france goes first handicapping system or balancing mechanic

I use them in my game but not G40. Have tweaked them over the years. You roll for 2 each country and use whole game. If you want I can post my chart.

de279a62-5539-4f41-bd47-c39204d491f2-image.png

@Young-Grasshopper
cool stuff but half hour is a bit much for me. Be nice if you could summarize in a paragraph or two :)

@Valladares said in G40 Historial v1.1:

@SS-GEN These are some preview, new things, that we include in our new version 1.2:

New National Objectives:

UK Europe: Theme “Mediterranean supply line”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Europe controls Malta.

UK Pacific: Theme “Jewel of the far East”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Pacific controls all: India, West India and Cylon.

Japan: Theme “USSR Oil trade”: 2 I.P.C. if Japan is not at war with Soviet Union.

ANZAC: Theme “Anzac new day”: 5 I.P.C. If Anzac have at last one land unit in Egypt, Alexandria or Crete

China: Theme: “Asian Sherman”: China can purchase tanks if at last one USA land unit is in china controlled territory. Historical context: http://www.theshermantank.com/tag/china/
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/china/m4a2-sherman-in-chinese-service/

Modes of play

Historical and Victory Conditions: With year historical restrictions and game max duration is 12 rounds, and axis or allies have 3 of 4 victory conditions, at the end of the round 12.

Majority of victory cities in Europe.
Majority of victory cities in Pacific.
Majority of oil world producing areas.
Majority of global team I. P. C. (Map and bonuses)

Axis & Allies Global 1940 Historical MOD 6° Play Test
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Med supply. Malta. I like if any axis ship between Malta and Gib blocks this

Anzac had guys in Egypt.

China building tanks based on a US tank or 2 in China at end of war should be a no go.
Keep in mind this game your playing isn’t a lot like mine. Just feel NOs should have some type of resources on them to get. IMO
Just me. Not knocking your ideas. Try them first. You guys may like them

I would use these rules:

(1) if the defender sees a key battle coming and can predict that they’ll want an unusual order of loss, they can leave a note, send an e-mail, etc., informing the attacker of their preferred order of loss, and the attacker will then follow that order.

(2) if there is no note, the attacker will provisionally use a standard order of loss.

(3) after seeing the results of the battle, the defender can pay 2 IPCs to the bank per casualty that they want to switch. You didn’t want to lose your bomber after all? Fine, pay 2 IPCs, and you can have your bomber back in exchange for one of your infantry. This should be expensive enough to deter casual abuse but still cheap enough that if you would really be upset about the order of loss, you can fix it without too much drama. Don’t think it’s fair that you should have to pay to set up your order of loss exactly the way you want it? Well, then, you should have foreseen the battle and given orders in advance. Don’t feel like thinking that hard every turn? Well, then, you can always just cough up 2 IPCs. It’s a way of speeding up the game while making sure that nothing unacceptably bad will happen because of order of loss issues.

@Tortn91:

How about when Paris is taken Normandy-Bordeaux, Southern France, the navy in Mediterranean and the french force in North Africa joined the Nazis, but half of the units in France is moved to UK represents Free French forces who fled and the rest of the French territories in Africa and around the world remains unde Free French control.

It would have to be considered an alternate-history scenario.  The French Navy and the French colonial forces never joined the Nazis, and the number of French forces who crossed the Channel from France to England to form the Free French was nowhere near large enough to represent half of France’s military units.

On the other hand, it’s perfectly accurate to have some of France’s colonial territories go over to the Free French side soon after France is occupied becauset that’s what happened in reality.

@Uncrustable:

Tac bombers need something, they are rarely produced relative to fighters and strat bombers

I would also suggest letting tanks roll a 4 for each tac bomber present if air supremacy has been achieved, that is for each tac bomber one tank rolls at 4 instead of 3. Tac bombers do not change
This even further increases air buys and also gives tanks a buff which they need

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Air supremacy is checked for each round of combat, before any dice are rolled for that round

These rules will magnify both fighters and tac bombers buys as well as tanks, and also promote a combined arms approach to purchases similar to artillery and infantry

You want enough fighters to achieve air supremacy, but also a good even amount of tac bombers and tanks to maximize air supremacy when you do achieve it

This kills multiple birds with a single stone
It should reduce somewhat the infantry/mech spam with sprinkles of artillery that we see now
It also indirectly buffs AAA as each AAA adds 3 more dice to the air battle in defense, and increases your chance of gaining control of the skies

Very thoughtful ideas. I like them.
However my first impression is your HR change much more the balance.
I’m looking for just small changes.
I will come back on this.
You have some compelling reason like this one:

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Thank you very much for your challenging ideas.

Blockhouse cost 2, defend at 3 or less, can stack but not move.

Blockhouse cost 6 and boost all Infantry and artillery +1 on defense all rounds up to the IPC value of the territory.

A 4 IPC space will only boost 4 units of these types +1.

If taken over fortification is destroyed.

The main problem with the reinforcements mechanic is that of the “pinning” trick, whereby the attacker can send a single infantry to attack stack B in order to prevent units defending stack B from reinforcing stack A during that combat phase.

Possible solutions:

1. The defender always chooses the order in which battles are resolved;

2. An attack is not allowed against a force more than 3 times that of the attacker (in total units);

3. The defender is still allowed to reinforce even from tts under attack; this creates other problems, effectively giving the defender a “free retreat” option.

4. Fight all battles in a combat phase simultaneously by round, only allowing reinforcements from tts clear of enemy units.