Has any axis player won by capturing the US?
My brother in law was Germany and he was getting creamed by my other brother in law (US) and I (Russia), but he had a loaded axis transport just sitting in the Atlantic two squares away from the US for quite a few turns. The US eventually forgot it was sitting there and on one turn left the US exposed. Germany moved in with the one loaded transport and won the game.
No research other than Wikipedia. That’s where I got the info on the middle east nations. Was hoping someone could break down some other alliances: for instance, invade x country and these countries had agreements to go to war, etc.
I’m not looking as much for house rules here, but more of an actual historical question. Not as much “you should have this happen when you invade a country” but more along the lines of “this country had an agreement to go to war with these countries should they be invaded.”
What would have been the actual political consequences of invading the various neutral countries during World War 2? The reason I’m asking is because I might make some house rules for A&A Global. I have heard of a few:
Spain and Portugal had an agreement that if one was invaded, the other would declare war. It goes without saying that if a Portuguese colony was invaded, it would mean war with Portugal. Would it also mean war with Spain if a Portuguese colony were invaded? I would think not. If Portugal declared war due to a colony being invaded and was later invaded, would that then mean war with Spain?
There was a treaty between middle eastern countries where if one was invaded, others would declare war with the invader, but not sure which countries.
Did Turkey have any such treaty where they would declare war if another country was invaded or other countries would take their side if they were invaded?
Switzerland?
Sweden?
South American nations?
Other countries I left out?
Hi! I really like the idea of simultaneous turns, because many people are not ready to play an 8 hours or more game! :)
Hovewer there are too many rules you created, and i think the capabilities of attacking together is too much powerful for the allies.I make a soft version of this rules for A&A Global:
That could be for Global, but for the 1999 version of A&A Europe, the Axis are so overpowering that with the official rules and experienced players, it’s a forced win for the Axis. Just buy soldiers and a few artillery and tanks on the following turns and then you have an unstoppable force that takes over Moscow. With this change, the Allies sometimes, but don’t always win. If with your group the Allies win too much, it might be the players, but if not, I’m sure you could come up with some rules to weaken the allies such as not being able to use each others transports.
I’d like to pursue the every player playing at the same time for Global, but may save that for a future post. What you’ve outlined seems a safe way to speed things up without unduly altering the game balance.
Regarding the rules: I posted a lot of details, but it’s actually very simple. “Germany” is simply divided in half with a second player who will possess half the territories and starts with half the money. The rules themselves are the same, except all the allies play at the same time. It’s really just as simple as that. The axis already played at the same time since it used to be one country (the Axis already could pool their money, build in either factory, etc.) .
I call this the “Uber Variant”. It is far superior to the house rules in the opinion of my family and friends. This applies to A&A Europe that was released in 1999. I’m interested in trying a similar variant to Global 1940, feel free to adapt a similar concept to that and let me know how it goes.
All Axis moves at the same time (including if you’ve split the axis between two players as described below) then all the allies move at the same time.
All aligned countries “fight” (roll dice) at the same time: you don’t have U.S. units fight followed by the British.
If you have 4 or 5 players, two of them can play the Axis: one is Germany and the other is the Axis minors (Italy, Hungary, Romania, Finland, etc.). The way this is accomplished:
> The Axis Minors player sets up different pieces (Italians obtained from Global 1940, HBG games, or from another A&A set. Perhaps grey Germans can be minors and black can be Germany).
> Each axis player starts the game with the IPC’s split in half. Off the top of my head, I believe it’s 20 IPC’s to each player.
> They also start with equal territory. Axis minors are placed throughout Africa, in Finland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc to make it even. Sometimes I’ll put a few German units in Africa and other places to make it seem more historical, though there were tons of Italians serving there. The Axis Minors have all of the Mediterranean ships and have a few subs in the atlantic.
> The Germans and the Axis minors can use either factory. Germany may spend their IPC’s to buy units placed in the Italian factory and vice versa.
> The Germans and Axis minors can opt to combine their money to buy units. For instance, if they each want 3 soldiers and an aircraft carrier is desired but couldn’t be afforded by either, they can pool their money together to buy a carrier. If they can’t decide who controls the carrier, they can flip a coin or roll the dice.
All countries can use any friendly nation’s transports and aircraft carriers with no penalties
In multi-nation battles, when the decision comes to which unit is removed during a battle and which country owns a newly conquered territory, the aligned nations must agree. If they can’t decide who should have the territory/unit removed, their opponents get to decide.
We’ve played this many times and will never go back.
Try it and let me know what you think. I don’t think you’ll ever go back to playing it the old way. I think if similar all allies then all axis plays can be applied to Global, that would be more fun as well, especially if it speeds up the game.
Does anyone have an idea for when the www.historicalboardgaming.com French Units and the “German Set 3” pieces will be released? I’m in the process of painting the units for all the Global 1940 countries and I’d rather paint some of those units than the OOB. I’ve been following the French units for a few years now and thought that the German set would be out by this summer. I thought I’d post here in case someone has heard anything. If it will take too long, I may just paint some of the OOB units instead. I’m confident that the HBG ones would be worth the wait, but if plans to release those have been scrapped or may not be in the next year or two, then I probably won’t wait.
Thanks again John. I guess at this point these are only for you :). You can also click on the images to expand them if you want to see finer detail. Here are some of the US Europe aircraft waiting to be bought. Maybe I’ll post some of the others later: my fave is one of those not pictured, which is a checker nose/tailed Corsair.
There are also a couple battleships in the shot. The greenish battleship is the USS Illinois, which was incomplete at the end of the war. I copied the official camouflage pattern and used the colors from an award winning larger scale model that someone made of the ship. The gray was one I painted after the pre-war USS California even though the sculpt is the USS Iowa. This was before HBG came out with sculpts of the actual Pearl Harbor “Battleship Row” battleships; so maybe someday I’ll paint the actual sculpts and re-paint that one to be an Iowa class battleship.
You’ll notice some pre-war “yellow wing” aircraft that the Navy sported until mid-1941 in order to be able to better spot the planes if they were to crash. The Pacific side is not pictured, but there are more units (including the US Enterprise and yellow winged aircraft) on that side of the board.
Enough drivel, here’s the shot:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/35/39/d2/3539d23f5a854d530679677a4dae39b3.jpg
Thanks Dafyd, I’m glad you enjoyed it. My Christmas season has been way to hectic to be able to sit down and play some A&A, but I hope to try this out with a game one of these years. I have a strong association between soldiers and Christmas probably due to being in the Nutcracker musical when I was young and also having GI Joe toys as frequently desired Christmas gifts growing up. So for me, playing a game of A&A with Christmas music (especially with a few selections from the Nutcracker representing Russia) is very appealing.
Thanks John! Here’s another shot. These are Russian units that were sitting on the sidelines of the board. Not pictured are the battleship Archangel, the submarine “lucky schuka” (not sure I spelled that right, but I did spell it right in Russian on the bottom), and a transport (don’t recall which I modeled). Each unit was modeled after actual aircraft schemes. Efforts were made to match actual AA, artillery, truck, and soldier uniforms. If you look closely, you’ll notice some custom www.historicalboardgaming.com tac bombers and units from various A&A games: either taken from my other games or purchased from HBG. If you have a keen eye, you’ll also see a couple lend lease aircraft and that some aircraft show wear and/or weathering. Not pictured are the I-16 units and 1 Tac purchased from HBG that were also custom painted and were placed on the board.
To view the Russian units:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7d/d1/8a/7dd18a1291c9d4e877437c5a92edc72b.jpg
Merry Christmas everyone. If you have the chance to try this background out at your next A&A game prior to Christmas, let me know how it goes. It consists of world war 2 Christmas broadcasts from the various nations as well as Christmas songs representing the different nations. I hope you enjoy and that it enhances your delight this time of year. Of course you’ll probably need to put it on repeat and some may be deleted over time:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHdtjQ501JyX4TbHlIOfjfYjzD11CVhtQ
Teaser preview (taken at the board level and background edited out):
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c4/1a/9f/c41a9f84107e48f71a94cf3f6f8a92e2.jpg
This is cool. We have always played in dead silence. May have to try this next time.
Great, let me know how it goes. I haven’t play tested it yet, but I’m definitely open to making tweaks (more of this, less of that).
Hey All, I’ve put together a youtube playlist to be used as a background to playing Axis & Allies. It’s geared towards playing 1940 Global, but might work for any of the games encompassing the Europe and Pacific Theaters if you skip past the first two French clips. I haven’t been able to play test it yet but you can all feel free to use it. Most of all, just enjoy, but if you can, please let me know how it went: for instance, what did you like, what didn’t you like, etc. It’s a mix of World War 2 era newsreels, radio programs, and battle scenes from modern movies/shows about World War 2. My impression from how it is now is that the national anthems and Newsreels are my favorites, followed by modern movies, and I’m concerned that some of the foreign newsreels might be a bit lengthy considering you can’t understand what they’re saying. Maybe when playing the game though, it might be different because you don’t have to listen to what they’re saying, but it would add to the character and get the player of the foreign nation in the mood (Japan/India/Russia/Germany/Italy).
Here’s the link (hope this link works for you):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3IvXo0W1YI&index=1&list=PLHdtjQ501JyXxuc-MWcyClKfa59Rc8HP7
I also began putting together a Christmas Axis and Allies playlist. I believe the pull of playing this game for many of us is that it’s an excuse for grown men to play army guys. Around Christmas time is when I feel the largest pull to play this game, possibly because I remember playing and getting GI-Joe’s around this time. It’s a bit early to use this with your friends, but if you want to get a glimpse and provide feedback on it, perhaps I can tailor it with your suggestions prior to Christmas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyiOQaDQzoU&list=PLHdtjQ501JyX4TbHlIOfjfYjzD11CVhtQ
Enjoy! Godere! наслаждаться! 楽しみます!
I’m not a big fan of scripting, but there is no player that plays the neutral countries and would decide, so I can’t think of a better way to decide than by looking at how the nations actually were interconnected historically.
There may be certain nations that when attacked would be the only nation you’re battling. There are other nations where you would attack them and be at war with others. What I’m looking for is which nations were connected by treaty or otherwise and which nations stood alone. For instance, Spain and Portugal had a treaty during the war that if one of them was attacked, the other would stand with them. With this in mind, if you attack one, you’re also at war with the other. Also, Portugal had colonies.
Invade Spain: You fight Portugal, Mozambique, and Angola.
Invade Portugal: You fight Spain, Mozambique, and Angola.
Invade Mozambique: You fight Angola and Portugal.
Invade Angola: You fight Mozambique and Portugal.
Any other nations aligned with these powers that I missed? What other alliances existed? Any in South America? Turkey/Saudi Arabia? I imagine there might be ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ situations since I think there was a war between some of the South American nations at or around the time of WW2. I could research this myself, but I won’t have time for a few days/weeks and perhaps someone already knows of the existing alliances at the time.
I’d like to make some new neutral rules for Axis and Allies 1940 Global 2nd edition both to make it more realistic and also to encourage more neutral country invasions since I think this could add a new strategic element and also would be fun. I found an old thread on this topic that had some suggestions by Flashman that’s closest to what I’d be looking for (quoted below). Basically, I’d like to have a sheet that outlines consequences for invading each neutral. This would be a big research project for me to figure out, but perhaps there is a history buff on here that may enjoy whipping out some quick and historically verifiable answers. For instance, you invade:
Spain: You are also at war with Portugal (they had a pact that they would both go to war if the other was invaded) as well as Mozambique and Angola (colonies of Portugal). All of the units from these countries are activated and the opposing side (allies if axis invades and vice versa) may take command and use those units as their own. If Portugal is conquered on the first turn it’s attacked, Mozambique and Angola become pro-opposing side but are not activated and available for use and follow standard aligned neutral rules. There may be other nations here that would ally with Portugal (Flashman mentions P. Guinea).
Portugal: You are also at war with Spain (see above) as well as Mozambique and Angola (colonies of Portugal). If Portugal is conquered on this turn, Mozambique and Angola simply remain pro-opposing side. If the attack fails, Portuguese, Angola, and Mozambique soldiers are instantly activated and available for use by the opposing side. There may be other nations here that would ally with Portugal.
Mozambique: You are at war with Portugal and Angola (but not Spain, since the agreement was only for either country being invaded. If Portugal is invaded later, then Spain is also at war with you). Portuguese and Angola troops (as well as Mozambique soldiers, if they survive) are immediately activated and available for use by the opposing side.
