Rules for 21+

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

OK. Comment noted.
Don’t be afraid about numbers, they will be much less present since they found a way to be applied in a Triple A Redesign game.

I will try to refrained myself to not overflow too much threads.

For language difference, maybe someday it will improve…

@variance:

Transports no longer defend at 0; they revert to their original and correct defense of 1

So go back to the scenario that transports protected warships? Or are you going to keep the rule that transports are always taken last but still allow defence on a 1?

Interesting idea, assuming it is a yes to the latter above.

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

France WILL still fall.

Germany has 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 6 Tanks, and 4 Mechanized Infantry that can hit Paris.

4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, and 3 Tanks from Holland Belgium, 4 Mechanized Infantry from Western Germany, and 3 Tanks from Greater Southern Germany.

34 ATK with 16 Units versus 26 DEF with 12 Units.

Just means that some German Tanks might be taken as casualties.

You could also be a bit more assured and send the Tactical Bomber from Poland as well.

Any Maginot Line Rule should also include the French/Italian border IMO. This section was known as the Alpine Maginot line, and had many fortifications along with natural mountain range defenses. The French defenses on the Italian border held the Italians at bay until the the armistice was signed and Vichy was set up.

So IMO the 3 tanks from Southern Germany shouldn’t be able to attack France through Italy either. Those 3 tanks going through West Germany into France would also hit the Maginot line.

Maybe instead of saying German (axis) units can’t go through the Maginot Line, the rule should give any attacking ground units -1 for all rounds of battle that cross the Maginot line (West Germany/France, and Northern Italy/France or S France). That way those units could still invade, but wouldn’t be as effective because they are facing more resistance. Yes you would have some inf with no attack value, but could still be taken as a casualty. If that proves to harsh (which I think it might), then maybe have all attacking ground -1 only for the first round of battle when attacking through the Maginot lines.

So if the Germans were to back out after a couple rounds, the Italian units would also be -1 in attack when they go for Paris.

This could also be a good lead into a Vichy Rule

@Black_Elk:

I have done a lot of experimenting with the AA50 game board, but trying to use G40 rules on it is not something I have tried. I’m curious what you have in mind?

Do you mean like using G40 with an expanded unit roster? In that case it may be possible to include Tac Bombers or Mech, possibly G40 factories (with their restrictions) but I think the air and naval bases would be out, since the movement advantage would bust the map. Not using Air bases would handle the most problematic aspect of G40 on a AA50 board, since you wouldn’t have to deal with scrambling.

AA50 could probably support 2 hit carriers, though that might bust the opening battles. I suppose if you really wanted to retain the repair aspect on ships, you could just attach it to coastal factories, though that might give Japan a decisive advantage over the US in the pacific.

Beyond this, the Tac Bombers and Mech, I’m not sure what the payoff would be using G40 rules over AA50 OOB.

I think AA50 is a superior game to Global in many respects,  especially in terms of the learning curve and the total playtime to conclusion, so I’d be pretty excited to see it on offer if I showed up at someone’s house to find it set on a table.

I’m just spit balling, might be easier to just play by the AE rules rather than go though the work of making the G40 unit profiles compatible with the AE board. It’s been a long time since I played AE, but maybe it’s time to revisit it.

That would work great.

They’re here.  We’re also experimenting with allowing the Central Powers to turn down the armistice, but that’s not entirely official yet.

@Gargantua:

Aye BUT a battle in a seazone around England, IS a battle over England according to the rules! :D

I like the concept Jen, I’m just giving you a hard time.

Yes I see that.  I specifically excluded it from the rules - and yer the reason I burned one of my manuals to dust!