is fewer. Roll 1 die per shot.

Even the remaining sentences could be shortened considerably, but that’s beyond the scope of this point.

2. Eliminating redundant caveats

Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber (but not for tactical bombers), then total the result.

I don’t think that this parenthetical note is necessary. If the instruction didn’t mean to exclude tactical bombers, then it would have said “strategic or tactical bomber”, or simply “bomber”. It should read:

Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber, then total the result.

3. Utilizing existing keywords

Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy industrial complex, air base, or naval base. Such an attack on a facility is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).

The word “facilities” is used a dozen times throughout the document, and the meaning of that term is explained in the Unit Profiles section. This should read:

Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy facility. Such an attack is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).

4. Introducing new keywords

I don’t have a clean before-and-after for this one, but I’ll provide two ideas.

• The mechanics of offshore bombardment, anti-aircraft fire, escort & interceptor fire, and perhaps even kamikaze strikes seem like they could be usefully generalized to the concept of “opening fire”.

• Just as battleships and carriers are grouped into “capital ships”, it may be helpful to group battleships and cruisers into “gunships”—ships that are capable of offshore bombardment.

This technique can negatively impact readability if it’s overused or used poorly, so I would appreciate specific suggestions here.

5. Side-barring historical context

I sincerely appreciate the historical nature of A&A, but the free flow between historical context and the instructions themselves makes finding a rule unnecessarily difficult.

While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units. They can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

This can be split to an instruction section:

Chinese units can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

…and a flavor-text section:

While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units.

Ideally, I would place this section in a box on the side of the page, similarly to the Combined Arms graphic.

Conclusion
I know that was long-winded, but I think that underscores my point; there are a lot of ways that the rules can be made more concise.

I’d be happy to hear any of the following:

• whether you think that a rewrite like the one I envision would be useful to new players
• critiques of the techniques that I’ve identified, or the ways that I’ve used them in the examples
• ideas for new keywords
• if I were to rewrite the entire instruction book, would anyone have the time, interest, and graphic design skill to turn the new version into a pretty booklet?

If you’ve made it this far, then thank you very much for your time and your consideration. GL HF!

Hello! I’m a young man in my 20s who comes from upstate New York and now lives in Texas.

I was introduced to Axis & Allies around the age of 12 by a pair of childhood friends. They’re brothers who played the Revised edition with their dad and whomever else they could convince to join them. I played several games of Revised with them throughout my teens, and then got my own 1942:2E in the summer after I graduated high school. I’ve only had two opportunities to use it, unfortunately, but I’m looking to establish personal group now that I’ve settled down.

I like to keep the gameplay experience very close to what the designers intended. My metagame interests include:

• simplifying rules to assist new players
• porting newer gameplay systems to older editions (e.g. adding R&D to 1940:2E)
• low-cost cosmetic improvements (e.g. physical IPCs)
• mathematical and computational modeling of A&A combat

Thank you to the enthusiasts before me who built and maintained resources like this website.