Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Any good alternative setups?

House Rules

1.8k

J

jerry1138
last edited by

Hello :-D
A friend and I have been playing this game for a while now
He’s playing axis and I play allies and it’s usually lots of fun.
Though, we always seem to be using the same strategy, which is getting a bit boring.
Especially the Soviet Union isn’t really fun to play anymore because it’s just spamming infantry every turn until the other 2 allies can turn the tide.
Do you guys have any good different setups for the troops that it can be more fun to play with soviets but doesn’t break the balance of the game?

thx
Jerry1138
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
W

Witt Moderator 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12
last edited by

We are always trying different things.
How about swap six Far Eastern troops for an Armour, two Art and three Mech. You could also give the Russians 3 IPCs for each VP city it holds while at war.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
B

barney '17 '16 '15
last edited by

Here’s a link to some. Although these are made for triplea you can obviously play them on the board as well. You might want some custom ipc markers for the TTs with different values though. I’m in the process of revamping these so they have their own zips. You won’t need to replace the whole global zip that way.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35578.0

Here’s one that changes Russia’s NOs

Russian NOs.zip
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0

Featured Topics

League rules idea: mulligans for patrons

Guadalcanal Tournament at Strategicon (Los Angeles) Feb. 17, 2024

T-shirts, Hats, and More

global 1940

176

anniversary

1914

1942 2nd ed

tips&tricks

bm3

video

axis & allies

Suggested Topics

B

Global 1936 Alternate history scenario (Southern Victory series inspired)

House Rules
• • • ButterSurge

16

0
Votes

16
Posts

923
Views

S

@ButterSurge hello! I am a Global War 36 player, i am interested in trying this scenario out but, id like to limitations on when things happen. One of the things i like about global war is that the axis can attack and declare war as they please, which puts a fun spin it the game in my opinion. With that being said, have you done a test game without the set time declarations?
M

Axis and Allies Expanded Global Scenario + Alternate History Announcement

House Rules
• • • MonsieurMurdoch

1

0
Votes

1
Posts

306
Views

M

Hello everyone! I’m back after a long absence (forgot my password, forgot to reset my password, and had a bunch of other commitments) However, now with summer quickly approaching, I will be dedicating a lot more time to 2 of my biggest projects.

The first of these is the Axis and Allies Expanded Global scenario. Essentially, it is a sandbox, Game of Thrones scenario where there are no set alliances and nations may do as they please.

Additional nations I have included are Indonesia, Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), Eastern Commonwealth of Europe (ECE), Canada, and India. I have also strengthened the Chinese.

Nations will have the ability to sway neutral to their side, engage other nations in proxy wars, and form alliances with any power they wish.

Turn order is not permanent, for it is the nation with the lowest income that starts the round. Especially during wartime, incomes will always change as will the turn order.

With Neutral Nation, players may attempt to spend Influence to gather neutral parties to their cause. When a nation succeeds in placing 4 Influence chips, they will control that Neutral Nation as their own territory.

All new technology will also be present. I will be posting updates in the form of a storyboard, making this a massive creative endeavour.

The second project is the continuance and modifications to my Alternate History stories and rules, for which game updates will also be posted.

As the Expanded Global scenario is more complex (despite play testing being achieved) I will focus my attention first to a round of Alternate History.
J

G40 Benelux (Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg) Setup

House Rules
• • • JustLuthor

14

1
Votes

14
Posts

1.2k
Views

J

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but it’s been a crazy year.

I know that there is evidence of Dutch transports, and I’m not refuting that. I’m simply stating that the addition of a transport makes the new Dutch units too powerful on the game board, and grossly unbalances the game in favor of the Allies, which is a bad thing.

My solution, after play testing, is to give the Axis some units to balance it out, and I’ve edited my original post to reflect this.

@Caesar-Seriona said in G40 Benelux (Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg) Setup:

@JustLuthor:

@Herr:

I like the general idea though of course it would have to be carefully balanced. As for the units, I’m not much in favor of the tank in Scotland, for realism’s sake. The Dutch had one small tank at home. The Belgians did have a significant number of tanks but evacuating them to the UK was evidently impossible. Having two Benelux infantry units there is already more than enough compared to the French who were far more numerous.
Dutch New Guinea might have an infantry unit, though. Dutch resistance continued throughout the war there, and the Japanese never completely conquered that territory.

I can’t find it now, but in my research, I came across a Dutch tank unit raised in England after the fall of the Netherlands. For balance’s sake, maybe it should be 1 Artillery to represent Luxembourg’s limited contribution to the allied war effort. And maybe it should be only one infantry in England for both balance, and scale.

I couldn’t find any Dutch 1940 Order of Battle for Dutch New Guinea. I only found references to DNG being reinforced after Japan declared war. This is the best historical argument for a Dutch transport in the Pacific, though I still feel it should be up to ANZAC to ferry Dutch units around for balance’s sake, which is empirically more important than historical accuracy.