Angola: Same as Mozambique.
I’m not familiar enough with the historical situation of the various neutral countries to venture guesses on the others. Even the ones I’ve outlined above may need revision.
I think the main reason for the strict neutral rule was to discourage attacks on nations that did not historically get involved in the war. Far better to give each of these countries more representative defences, including air and sea units; but this makes things more complicated…
I like this idea, but I don’t suppose anyone knows where to find data in an easily accessible format outlining the relative strength of each nations military relative to the main nations as of May 1940 in order to create an accurate picture. I imagine this project would take a significant amount of time to calculate relative strength. For instance (making this up) if Sweden had an army 1/5 the size of Germany, they would get 1/5 of the soldiers (that would be a large stack). If they had 1/2 the amount of fighters as Russia, they would get 1 fighter. Ideally, you would also calculate relative Battleship, Cruiser, submarine strength, etc. Aligned neutrals would also be accordingly beefed up and it would be much more of an incentive to activate these nations. Another thing to consider is that many of the neutrals would have a factory that could pump out units each round.
Setting aside my quibbles with the geography, I propose the following changes to make the neutral counties set up of the Global game more historically accurate:
This assumes the deletion of the “all strict neutrals go to war” rule.
MEXICO, CENTRAL AMERICA & WEST INDIES should be pro-Allied
EIRE should be SN
GREENLAND should have the same status as the Dutch colonies, i.e. a de facto pro-allied neutral. With a Danish roundel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland_during_World_War_II
ITALY should be neutral until Paris falls as described elsewhere under the “Italy Fix” suggestion. But what happens if Paris doesn’t fall? (The Allies should not be allowed to declare war on Italy first).
YUGOSLAVIA should be Pro-Axis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Yugoslavia
HUNGARY should be pro-Axis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_during_the_Second_World_War
ROMANIA is a problem in that it should still be in control of Bessarabia. It was the grabbing of this province by Stalin in July that propelled Romania into the Axis camp.
Suggestion: Romania pro-Axis, Bessarabia pro-Allied?
OR
Romania combined is neutral, but invasion of one part by a power makes the other part pro the other alliance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_II
BALTIC STATES should be SN. The “friendly occupation” by Soviet troops in June was hardly welcome…though a German R1 invasion would breech the terms of the Nazi-Soviet pact, which could be considered an act of war in Moscow.
Perhaps this Pact can be more definitive, assigning
Finland, Vyborg, Baltic States, Eastern Poland (1939) & Bessarabia to the Soviet sphere;
Western Poland (1939), Hungary, Romania, Balkan states to Germany.
An invasion of any of the tts assigned to the other signatory is considered a breach of the Pact and therefore an act of WAR. This includes, for example, Germany occupying pro-Axis Finland, which is still considered part of the Soviet sphere.
GREECE & CRETE should be politically identical, i.e. an attack on one brings the other to war
similarly with
SPAIN (SN) & Rio de Oro
PORTUGAL & P. Guinea, Mozambique & Angola
SIERRA LEONE should be UK territory
BELGIAN CONGO should be similar to Dutch & Danish colonies, i.e. pro-Allied. With a Belgian roundel.
LIBERIA should be pro-Allied
SIAM should be pro-Axis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Thailand
PERSIA should be pro-Axis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
IRAQ should be pro-Allied
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Iraq
There is a case for making ARGENTINA pro-Axis to balance Brazil, but not a convincing one.
Also, all the SN South American countries should be considered as politically aligned; i.e. attack one and you’re at war with them all.
This proposal at least creates an interesting variant, particularly in regard to opening strategies.
I don’t know enough to comment on these suggestions other than I disagree with Iraq being pro-allied. I think that was a typo though because Flashman linked to a Wikipedia page that lists axis aligned nations and includes Iraq. I believe they would be pro Axis considering they tried to fight against the UK in the war and were supported by Axis weapons and aircraft. Click here to learn about the Anglo-Iraqi War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War.
How many FMG Italy sets do you have? My main concern would be that one set contains only one BA 65 Tac, and a player might probably purchase more than one (though, Italy is pretty poor as nation go and might not purchase one in some games).
