North Quabbin Axis & Allies: Global 1940

@timothy-gengarella all the forts and coastal guns in the zone are lost if you lose the territory

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

Hi @nishav

I use Factory Limited from the Redesign Thread. I find them to work well.

“FactoryLimited” Air and Naval Bases now cost 12. All captured and newly constructed Minor Factories may only produce Artillery, AAguns, Armor, Mech Infantry, Mobile Infantry, Marines, Elite and Infantry. If a NB is present you may also build Subs, Transports, Escort Carriers and Destroyers. If an AB is present you may also build Fighters and Tac Bombers.

ABs are required to build Fighters, Tac Bombers, Bombers and Air Transports. Bombers and Air Transports may only be built in Factories on originally owned Territories that also have an AB. In addition, Bombers and Air Transports may not be built in the following territories: Kwangtung, Egypt, Norway, Alaska, West India and Korea. May not build at an AB with 3 or more damage.

NBs are required to build all Naval Units. BBs, CVs and CAs may only be built in Territories with originally owned starting Factories. These Territories must also have a NB (Need not be original NB). May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.

So similar to what you’ve suggested. Basically the Big Guns can only be built in original major factories.

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

As the number of accessible new combat units has increased significantly (see post: “Cost Of All Units”) there is a need for increased production capacity.

The Heavy Industry rule provides all players with a possibility to increase production at their original industrial complexes that exist from
Early 1940 (game start).

G40 Heavy Industry Production.pdf

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

I recently went back to my older games and incorporated the newer pieces into them.  I only went as far back as Revised.  At first I thought it would simply be a matter of altering the setup some but found a few more problems:
1 - In the older games, Destroyers were 3-3-2-12, same as Cruisers are now.  Also, Aircraft Carriers had an attack of 1, now they have no attack value.  So basically, you have to bring the costs back to the older games and you have to use the 1940 battle boards.
2 - You can’t use air or naval bases in the older games.  Especially in Revised because there are a lot less sea zones.  For example, with a naval base, