Just for Fun: The Ultimate A&A

i personally like the way oil is done in A World at War.  I have added it in house rules where you need a certain amount of oil in order to do certain activites.

@Xandax:

Larger maps would be nice - yes, even if that means I can no longer fit it on my table. Larger maps provide more chance for strategy.
Also - Key cities being it’s own square fits into the larger map thingy.
Also - all other things equal - I’d like to see some larger focus on splitting the US income  :evil:

What I’d really like to see ….  :evil:  :evil: … is differentiated firepower, purchasing and so on. So - USSR can buy cheap infantry, but the infantry is lesser quality. Germany’s tanks are more expensive, but also better.
Basically - started playing for example Tides of Iron. A mixture of such a game and A&A … yum. I want. :o

I don’t know, I think this Global map is too big, there needs to be more spaces, smaller pieces, and a smaller board.  This is because we are playing a board game.  It’s 3D, involves dice and other players.  If we make the board any bigger, its going to become too cumbersome for average players to set it up and play–I bet some people play Global on the floor because they don’t have room for it.

If you want a game with a huge map and a WW2 flavor, try Hearts of Iron.  The new HoI3 even has a land province named Iowa City!!!  That’s freaking AWESOME!  On a computer you can have these massive maps, but on my kitchen table I need something that can be set up in under an hour.

I don’t want to be missing elements from previous games in my curent one. Global should incorporate everything good from past versions.

What I would like to see most of all out of all these, is differing terrain types. Loads of cool ideas here:

Mountains - No Tanks, Mechanised Infantry (but Infantry get a bonus to Defence)

Swamps - Infantry only

Deserts - All units get a reduction in Attack/Defence?

etc

I’d like to see things like light and heavy tank.

Let’s make europe larger and africa smaller! There’s no substantial fighting/movement south of the sahara! loose the wasted space!

I would further applaud the VC’s as a territory!

Also a rule change may be an idea: only major IC’s in VC’s territory and lose the no-major-ic in former enemy territory rule (-> this rule was designed for the US major in norway flaw anyway)

I hesitate to vote for a larger map.  On one hand, it would be great to have the extra space for combat units (less chip stacking is cool with me).  Another idea to go with a larger map is to have blow-up boxes around the edges for certain territories – like the tiny islands in the Pacific or some of the smaller territories in Europe.  Along with that is the idea of a separate territory for the Victory Cities.  Those could also be in blow-up boxes.
On the other hand, the current Global 1940 map already fills my game table.  I think it will be hard to find an even bigger table.  Mine is about 6 feet long by 30 inches wide.  My Global 1940 map already hangs over the edge a couple of inches.
I am cool with National Advantages as an optional ruleset.  My group kind of likes our games to be a little simpler, and we tried NAs before.  There was so much to remember.  I guess if we used them often enough, we would start to remember them like second nature.
I like the terrain ideas.  We already have 3 areas that are simply treated as impassible :  The Sahara (desert), the Pripet Marshes (swamp) and the Himalayas (mountains).  Maybe these areas could have new rules where they can be crossed or even fought in, but with a decrease in each unit’s abilities. 
I don’t think China or Western Russia needs more territories.  As for Western Russia, if Russia puts 1 infantry in each territory to prevent blitzing, it will take Germany 4 rounds just to get to Moscow no matter which route he takes.  As for China, perhaps make some of the inner territories mountanous if you want to slow Japan down.  So they can’t go in with tanks or mechs, only with Inf and Art with planes for support.  Plus, like you mentioned, defending infantry would get a boost in defense, and perhaps planes could be less effective attacking troops in the mountains.