Another reason I don’t stress accuracy, is that it’s a slippery slope that eventually leads to completely revamping the game; not just the setup, but the map, and game mechanics as well. I would certainly like to do this for my own amusement, but it’s hard enough to get a game of Global going. I don’t want to compound that problem by creating an even more complicated game with 40-something countries, resources, trade agreements, diplomatic agreements, governments in exile, technology, a dozen new units, prison camps, espionage, sabotage, food rationing on the home front, and the Bretton Woods Conference.

Though I would totally play that game.

From my understanding of Luxembourg war effort against the Wehrmacht was the fact their nation did not have a military and only their capital city had some kind of defense and it was the cities police force that fought and surrendered (if I remember correctly) after a day of fighting. So as far as I know, no military campaign of any sort came from Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg government in exile did field a small artillery troop attached to the 1st Belgian Field Artillery Battery (specifically Troop C). They fought in Northern France, and Belgium.
A

[Anniversary] Alternate Setup: July 1942

House Rules
• • • Argothair

4

0
Votes

4
Posts

725
Views

C

This is a great alternative set up for 1942 anniversary game . Love the turn order and how the Americans right off the bat get action in the pacific theatre. I have played this set up twice and have seen the axis and allies both win a game. I can vouch for this scenario as I had a blast playing it. If you want more pieces and naval action quickly in the pacific then give this one a try.
A

Alternate Factory Rules (inspired by Halifax)

House Rules
• • • Argothair

15

0
Votes

15
Posts

4.0k
Views

F

Its one thing to increase the output of an industrial zone, quite another to build one from scratch. Even in the case of the USSR, the new factories established in the east were built largely from industrial base evacuated from western Russia. It would be authentic to allow the Soviets to transport a factory from say Ukraine to the Urals, but this would be very much the exception.

Major war materials were all built in home countries - it was more efficient for America to build tanks in Detroit and ship them overseas than to set up factories in Morocco or Norway.
Y

Small setup modification G40

House Rules
• • • Young Grasshopper

24

0
Votes

24
Posts

2.6k
Views

Y

Our group has decided to modify the NOs in order to help Italy get something going after Taranto… We are removing the 5 IPC bonus for control of all North Africa, and replacing it with…

5 IPCs if Italy has at least 1 land unit in Africa.
P

Alternate Global 1942 Setup

House Rules
• • • Peepette

1

0
Votes

1
Posts

1.1k
Views

P

Still testing.

Turn order is the same as the official 1942 setup:
USSR>Japan>USA>China>Germany>UKEurope/UKPacific>Italy>ANZAC>France

Japan still has all Kamikaze attacks available, All National Objectives included, Victory Conditions the same.

Soviet Union (26 IPCs):
Russia: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical, 2 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase
Novgorod: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, 1 Minor, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Volgograd: 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Mech., 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, 1 Minor
Karelia: 1 Infantry
Archangel: 2 Infantry
Vologda: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Tambov: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caucasus: 2 Infantry
Samara: 2 Infantry
Kazakhstan: 2 Infantry
Urals: 2 Mechs, 2 Tanks, 1 Strategic
Novosibirsk: 4 Infantry, 2 AAA
Timguska: 2 Infantry
Evenkiyskiy: 1 Infantry
Yenisey: 2 Infantry
Yakut S.S.R.: 6 Infantry
Buryatia: 2 Infantry
Sakha: 2 Infantry
Amur: 2 Infantry
Siberia: 2 Infantry
Soviet Far East: 2 Infantry
Northwest Persia: 1 Control Marker
Sea Zone 115: 1 Submarine, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 127: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer

Japan (54 IPCs):
Japan: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tacticals, 2 Strategics, 3 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Korea: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Okinawa: 1 Infantry
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Paulau Island: 1 Infantry
Formosa: 1 Fighter
Siam: 4 Infantry
Manchuria: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 AAA, 1 Control Marker
Jehol: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Shantung: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Anhwe: 4 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Kiangsu: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Kiangsi: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Kwangsi: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Yunnan: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Kwangtung: 2 Infantry, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Shan State: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Malaya: 1 Figther, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Borneo: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Gilbert Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Sumatra: 1 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Control Marker
Java: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Celebes: 1 Control Marker
Dutch New Guinea: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
New Guinea: 1 Control Marker
New Britain: 1 Control Marker
Solomon Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
French Indo China: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Philippines: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Guam: 1 Airbase, 1 Control Marker
Wake Island: 1 Airbase, 1 Control Marker
Sea Zone 6: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 19: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 20: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 24: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 33: 2 Submarines, 2 Destroyers, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 37: 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 45: 1 Battleship

United States (52 IPCs):
Eastern United States: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Central United States: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Mechs, 1 Tank, 1 Strategic, 1 Major
Western United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical, 2 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Alaska: 1 Infantry
Panama: 1 Infantry
Hawaiian Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Midway: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Airbase
Brazil: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
United Kingdom: 1 Strategic
Sea Zone 10: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 25: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 26: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 64: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 101: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser

China (10 IPCs):
Chahar: 2 Infantry
Hopei: 1 Infantry
Shensi: 4 Infantry
Kweichow: 1 Infantry
Hunan: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Szechwan: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery

Germany (58 IPCs):
Germany: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Strategics, 3 AAA, 1 Major
Western Germany: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 2 Tanks, 2 Fighters, 1 Tactical, 3 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Greater Southern Germany: 4 Infantry
Hungary: 2 Mechs, 2 Tanks
Romania: 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Poland: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Denmark: 1 Infantry
Norway: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA
Holland Belgium: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Finland: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Bulgaria: 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
France: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Minor, 1 Airbase, 1 Control Marker
Normandy Bordeaux: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Southern France: 1 Infantry, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Morocco: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Algeria: 1 Infantry: 1 Control Marker
French West Africa: 1 Control Marker
Yugoslavia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Baltic States: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Eastern Poland: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Bessarabia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Belarus: 4 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Western Ukraine: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Ukraine: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Tactical, 1 Minor, 1 Control Marker
Smolensk: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Bryansk: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Rostov: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Vyborg: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Libya: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Sea Zone 87: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 93: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 103: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 113: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 114: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 118: 2 Submarines, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 125: 2 Submarines

United Kingdom (Europe Economy, 37 IPCs):
United Kingdom: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech, 3 Fighters, 1 Strategic, 4 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Scotland: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Airbase
Gibraltar: 1 Fighter, 1 AAA, 1 Seabase
Iceland: 1 Airbase
Quebec: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Minor
New Brunswick Nova Scotia: 1 Seabase
Malta: 1 Infantry, 1 AAA
Alexandria: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech
Egypt: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Seabase
Anglo Egyptian Sudan: 1 Infantry
Union of South Africa: 2 Infantry, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase
Syria: 1 Control Marker
French Central Africa: 1 Control Marker
French Equatorial Africa: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
French Madagascar: 1 Control Marker
French Guiana: 1 Control Marker
Suriname: 1 Control Marker
Eire: 1 Control Marker
Persia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Eastern Persia: 1 Control Marker
Iraq: 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Tobruk: 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Ethiopia: 1 Control Marker
Italian Somaliland: 1 Control Marker
Sea Zone 71: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 79: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 91: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 98: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 106: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 110: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 111: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship

United Kingdom (Pacific Economy, 6 IPCs):
India: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Strategic, 3 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
West India: 1 Infantry
Burma: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 39: 1 Battleship

Italy (12 IPCs):
Southern Italy: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, 2 AAA, 1 Minor, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Northern Italy: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Strategic, 2 AAA, 1 Major
Sicily: 1 Infantry
Sardinia: 1 Infantry
Albania: 1 Tank
Libya: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech, 1 Tank
Greece: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Crete: 1 Tactical, 1 Control Marker
Tunisia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Yugoslavia: 2 Infantry
Bulgaria: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 94: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 95: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 96: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 97: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 99: 1 Destroyer

ANZAC (10 IPCs):
New South Wales: 2 Infantry, 2 AAA, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase
Queensland: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Northern Territory: 2 Infantry
Western Australia: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
New Zealand: 2 Infantry, 2 Fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
New Hebrides: 1 Control Marker
India: 1 Infantry
Tobruk: 2 Infantry
Sea Zone 54: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 62: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63: 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter

France (0 IPCs, capital occupied):
Syria: 1 Infantry
United Kingdom: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Gibraltar: 1 Infantry
Belgian Congo: 1 Infantry
Kenya: 1 Infantry
Tanganyika Territory: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 72: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 91: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 110: 1 Cruiser
B

Alternative to OOB aircrafts, destroyers and submarine warfare in G40 and 1942

House Rules
• • • baron Münchhausen

10

0
Votes

10
Posts

4.0k
Views

B

I finally found a different HR intended to fix Subs vs planes:
@deslock:

IMO, subs are too weak if they can’t be used as defending fodder (I know some other user agree as I read posts complaining about this). To illustrate, suppose USA approaches Japan with an invasion force and Japan strikes first:

Japan (attacker):
8 ftr
2 bmb

USA (defender):
2 CV
4 ftr
8 sub
2 dd
4 trn

The rules are fairly clear that in this battle the USA can’t choose to take subs as losses, which means Japan has a ~90% chance of victory (killing everything except for the subs). I’m contemplating a house rule that states:

Defending subs can be hit by any air/sea units regardless of whether or not an attacking DD is present. However, if no enemy DD is present, the subs may submerge before any rolling. If subs attack and no defending DD is present, then defending air units can’t hit subs (even when they’re on the surface).

(I believe that the last two sentences are how it already works, but I included them with the house rule for clarity)

This way subs’ current capabilities are preserved, but they can now be used as defending fodder. Does that seem reasonable to the more experienced players here or does it throw off the game mechanics? (I’ve only played AA50 a couple times)

And there is also this thread about how to limit the DDs vs Subs ratio (same problem):
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6367

34

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts