Japan & Soviet non-aggression pact in AAG1940.

These rules are part of the Axis & Allies 1940 Global 2E, House Rules Expansion.

These elite combat units bring a new dimension to the game, especially to the fighting on The Eastern Front.

Soviet Guards, Waffen-SS Infantry & Waffen-SS Panzer.pdf

I think the Mongolian rule should be changed. I can see an USSR player taking 30 ICP and just using it against Germany. Change it to any Soviet territory that becomes attacked by Japan, every single Mongolian territory has two infantry and joins USSR and each territory is worth 1 ICP which gets added to USSR.

That’s an interesting idea.  Indeed, the actual history justifies fighting for specific islands and this would help to reinforce that as well as promote action in the Pacific.  Something to ponder….

@barney:

yea I’m a little concerned this would boost the defensive values of fleets even more. I also added DK’s cruiser gets one AA shot which is another defensive bonus.
I wonder how much super subs would counter that? I’m trying not to tweak things price wise at the moment but I may eventually incorporate your entire cost structure.

Good explanation on the destroyers vs EC’s. Having a fighter that hits at 4 could be appealing though.

Good stuff Baron

If I introduced AAA Naval capacity at such low cost (Advanced Shipyard) it would be in a combined arms bonus and not for a single unit.
Maybe just up to 2 AAA preemptive shots against 2 planes when 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser are protecting a Fleet Carrier, and only this kind of unit, not any Escort Carrier.
Each have their specific mission, Fleet Carrier have a more consistent AA batteries and CAP (Carrier Air Patrol) while Escort Carrier groups were assign Anti-Sub Mission.
So, to get Naval AAA buy all the three warships: Battleship, Cruiser, Aircraft (Fleet) Carrier.
In counterpart, these costlier warships units would still be vulnerable against Subs while Escort Carriers and Destroyers will be vulnerable against planes but much able to defend against Submarines.

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

@Black_Elk:

Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

All this!  :-D

I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.
I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.

Here is the latest revision (yet to be tested) of my house rule set for E&W.
If anyone is familiar with the game and would like to test it, any feedback would be appreciated.
New to east & west? Check the Imp Games website, or ask me here on in a PM! :-)

=====

Round Zero

Breakthroughs:
Diplomacy -> shift China 1 step toward the USSR, or shift the other Neutral Alliances any combination of 2 steps towards the USSR
Technology -> USSR gains 2 full-steps at Submarines, or a total of 2 half-steps at any other technology trees
Counter-Intelligence -> the USSR may make 1 free attempt, which carries over to Round 1 if successful

Purchase Units: (choose one of the following options)
a) Spend up to 48 IPCs on naval units only. Any remaining IPCs cannot be saved for use in later rounds.
b) Save 24 IPCs

Combat Movement: (choose one of the following options)
a) Conduct combat movement using infantry, armor, and heavy armor only
b) Conduct combat movement using aircraft and naval units only

Resolve Combat:
The attack value of all aircraft and naval units is increased by 2, for Round Zero combat only.

Non-Combat Movement:
You may not move infantry, armor, or heavy armor in this phase.

Place Units:
Your Industrial Complexes can each produce 2 additional units, on Round Zero only.

Collect Income:
The USSR collects 48 IPCs at the end of Round Zero.

Breakthroughs

This phase replaces the Spying and Technology phases of the turn.
Each country can make a number of free Breakthrough rolls per turn, as follows:
• USSR: 3
• WE: 1
• UK: 1
• USA: 2

Each country may also purchase a number of additional Breakthrough rolls up to double their number of free attempts, each round on the Breakthrough phase of their turn. Free Breakthroughs may be rolled before deciding to purchase additional Breakthroughs; you may also purchase and then roll extra Breakthroughs one at a time, up to your country’s maximum. Each additional breakthrough roll costs the same number of IPCs as an infantry; 2 for the USSR or 3 for NATO countries.

On a Breakthrough roll of 1, you may choose to gain either a Diplomatic Breakthrough with a Neutral Alliance, or a full-step in any technology tree. On a Breakthrough roll of 2, you may choose to gain either a Diplomatic Breakthrough with a Minor Neutral, or a half-step in any technology tree. You cannot gain more than one full-step in each technology tree on a single Breakthrough phase; Neutral Alliances can be influenced a maximum 1 step on each Breakthrough phase.

Faction-specific Breakthrough Rules:
The USSR may make 1 free Counter-Intelligence roll during their Breakthrough phase; a roll of 1 or 2 foils a NATO Breakthrough roll of 1 or 2 (respectively) on that round only. The USSR may choose which Breakthrough roll to affect with their Counter-Intelligence roll, however successful rolls do not carry over to later rounds if saved and not used. The USSR may purchase up to 2 additional Counter-Intelligence rolls on their Breakthrough phase, for 2 IPCs each.

When a NATO country uses a Breakthrough roll of 1 to gain a technology, they may choose to grant any other NATO countries (who are at the same point or lower down on that technology tree) a free half-step in that tree.

Optional Rules:
• NATO countries cannot gain the benefit of shared advancement in the Nuclear Weapons technology tree.
• The USSR may influence China using a Breakthrough roll of 2.

I have seen many Axis won games where the Axis won by the skin-of-their-teeth. If those games went on a couple of more rounds, it would have surely turned into an Allied victory.
For example, I have seen this happen: Germany takes over Russia gaining Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. They already have Berlin, Warsaw and Paris, plus Italy has Rome. There is 7 of the 8 VCs they need to win on the Europe board.
While Germany was fighting in Russia and Italy was dealing with the British in the Med, the US fleet stomps the Japanese fleet and has them cornered on Japan. The US also builds up a HUGE invasion force in the Atlantic. They move it to SZ 91 off of Gibraltar. That same turn, Italy finally manages to grab Cairo from the Brits –- VC #8 — and puts a single destroyer blocker in SZ 92.
See, the Allies are screwed. That big US invasion force could easily take Rome, but the US fleet has to stop in SZ 92 to smash that 1 Italian destroyer. Therefore they can’t get to Rome, or Cairo. From SZ 91, even with the Gibraltar Naval Base, there is no other European VC that is under Axis control that they can get to. They could invade W. Germany, but while that would hurt the German effort, there is no VC there. Both Berlin and Paris are 1 more turn away. At the beginning of Italy’s turn, the Axis win.
Berlin, Rome and Paris could all be totally undefended, but since the Axis captured their 8th VC and held it for one full round, they win. In a way, this kind of sucks but that’s the rules. I guess it is designed to make the Allied players think harder about their defence of VCs. Perhaps go all out on that critical 8th VC to keep it from the Axis an any cost, whether it be Cairo, Moscow or even London.

Another way to consider this is the BOTB/D-DAY style models, were units can occupy the same territory.  With one round of ensuing combat.

If units become totally encircled… they can’t move and operate poorly.

Hi
The link to the wargamer seems to be dead.
Does anyone has a working link for the combination of Europe and Pacific?
Thanks