Two minor changes we enjoy

@shadowhawk said in [Global 1940] Changing AA in the game:

Well atm they are free hps. After the pre-combat shots they dont do anything in the fight except take a hit. So as a defender unless its clear im winning the first hits go to the AA, they are dead weight at this point.

When they can return fire every round against planes ( might want to keep the @1 because they target units ) then it might give the defender a reasonable choice.

I agree. I thought when you said that you were referring to the version with your house rules, not the out of box version.

IMO they represent flak88 batteries, a bit more specialised AA guns then the divisional version but a lot weaker then the static stuff that defends ports/airfields and the likes.

Agreed.

I find it odd that a single unit can be used to stop an army of 50 divisions. Given that a single turn can make the difference because your enemy can stop you cold with a lone infantry, I was wondering if a small tweak would be interesting.

The tweak would be that units contesting a territory can only “hold up” 3 times as many units on the enemy side, allowing said enemy to move “through” and continue the attack in other areas.

For example, if the attacking side has 20 land divisions and the defense has 3, the attacker could choose to move “through” with up to 11 units (being forced to leave 3*3 = 9 divisions to fight) and attack an area behind the enemy lines or to the side. To do this, the attacker would be forced to commit to an assault on the 3 divisions; it can’t just move through without fighting them.

The number could be tweaked and there’s probably a ton of ramifications I haven’t thought about, so feel free to point out pros and cons. I just feel that stopping gigantic armies with minimal forces is very advantageous for the defender, which is usually the Allies. Giving the opportunity to move troops around would make for more aggressive and interesting plays. It would force the defender to choose to either sacrifice more armies for the delaying actions or just plain retreat and give that space entirely.

Let me know how you would implement this !

Another option for denoting Armored Cavalry on your game board: Jeep pieces from Table Tactics’ A&A Accessories expansion. While it is many years out of print, those who have that set could certainly use it that way. At least the colors would match with A&A Classic color scheme, for the most part.

-Midnight_Reaper

I agree on 2nd version - very doubtful.  As to the tourney rules, I have found the 2 movement factor rule to greatly change how the game is played - not a fan.

IDK, maybe you treat all true neutrals as independent nations (no blocks, or alliances w/other powers or neutrals). Mongolian tt aren’t included, they remain part of the NAP.

Pay 5 IPCs to roll a diplo dice. You can buy as many as you want (or maybe limit it to 1-2 per turn), but each one is dedicated to only one true neutral tt per turn, and you must be able to invade. State what true neutral nation you are trying to sway/invade (must have units dedicated to the invasion, and can’t make changes after dice is rolled). Once you start the process there is no turning back, you must follow through that turn.

Roll your diplo dice.

Roll 1 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), and the standing army joins you (immediately becomes your color) because you negotiated them to join your cause (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 2 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), but the standing army doesn’t join you (it is dissolved) because you negotiated a peaceful occupation, and they laid down their arms (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 3-4 tt becomes pro your enemy. You have to fight the standing army at least one round of battle and if you retreat any surviving units immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice of controlling power). Whom ever controls the tt will get the IPC value in their collect income phase.

Roll 5 and the standing army is doubled, you must again fight at least one round of battle, but then can retreat. You under estimated the resolve of the country and their will to fight. Any survivors from the standing army would immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice).

Roll 6 failed attempt. You lost your investment, and it was deemed not in the best interest to continue negotiations or attempt an invasion. This was a diplomatic process, so nothing changes, and the standing army stays intact.

As note #1 I also think that any neutral tt w/o standing army, or IPC value should be awarded 1 inf (maybe 2) so the US can’t just waltz down through say Columbia w/o resistance to get to the more valuable S American nations.  All the above would apply.

*As note#2 you could beef up the 3 major true neutrals to include better units in the standing army.

It’s simple, yet a bit more sensical than what we have now: In any turn you wish to attack strict neutrals, you have the option of “buying off” any remaining ones so that they stay neutral.

Case in point: Germany wishes to attack Sweden, but obviously doesn’t want to turn Spain or Turkey against them. To keep them as strict neutrals, Germany must pay 2 + 2 (the IPC values of each territory).

If it wants to include Afg. and Saudi Arabia, then 2 + 2 + 2 + (say a min of 1 IPC, for those territories with no IPC values).

These territories would also stay strictly neutral in the event of an Allied attack (although perhaps that can be debatable). Also, the IPC costs themselves: perhaps double the tt value would be better, but those are, of course, details.

Thoughts?

We use this rule. If fighters are in a territory with a air base, they may scramble to an anjacent sea zone. TAC or Bombers may not scramble.
Good rule.

Anyone tinker with the setup, in order to make the game less linear?

We’re finding  that G1 and J1 pretty much open the exact same every game, decimating allied navies then G going heavy armor.

My buddy has come up with an interesting house rule which we are going to try out next time.  Its a bit complex, but in a nutshell the setup is kinda “Risklike,” in that you alternate unit placement.  Each county has so many IPC’s to spend and you can purchase and place what/where you want; with limitations of course.  You cant just place crap randomly all over the place.  You’ll need to start in countries controlled a the start and adjacent sea zones.  This gives players the option to go heaveir navy or air, or whatever.

I know, it pretty much takes away from historical accuracies, but thats alright.  The idea was to change the opening setup, allow for new strategies and make the game a bit less linear for us.