G40- Neutral Alignment

@GigaSmoot Hey, since no one has answered yet, I figured I could leave you some feedback… Although take it with a grain of salt, because I am not that experienced in Global 1940.

First, I really like the idea of simplified National Objectives! It is true that the basic Axis and Allies is already complicated and Global 1940 tops that.

However, I think the NOs favor the Axis too much in Europe. Germany will push the Soviets to Moscow and occupy so many allied-territories that it will drown in IPCs. Russis however wont get any additional income through NOs until Germany has already been pushed out of its territory. I think with your NOs, Germany will snowball pretty hard.

But again, I am not an expert in Global 1940, but that’s my first inpression.

@general-5-stars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq9hEmdJIno

@ando101

I wasn’t saying that your idea was bad.

But yes, that makes sense.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

The Escort unit is a sea unit, that has multiple tasks. The primary task is to protect Transports as part of a Convoy.

G40 Escorts, Transports & Convoy Protection.pdf

This mechanics can also be applied to ABs as Carolina is suggesting:

Air and Naval base damage
@Carolina:

Great topic - hi-lights how A&A is a little too basic.  ie. not all hits should be equal - really, when would AAA blow every plane out of the sky?

I would propose to change the AAA rule for bases and industry that AAA does not kill but affects the accuracy of the attacker.  Defending installation rules a 1d6 and this is subtracted from the attacker’s roll.  
1d6-1 for fighters and tacB
1d6-2 for bombers
Roll an AAA dice for each attacking aircraft.

Combine Venezuela/Colombia/Ecuador, Chile/Bolivia/Peru, and Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay together. No need to change IPC values.

From a playability standpoint it makes no sense to have 9 little countries across the continent.

I play it like this and things can get interesting.

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.

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.