One more thing I wanted to mention.  I absolutely disagree with any rule that forces United States to split their income.  In just about every game of Global we have played, the only time that the Allies really have a chance at winning is when US is allowed to go with the majority of it’s income in one theater or the other.  I know a lot of people say that is not historically accurate and still others say it is unfair to the Axis.  Of course, a lot of people are saying that even with the Alpha+2 setup, the game still favors the Allies.  My group has played 10 games of Global to date.  So far, we have 7 Axis wins to 3 Allied wins.  There have been varying setups:  2 OOB, 1 Alpha, 1 Alpha+, 1 Alpha+1 and the last 5 Alpha+2.  Under the Alpha+2 setup, it has been 3 Axis wins and 2 Allied wins.
In all these games, whenever the US tries splitting their forces in both theaters, they just don’t seem to have enough to make an impact in each theater and the Axis overpower them on both fronts.  However, when the US is allowed to spend the majority of their income in one theater, the Allies have a much better chance at winning.  Either they can pound Japan sufficiently to at least neutralize them enough for ANZAC and India to handle what’s left and get over to Europe before Russia totally falls to Germany.  OR, they can take Italy out, get a foothold in Europe and leave Germany with the dreaded 2-front war.  With any luck, Germany will end up falling before Japan can get all 6 VCs in the Pacific.
Granted, this is still taking a chance.  If US goes all against Japan, and Germany’s luck is good and/or Russia’s luck is bad, the Axis could win the war in Europe.  If US goes all Europe, then Japan can run amok in the Pacific and SE Asia and could win the war for the Axis.  So even US going all out in one theater or the other is not a sure thing, but I still think it’s a better chance for the Allies.
One mistake our USA player often makes is deciding to go all in one theater, let’s say Pacific, then something will happen, like London falling, and he will switch gears and go all Atlantic.  This gives Japan a chance to rebound and the US forces end up getting destroyed piecemeal because there isn’t enough to face each Axis.

I’d love some terrain feature (probably not excluding units, because that would be game-changing, but it could make some units weaker/stronger in certain terrain), some form of Vichy/Free France (with it partially dictated by German choice, so it isn’t just a recreation of history), some reason for there to actually be a Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact (possibly more Soviet Far East territories, some being worth 0, and terrain to make tanks unable to blitz (it’s cold!)), increased movement within certain controlled territories (railroads, etc. - that could help with the previous thing, because Russia could ship troops east if needed, and would help reflect Germany having to shift troops around), and a different technology system that would reflect nations needing to invest in certain technology (e.g. British radar, German rockets) (it would take multiple turns, still luck based, but things that would indicate a need for it would make it more likely (e.g. bombing making radar easier)).

Having VCs be separate territories could be cool, as could a larger map, but those things wouldn’t be as game-changing.

I don’t like split income in general but if it’s kept split US income would be good.  I’d prefer, though, something like having regional centers for each power that have separate IPCs (DC/Los Angeles, London/Cairo/Calcutta/Ottowa/Cape Town (and possibly putting ANZAC back in the UK with Sydney - I don’t like mini-nations), etc.) - basically territories contribute IPCs to a certain territory, maybe it would be determined by factories so players could choose a bit, and there would be ways to ship IPCs around but then convoy raiding would come in.  Maybe there would have to be a slight loss of IPCs if shipping them elsewhere, to make it more economical for the US to have to build on both sides than to just ship IPCs across the country without risk of them being raided.  To knp7765: yeah, the US currently basically needs to focus income on one theater.  However, this is a wishlist, and hopefully there can one day be a version that is balanced for the US to split its income.

(This was inspired by Boyardee’s post.)  Having more diversification between land units could be nice, particularly with light and heavy tanks.  Having a way to upgrade infantry to become mechanized would be nice, as well.

Adding oil as a resource could be interesting, but I prefer having the single IPC resource and having oil represented by territory value.

Finally - each neutral country should have conditions to be met to allow it to lean towards each side (e.g. Finland wants  Germany to attack Russia, Spain wants the Axis to be dominating, etc.).  Maybe some would just require a one-time IPC gift.  It would be something that could make each neutral nation more unique and it adds historical accuracy.

Add the A-Bomb ability to the main 5 nations. USA, Germany, UK, USSR and Japan.  Anyone remember that the Germans had the first heavy water plant a key step in making the A-Bomb.  Now some rules.  If you drop one it cost you 50 IPCs.
Purchase a A-Bomb will cost 25 IPCs.  Neither you or the enemy can occupy the land for two whole turns afterwards.
Dice throw 2 x 6 dice 6 thru 12 a direct hit, everything on the territory is destroyed,  6 to 1 a dud bomb. Costs for a A-bomb must be high to prevent MAD Mutual Assured Destruction. German’s have a launch and delivery platform if they develop the V-2 Rocket.  Everyone else must have Heavy Bombers for a delivery platform. A bomber carrying a A-bomb can be attacked and destroyed fairly easy, so I suggest a fighter escort is a must.

and the bomber must survive 1 round of combat!

I didn’t t waiting Larry or another manufactuer to get an Ultimate A&A.
16 years ago I do my own and updated with new thing year after year. 
Most of the idea are already available in my game.

I think you should look on the variant and house rule forms on the first 7 pages. You should especially look at my ones and the WW1 game ;)

Sure I will… :-D

Many of the ideas in this thread are incorporated into my rules set.

National advantages. Each nation is unique. The Soviets receive more manpower points than any two other nations combined, allowing them to field substantially larger infantry forces than can any other nation. However, Soviet infantry receive a modest penalty to combat effectiveness.

Japan starts the game with a bonus to the effectiveness of its torpedo bombers, because Kates were very good planes. The Soviets’ Ilyushin Il-2 tech means its dive bombers are harder to shoot down than anyone else’s. The Germans are able to advance farther than any other nation in rocket and jet technology, though available British advances in jet technology are nothing to sneeze at!

Light and heavy tank. This rules set incorporates four different classes of tanks: light tanks, medium tanks, battle tanks, and heavy tanks. The game starts off with China unable to build tanks, Japan able to build light tanks, and the Soviets, Germans, British, and Americans able to build medium tanks. Soviet medium tanks are somewhat harder to kill than the others because they had the T-34. It is possible to upgrade the quality of one’s tanks over the course of the game. For example, a level 5 light tank has twice the firepower, and is twice as hard to kill, as a level 1 light tank.

Japan can upgrade its light tanks to medium tanks. The Soviets, British, and Americans can upgrade their medium tanks to battle tanks. The Germans can upgrade their medium tanks first to battle tanks, and then to heavy tanks. However, all this upgrading would require a substantial investment in scarce, valuable EUs. EUs can be used to research new technologies, to upgrade your nation’s income, to upgrade its rail network, or to build or upgrade minor production centers. The Japanese may want to stick with light tanks, the Soviets with medium tanks, and the Germans with battle tanks, in order to free up EUs for use elsewhere. (EUs cannot be used to directly purchase military units–that’s what production units are for!)

Terrain. This rules set’s terrain system is rather simple. Level 0 terrain means no defensive bonus, level 1 terrain means that for every ten hits the defender scores, a bonus hit is added. Terrain can be up to level 10.

Atomic bomb. EUs can be used to research nuclear technology. One your level of nuclear technology is sufficiently advanced, you can use EUs to build nuclear production facilities. Each such facility produces one nuclear bomb per turn. The United States can load its nuclear bombs onto strategic bombers, which must survive a dogfight for one round before they can deliver their lethal payload. Germany must also deliver its nuclear bombs in this manner–until, that is, it gets around to researching rockets level 15. At that point, it will be able to use ICBMs to deliver nuclear payloads to any target anywhere in the world. Fortunately for the Allies, Germany cannot research rockets level 15 until the 15th game round at the earliest. Even after Germany reaches this point, the Allies can always try to use strategic bombing raids to destroy Germany’s nuclear production facilities. Of course, by this point Germany’s jets will likely be very advanced, and equipped with air-to-air rockets. That will make strategic bombing raids against Germany difficult. On the other hand, the U.S.'s late game income is nearly double that of Germany.

I’m interested in feedback about this rules set. If you have any comments or suggestions about it, please post them here. Thanks.