Possible Changes from Larry

[Funcioneta]

Don’t worry, somebody will try still ignore Japan  :-D

[RedHunter]

I have to say that I like some of the changes and not some of the others. At first I thought they were making the allies stronger(which is not needed) but I like the changes to the USA NO. I don’t think it really stops the USA from going germany first though 15 ipc isn’t a huge loss.

[gsh34]

@Funcioneta:

Don’t worry, somebody will try still ignore Japan  :-D

I love it because it is true!!!

[gsh34]

@Larry:

**I see a slightly reinforced UK in both the Eur40 game and the Global game.  I’d like to keep the sealion attack possible – if you want those kinds of kicks, but I’d also like to give the UK player a more interesting experience.  I’m looking for a new UK setup that will make Sealion less tempting for Germany. At the same time I want to maintain that exciting possibility.  I’m thinking of adding another French infantry and perhaps another Brit infantry to the UK’s setup. I’m also considering allowing a very special rule uniquely for Great Britain. British Government in exile. The UK’s capital is automatically transferred to Canada should the UK fall to a Sealion.  The Germans would still gain the British unspent IPCs but the British player can remain in the game directing his remaining forces.  I also want to pay a tribute to the ANZAC forces by adding another ANZAC infantry to Egypt.  I also want to add another to New South Wales.

Sincerely,
Larry Harris
Creator of Axis & Allies**

I think this change is one that needs to be play tested very thoroughly before we are gung-ho about implementing this.

If the UK is going to get two more infantry, that makes Sealion statistically much harder to do.  It is very costly to do even now because of the very heavy naval build that it requires Germany to do.  By allowing UK Europe to effectively remain in the game by collecting income and build in Canada, you have vastly reduced the incentive for Germany to even do Sealion in the first place!  A large part of the incentive for the current Sealion attack is that you deprive the Allies of the UK Europe money for a number of rounds.  Without that incentive, would an even harder Sealion attack be worth it?

[molinar13]

@RedHunter:

I have to say that I like some of the changes and not some of the others. At first I thought they were making the allies stronger(which is not needed) but I like the changes to the USA NO. I don’t think it really stops the USA from going germany first though 15 ipc isn’t a huge loss.

True but that is still one less fully loaded transport or bomber headed to Europe.

[RedHunter]

You can bomb from greenland I believe.

[lnmajor]

Alantic ocean needs to be BIGGER

[RedHunter]

@molinar13:

@RedHunter:

I have to say that I like some of the changes and not some of the others. At first I thought they were making the allies stronger(which is not needed) but I like the changes to the USA NO. I don’t think it really stops the USA from going germany first though 15 ipc isn’t a huge loss.

True but that is still one less fully loaded transport or bomber headed to Europe.

This is true however I don’t think its enough to make a difference IMO.

[questioneer]

@gsh34:

@Larry:

**I see a slightly reinforced UK in both the Eur40 game and the Global game.  I’d like to keep the sealion attack possible – if you want those kinds of kicks, but I’d also like to give the UK player a more interesting experience.  I’m looking for a new UK setup that will make Sealion less tempting for Germany. At the same time I want to maintain that exciting possibility.  I’m thinking of adding another French infantry and perhaps another Brit infantry to the UK’s setup. I’m also considering allowing a very special rule uniquely for Great Britain. British Government in exile. The UK’s capital is automatically transferred to Canada should the UK fall to a Sealion.  The Germans would still gain the British unspent IPCs but the British player can remain in the game directing his remaining forces.  I also want to pay a tribute to the ANZAC forces by adding another ANZAC infantry to Egypt.  I also want to add another to New South Wales.

Sincerely,
Larry Harris
Creator of Axis & Allies**

I think this change is one that needs to be play tested very thoroughly before we are gung-ho about implementing this.

If the UK is going to get two more infantry, that makes Sealion statistically much harder to do.  It is very costly to do even now because of the very heavy naval build that it requires Germany to do.  By allowing UK Europe to effectively remain in the game by collecting income and build in Canada, you have vastly reduced the incentive for Germany to even do Sealion in the first place!  A large part of the incentive for the current Sealion attack is that you deprive the Allies of the UK Europe money for a number of rounds.  Without that incentive, would an even harder Sealion attack be worth it?

With the US being forced into the Pacific with some units, I don’t think this will make much difference.  You will definitely see less effort in Europe by the US with these changes.  By the way, it only brings G3 Sealion closer to 50-60% chance of winning, G4 is still unstoppable.  So I say…Go Canada!!!

Definitely need to beef up the Italian navy though.

[RedHunter]

My friend when the dice betray you nothing is unstopable lol.

[kcdzim]

@questioneer:

With the US being forced into the Pacific with some units, I don’t think this will make much difference.  You will definitely see less effort in Europe by the US with these changes.  By the way, it only brings G3 Sealion closer to 50-60% chance of winning, G4 is still unstoppable.  So I say…Go Canada!!!

Definitely need to beef up the Italian navy though.

Yes, but a G4 sealion is pretty late isn’t it?  It leaves Germany out of position with russia breathing down their neck.  And at only 50-60% chance of a win, who will ever perform the sealion on G3?  I don’t know about you, but I’m loathe to make an all-in attack that I can’t retreat from if something goes wrong in the first round of combat.  And since it doesn’t guarantee a win, now it seems even more risky as the payoff has never guaranteed itself to deliver.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I’m interested in the Japanese attempts to get “their” victory cities.  Admittedly most of my games are played with global domination in mind.  Eliminate your ability to fight then figure out where the Axis victory cities are lol.

The minor IC thing.  Japan having to defend too many territories in SE Asia rather sucks for the Axis.  Then again limiting that Norway American major factory helps.

[fanofbond]

I wonder about the major ic thing because japan starts with Chinese labeled territories  and of japan can’t build a major ic the. It will severly limit their capability to wage war. If their isn’t an exception for japan because their starting in that territory would make it on of their starting territories.  I’m courious to see how that will be done

[chompers]

These changes are awesome.  Gonna get to work on testing them out sometime this week.

[oztea]

A summary in a more “rules changed” format. “some” minor comments from myself at the end.
Axis and Allies 1940 Rules Changes

Game Play Mechanics

1. AA Guns are no longer captured; they are removed from play after the territory is captured.
2. Submarines no longer fire a special “sneak attack” shot at unescorted transports.
3. Major industrial complexes can no longer be built on foreign territories. Likewise they may no longer be upgraded when captured. The original owner of the territory may upgrade it if the territory is recaptured

Political Changes

1. Politically, the Soviet Union is at considered at war on only the Pacific board only if it is at war with Japan, and at war on the Europe board only if it is at war with Germany and Italy.
2. In the event London is captured, on the following United Kingdom turn the new United Kingdom capital becomes Ottawa. When operating from Ottawa, the United Kingdom does not collect national objective bonuses. In the event London is liberated, the United Kingdom capital returns there automatically.

Victory Conditions
The game now ends immediately after one of the following occurs

1. Victory for the Allies if: All Axis capitals are under allied control.
2. Victory for the Axis if: Japan controls 7 of the 8 Victory cities on the Pacific board.
3. Victory for the Axis if: Germany and Italy control 8 of the 11 victory cities on the Europe board.

Changes to National Objectives
Germany

1. The bonus for a German land unit in Egypt is now valued at +5 IPCs rather than +3 IPCs in both Global and Europe

Soviet Union

1. The bonus for control of Archangel is now achieved only when the USSR is at war with the European Axis Powers.
2. The bonus for control of German territory is now valued at +3 IPCs per territory, rather than +5.
3. The Soviet Union is now rewarded a “one time only” national objective bonus of 10 IPCs if Japan declares war on the Soviet Union.

Japan

1. Japan receives a 10 IPC national objective as long as it has not declared war on any allied powers other than the Soviet Union.
2. Japan receives a 10 IPC national objective bonus for control of 5 of the 7 following territories. Midway, Wake, Marinaras, Iwo Jima, Caroline, Solomon Islands and Guam.
3. Japan is now rewarded a “one time only” national objective bonus of 10 IPCs if the Soviet Union declares war on Japan.

