Who wants Roundels like AAA Europe/Pacific 1940 ?

@Rosco

Hello Rosco and welcome.
As mentilned by barnee and The Captain, the Expansion house rule sets woild be the perfect match for you. It allows you to buy both units once jet fighter become available.
I play the Expansion rule set for over a year now and can highly recommend it! I can’t go back to the standard G40 anymore. :-)

On firdt sight the rulebook may be overwhelming, but after 2-3 rounds of 1 game the rules and gameplay become natural and opens whole new universe of options and fun.

I would be glad to play a game of this ruleset against you to give you a taste of this awesome game.

Feel free to contact me if you are up for a game.

Br

Active Nations:

USSR: 45 IPCs
Would include all starting USSR territories, plus the following:
Germany, Poland, Slovakia Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania

Western Europe (WE) : 23 IPCs

Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola, Mozambique Holland Belgium, Suriname, Belgian Congo Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia Turkey, Greece, Crete

So in E&W, a bit ahistorically (as the game is set in 1948) Greece and Turkey are part of WE, despite not joining NATO until 1952. For now I’m lumping them in here, but my other preference would be to have them as strict neutrals – more on that later.

Also in E&W, Greenland and Iceland are treated as US territories; since both are worth 0 IPCs on the Europe 1940 map, the only real important distinction is whether they are hostile or friendly, so I wanted to include them under WE instead.

UK: 31 IPCs
gains the following territories:
Italian Somaliland, Tobruk, Libya, Western Germany

UK loses Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Alexandria to the Arab League UK loses Iceland to WE

US: 38 IPCs
gains the following territories:
Greater Southern Germany

US loses Southeast Mexico to the OAS US loses Greenland to WE

Neutral Powers:

France (pro-NATO) : 16 IPCs

France loses Syria to the Arab League

What I’m proposing for France would be sort of a hybrid rule between the activation rules for pro-neutrals, and a house rule I proposed for China, in E&W.

Essentially how this works is that France would contribute income to WE, based on the IPC value of French territories containing NATO troops (WE, UK, or US) at the end of Western Europe’s turn. If France is attacked by the USSR, all French units and territories would convert to WE ownership.

The reason for doing this is primarily to keep France as part of NATO, without making WE so huge economically that they don’t need any help. Also, by weakening NATO a little bit in this way, I’m hoping to avoid needing to use the E&W rule whereby USSR gets infantry for 2 IPCs instead of 3 IPCs.

Organization of American States (OAS) : 9 IPCs
(Essentially, all of the neutral South American countries except Suriname, plus Southeast Mexico)
If the OAS is attacked by the USSR, all OAS units and territories would convert to US ownership.

Arab League: 8 IPCs
(Alexandria, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia)
If the Arab League is attacked by the USSR, all Arab units and territories would convert to UK ownership.

…
So, in addition to possibly including a diplomacy mechanism similar to classic E&W, I was wanting to incorporate one of the house rules I had suggested for E&W and apply it to this scenario:

All remaining neutrals are considered “strict neutrals”
However:

The USSR may attack any neutral at any time. If the USSR attacks a strict neutral, rather than having ALL strict neutrals side with NATO (as in classic Europe 1940) instead NATO gets to shift either the OAS or Arab League one step on the diplomacy scale.

Now, if Greece and Turkey are kept as strict neutrals, rather than being part of WE, this rule could potentially have large consequences if/when the USSR chooses to attack them.

I was thinking instead of the classic E&W diplomacy scale, it’d make more sense to have it like -8/-6/-4/-2/0/+2/+4/+6/+8

Strict Neutrals:
Probably a good “hard and fast” rule would be that if attacked by the USSR, strict neutrals in Europe would join WE, while strict neutrals in Africa or the middle east would join UK; Rio De Oro would be considered part of Spain, for these purposes. If Turkey is neutral…? I’d probably consider them part of the middle east.

Europe: Eire, Spain / Rio De Oro, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland Africa: Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ethiopia Middle East: Northwest Persia, Persia, Eastern Persia, Afghanistan

What this all means:

Starting Income:
USSR: 45
NATO: 92

Maximum potential income, including neutrals:
USSR (plus Arab League, OAS*, and all strict neutrals) : 71
WE (plus France, and all strict neutrals in Europe) : 46
UK (plus Arab League, and all strict neutrals in Africa + Middle East) : 42
US (plus OAS*) : 46

*Assumes OAS income is capped at 8 rather than 9

Hi everyone,
I know it has been discussed already but i found it difficult to find the information i am looking for.

I would like to know how big of an impact AAA/ AA would have in the game if they could fire at bombers during a strategic bombing raid.
What would be a good ‘‘rate of fire’’? 1 shot per AAA no matter how many bombers are attacking or the usual rule for defending (3 shots per AAA up to a maximum of 1 shot fired per attacking plane)?
Would it make it a bit more risky or would it make bombing raid simply suicidal?

If i decide to go for transports defending on 1 it is better to keep the chosen last rules? I mean someone cheezy could very well get 1-2 empty transports for the ride just to ‘‘soak up’’ wounds correct?

Thank you for any useful input.

@Caesar:

I’d rather do the dog fight rule, it makes a lot more sense.

Yes that’s what I meant by combat.

Interesting and working I believe.
Did you also think about reducing Major to minor if IC is conquered?
When liberated, IC remains at the same level.

Thousands of Russian POWs joined the Germans during the war. Should be a house rule for that.

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:

On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?

They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.

Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…

Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot.  Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry.  The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)