DK's Hybrid Axis and Allies Map and Rules

@hengst This house rules forum is full of ideas. To avoid scripted games you need a varaiety ways to win or lose a game in a reasonable amount of time ,eg 8 to 12 rounds.BBR and 3G40 are rulesets that encourage you to win by achieving various victory objectives.(not just victory cities)
3G40 changes turn order,merges Anzac into UKPacific,and sticks pretty close to oob rules.BBR is more complex than oob and is real popular.Both are designed to play in 1 day and to be able to declare a winner.

@the-captain said in Axis & Allies Global 1940 2nd. House Rules Expansion:

…Some players in our play groups have used online TripleA since september 2020.

We have created a House Rules Basic Expansion - and I believe these rules are implemented in TripleA online. …

Would you ask them to post the file ? I couldn’t find it on map DLs. I’m reading through everything again and while edit will be required for some of the rules, I think it can get close to 90-95%. Maybe 80% edit free.

At any rate, I’m gonna take a crack at it.

The scale is the thing that most bedevils me.

I was recently watching some commentary on house rules from [b]Lion in the Trenches[/b], who was reacting to suggestions that he place an Austrian cruiser in the Sea Zone off Tsingtao in his Global 1914 customization. He made the point that a single Austrian cruiser doesn’t scale with the squadron or fleet implied by the corresponding game piece.

By my estimate, Global 1940 models ground units at the level of army corps, naval units at the level of fleets or task forces, and air forces at the level of wings. There are a handful of exceptions for colonial detachments, such as the two starting British Infantry in Kwangtung (Hong Kong), which stand in for about 14,500 defenders historically. India’s potential as a source of colonial manpower is significantly curtailed by the British Empire’s income problems, and Australia often explodes in production by the end game (win or lose) even when their national manpower pool and industrial capacity would never have allowed it.

In my opinion, scale should be balanced rigorously against the opportunity for fun gameplay. In my Global War games, I always add a French Infantry in Indochina, for example. There is also a clear movement in favor of bulking up the Dutch presence in the East Indies when games of Global War are played, and many players prefer to give the Italian fleet-in-being a fighting chance with set-up variants to blunt the Taranto Raid.

So if a power on one side, let’s say AMERICA, has committed a ton of war crimes and their morality score gets down to say 50(?), then all the neutrals become pro-axis.  Very realistic.

Now what if you could buy off a neutral with “foreign aid” and prevent them from going pro-other side?  Suppose the “Hearts & Minds” thing were changed so that you get a +1 morality point AND prevent a neutral from going pro-other side by coughing up the number of IPCs their territory is worth.  For example, if Germany is <50 morality points and all the neutrals are going pro-allies, then they can pay Spain $2 to stay strict neutral for another turn.  You do this every turn at Purchase Units.  Once a strict neutral goes pro-other side they can never go back to strict neutral.

So having a bad reputation means the other side gets lots of potential income from the neutrals (and their units) and you have to spend a bunch of money every turn on forein aid to Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc to appease them. The good news is everytime you buy them off you get to brag up your generosity in propaganda that earns you +1 morality point.  Now that’s realistic.

I like the concept, but it’s way to much work…

Just playing Global as it is is hard enough for most people.  Let alone including supply managment.

Thanks for your imput.

I included the critical strike on grounded aircraft to give the attacker reason to get involved in a dogfight seeing how deffending aircraft hit @4. The critical strike is @1 and for the first round only, I believe attackers shouldn’t get a disadvantage for being agressive. Without the critical strike, players ask themselves why should I attack with my valuable aircraft and get all the odds against me.

I don’t enjoy changing the attack and defend capabilities of any units, I believe the game is difficult enough without trying to calculate all the different changes for any given senerio. for example: Fighters attack @3 except when escorting and except in dogfights and except on carriers and except….ect.ect.ect. (you get my point).

I am still tweeking the merchant convoy rules when transporting supply chips however, this is a major aspect of my rules and it must be handled with care to balance the game. On one hand, the allies have enough to do, what with keeping up with with the axis agression during the first 4 rounds and on the other hand it is too much of a factor to just ignore the importance of the merchant shipping lanes. For example: if I were the supreame commander for Germany during the war, I would never have shiffted towards bombing London or even think about opperation Sea Lion when they were so close to starving the little Island. Non the less the rule is still a work in progress… any Ideas?

I might think about a rule for the Gibralter however, I don’t want to limit the Italian fleet entering the Black Sea. That would only limit them to Africa and I want the Italian player to have options.

As for my Tech charts, I believe that if your going to have the kind of game ender like a nuke just for historic reasons, I would prefer to limit it to one Nation (U.S) and still leave it to chance of getting that advantage. As for Nations limited to thier own charts, I have found in my games that players really think hard about what Nation they wish to play at the begining of the game because they want to play with some charts but don’t want to be up against others. One aspect that I have found very important is giving each nation one free chance per turn to get a tech, this way techs are always a factor in the game while still rewarding others for buying extra chances.

I have a book where I have cut and pasted the Axis and Allies rules into a word document and have added my own rules to make everything more compleate to the newbies I play with. It took alot of work and I think it looks nice, I could e-mail you a copy if you like and that way you can edit it to your own house rules, the good thing is that most of the work is done for you. Just send me a personal message with your email address… I think you would like it.

That non-aggro pact looks a little familiar.

But it should add this: the 2 signatories cannot allow their allies to attack the other signatory from their territory.

That is, for example, UK bombers based on Russian soil cannot attack Japanese units, nor land in Russia from such an attack from elsewhere.

The treaty should remain in force for as long as the power gaining the right to attack wishes.  For example if Berlin falls Russia and Japan are only at war when Russia declares war on Japan, which it can do at any time.  Japan would not have the right to attack until Russia declared war, or until it’s own criteria were achieved.
(Supposing Russia wanted to see a powerful Italy beated down a bit, or rebuild it’s own forces up after a hard German campaign, before risking war with a bloated Japanese monster.)