United Kingdom

1. The United Kingdom “no German submarines” national objective is only violated by German subs outside of sea zones 113, 114, 115 and 100. Submarines on the Pacific board do not violate this National Objecitve.
2. The United Kingdom’s “all original territory” national objective is replaced with the following two.
    5 IPCs for control of all United Kingdom territories in Africa and Europe
    5 IPCs for control of all United Kingdom territories in Asia and North America

United States

1. The United States “wartime economy” national objective instead rewards 20 IPCs for control of Eastern, Central, and Western United States. This also includes Mexico and Southeast Mexico. This bonus is only achieved when at war with the Axis.
2. The United States receives a 10 IPC national objective bonus for control of 5 of the 7 following territories. Midway, Wake, Marinaras, Iwo Jima, Caroline, Solomon Islands and Guam. This bonus is only achieved when at war with the Axis
3. The United States has three new national objectives achievable only after at war with the Axis.
    5 IPCs for control of The Philippines and Guam
    5 IPCs for control of Central America, Line Islands and Johnston Island.
    5 IPCs for control of Hawaii, Alaska, Wake, Midway, and the Aleutian Islands

Changes to Setup
The changes to the European game board are reflected in additions only. Changes to the Pacific board are come in the form of the Alpha Setup

Europe
Germany
+1 Fighter – Poland *
United Kingdom
+1 Infantry – United Kingdom
ANZAC
+1 Infantry – Egypt
Italy
+1 Sub – Sea Zone 97 **
+1 Sub – Sea Zone 95 **
France
+1 Infantry – United Kingdom

Alpha Setup
China
Szechwan - 5 Infantry and one fighter
Hunan - 2 Infantry
Yunnan - 4 Infantry
Kweichow - 2 Infantry
Shensi - 1 Infantry
Suiyuyan - 2 Infantry
ANZAC
Malaya - 1 Infantry
New South Wales - 2 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser
United Kingdom (India)
Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
United States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport
Japan
Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers
Palau Island - 1 Infantry
Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Formosa - 1 Fighter
Shantung - 2 Infantry
Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
Siam - 2 Infantry
Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
Korea - 4 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Soviet Union
Amur - 6 Infantry
Sakha - 6 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Mechanized Infantry*** AA Gun
Buryatia - 3 Infantry
Siberia - 3 Infantry

Notes -  I only went over Larry’s head 3 times. To tweak some problem areas. No one would argue that these additions are TOO much, but some might say they are too little. I implore you to accept this as a compromise. No major additions, only addressing the issues with a light touch.

• People have been demanding a stronger Luftwaffe, a plane here cant affect any battle other than France or Yugoslavia. With so much given to the allies, it is a fair concession.
  ** Likewise, the demise of the Italian fleet comes so swiftly that they cant often recover. An additional two subs adds a small amount of staying power. Taranto can still go on, but the Italians are a little less bad off.
  *** A fair addition considering what is stationed in Manchuria in the Alpha setup, by no means is this an “attack” force. But some reflection of the mobility of the far east divisions.
  Oztea – 11/16/10

[Weezer 410]

Overall I like this new set of rules, it makes the game more historically accurate and will change many strategies.

This i what I noticed:
-Japan is much stronger in this version
-Russia and U.S. are slightly weaker
-UK and Germany are slightly stronger
-very rarely will Russia or japan attack each other early on
-A Yugo minor will become standard
-Russia will most likely pull a lot of its infantry back to Moscow from the east
-The US will have a more balanced approach to the war
-Japan will be more Aggresive against the U.S.
-Sealion will be scrapped in most games in favor of heavy Barbarossa

[SgtBlitz]

Just a few thoughts, peoples.

Jesus, what a lot of changes…  Italy, 1 sub to BOTH SZ 95 and 97 instead of 2 SS in SZ 95 tho?..  WAAAH, I want my battleship as Italy!  1 sub is NOT going to deter the UK!  Put both those subs in SZ 95, I could care less about SZ 97; those units never do sh*t in the counterattack I1 for me anyway.

NOs, holy crap, what a mess.  Do the original NOs still count in most of these cases?  Japan can now get up to +25 a turn if they also control most of the Pacific now…  US kinda HAS to go after the Pacific too to get its +30 now too, I like it.  Still, the 70+ IPCs the US has a turn to throw at Europe, bummer.  Probably still needs a nerf.

Also, no building major ICs on FOREIGN territories…  Japan starts out with Kiangsu, no major IC there, since its original owner is China?  Can we get a clarification on this?  How in hell is Japan supposed to reinforce S. E. Asia without a major IC somewhere (3 minors, maybe, that cost more and are less effective?  FIC, Kiangsu, Manchuria, Malaya, Shantung?  Ugh…  Oh boy let’s build a Major IC in Korea… oh wait lets not.)?  It already is bad enough with not being able to raise new units on the money islands.