I had purchased the full FMG Italian set, so there are several of each, I would have several Tacs with that set. Since I don’t use air transports in my games (sounds fun though), I plan to use the SM 79 as a heavy bomber option. I’ve toyed with the idea of making a ‘super heavy’ as a tech-up choice, where Italy would ‘unlock’ the p. 108, the US would unlock Superfortresses, Germany, UK, and Japan would use the multi-engine bombers that are sold on historicalboardgaming.com. Thanks all for the input as I hashed this out.
Thanks John, I’m sure it’s subjective and what would be best for one would not be best for another. I know that I’m not that familiar with gameplay in the 1940 games and whether tacs or heavys are more likely to be purchased by Italy, but people may have other advice as well that I hadn’t thought of. The way my brain is, I would be bothered by seeing a small Sm.79 tac bomber right next to a big Sm.79 heavy bomber, even though most people that played with me wouldn’t know the difference… unless there were other Italian aircraft that looked similar: if so, I could sand/clip/glue plastic parts to make that fighter look like another - I did this to turn the A&A Pacific (1999 version) Yamato into one of the Japanese hybrid battleship carriers, so I’m sure I could do something similar here if a similar looking aircraft existed.
I decided to take on the insane task of painting my Axis & Allies board game units and I’m about 4.5 years into it. I have the fmg Italian set as well as the Europe 1940 second edition. The FMG set has the SM-79 as a heavy bomber and the 2nd edition set has the SM-79 as a tactical bomber. Any advice on whether I should paint the tac or the heavy? Here are some of my thoughts supporting each selection:
Reasons to use the SM-79 as a heavy bomber choice:
Use the SM-79 as a tactical bomber choice:
I’m leaning towards using it as a heavy, but I haven’t played the game yet (waiting until at least all the pieces on the board are painted), so reasons such as ‘Italy is more likely to buy 2 tacs than 3 bombers’ and other arguments related to gameplay would be considered. Also, some people may have ideas out of left field that I hadn’t considered. Since I’m painting the pieces, I could also use German heavy bombers and tac bombers that the Italians also used in the war to add additional choices.
I see what Narvik is saying, I did a little experimenting using the image of the game board:http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1501354/axis-allies-europe-1940?size=large from boardgamegeek and a pen and paper for Italy and it is very complicated. Maybe there is a solution such as turn based movement territory/zone by territory? I’d need to think that out.
I would definitely prefer an 8 player game. We’ve played several games of simultaneous Axis then Allies play for A&A Europe (1999 release). We play that the Axis is split between Germany as one player and Italy/Hungary/Finland as a second (Italian player may build in Germany or Italy and controls units starting in Italy, Africa, Finland, Yugoslavia, a portion in Greece, and Hungary). The casualty selection is generally very cordial, where the sides generally take turns from the lowest valued units up. The side that gets their marker on the territory is the one with the highest IPC value of units conquering the territory. If the situation arose where material was even and the colleagues couldn’t decide who takes possession, their opponents could decide (this never happened). This could be used in G40, but it may make sense to impose some type of restriction on cooperation (such as ‘wait 1 round’, ‘Russians/Germans select casualties’, etc.) both for balancing and historical reasons.
I really like this idea Black_Elk: have you tried this out and is it fun? I think it would make the unit buys more exciting: should the UK prepare against Operation Sea Lion or is Germany going all out for Russia? It would also enable naval sneak attacks as in the war (Pearl Harbor, etc.). A concern I have is that it might be a lot of pencil and paper work having everyone write out what units are attacking where and also complex figuring out who would remain in an attacked area - would non-combat units reinforce an attacked territory if they were specified to move into it? This could add a dynamic excitement; similar to how the Russians were sending tanks straight out of the factories to reinforce the front lines.
How would non-combat movement be handled? Would this be written out as well or would it be some kind of turn order? I could see ‘can opening’ or blitzing working as specified tanks, mechs, and aircraft held back from battle in preparation for a “blitz”. If the preceding battle fails and the route for the blitz is not open, the land units specified for the blitz would have to stay where they are and air units would have half their movement available for non-combat movement. I’m not sure if it would be better to just call out battles one by one in some kind of turn order, use pencil and paper, or some other solution. I’ll have to think about this: I’d be curious to know if this has been tried out and what the results were in terms of “fun factor”.