UK in exile rule, well, that REALLY throws the Axis from attempting a Sealion.  Wow, instead of risking 3 turns of production PLUS France’s captured IPCs to GAMBLE on POSSIBLY removing 30+ IPCs from the game board PERMANENTLY, FOR THE REST OF THE GAME (which is STILL a gamble with the US counterattacking), we now have a UK rump state in Canada which can still produce units under the benevolent 70+ US IPC GOD umbrella, not to mention them still causing a hassle for Italy from units produced in S. Africa.  NO THANKS.  “Sealion will be scrapped most games in favor of heavy Barbarossa”?  Really?  Hell, only an idiot would try Sealion now.  UK’s new strategy may be to PROVOKE a Sealion attack since they know it barely scratches them in the long term (oh big whup, Germany risks 100+ IPCs and irreplaceable starting units to take 30-40 UK IPCs and jolly old Britain is STILL producing 20-25 IPCs 2 turns later on from Ottawa.  Woohoo let’s start the 10 TRN build on G2!  Any takers, I’ll play Allies.  :-D  At least the new Nenetsia strategy against Russia will work still, so Germany still has a reason to build some transports…)  PEOPLE, COME ON!  You just gave the US a NEW +20-25 NO for LOSING the UNITED KINGDOM now!

Boooo, to the new UK capital capture rule.  Also, let’s touch on the True Neutrals a bit.  How about “Attacking any True Neutral causes other True Neutral Countries IN THE SAME CONTINENT (or Region) to become Pro-other side”?  Like Germany declaring war on Spain, Turkey, and Sweden is going to make Argentina BEG for Allied assistance to keep them from falling to the heathen Japs (not to mention recruit for FREE their entire standing army)?  Maybe we can make attacking Turkey lets both Saudi Arabia and Afganistan become Pro-other-side as a special case (WWII Islamic country bloc?), maybe attacking Spain causes only Sweden and Switzerland to become Pro-other-side.  Sounds like those would be good changes to me…

Thanks for your time, hope some of these ideas will be reconsidered.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Ugh. Royal Navy already dies, according to your changes all of Italy’s fleet survives to capture Africa, and you complain that the UK be given the chance to do something when London is captured, especially since it is impossible to prevent London’s capture?

[Navybrat]

Thank God for the AA Gun rule change.  That drove me nuts!!!  Nobody would abandon a fully functional gun as  gift for the enemy.  Occasionaly I will buy an extra AA gun to move to the front- especally if an opponent goes Lufftwaffe crazy on me.  Thank you Larry!

[SgtBlitz]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Ugh. Royal Navy already dies, according to your changes all of Italy’s fleet survives to capture Africa, and you complain that the UK be given the chance to do something when London is captured, especially since it is impossible to prevent London’s capture?

What are you taking about?  They just beefed up London’s defense by 2 infantry, and gave them another +5 NO for at least UK1, if not UK2, with the new “+10 for Japs not at war” NO.  That’s at least another fighter the UK can build there to defend with.  Germany will still have to pay up the wazoo to build all the transports, AND defend them against the US, and all they got was a fighter in return (which is nice, but some way to hit Gibraltar’s NB or SZ 91 would have been better).  The USSR will be attacking like nobody’s business whenever Germany tries Sealion, and the US can still swing its Pacific fleet around at the drop of a hat to the Caribbean.  Sealion is still incredibly risky even WITHOUT the alternate capital rule.  Basically, it seems that the UK can act as two free planes + change a turn after Turn 4 for the US.

So, if Britain is able to do a rump state, why can’t Soviet Russia form one behind the Urals after Moscow falls?  Why doesn’t Germany form a new capital based in S. or W. Germany after it falls?  How is risking transports to take England on G3 or perhaps G4 ANY DIFFERENT from crushing Moscow on G6 or G7?  The capital rules NEED TO STAND, if nothing else than to give the game solid objectives and REASONS for people RISKING IPCs on various units.  Otherwise this game just becomes a big Yahtzee Infantry Push Mechanic, where we can see who can roll the most 1s or 2s defending their stacks.  UK falling on G3 is NOT the end of the game, calvin (well, maybe in E40, but not in Global).  You need to see it as an OPPORTUNITY for BOTH sides, rather than THE END.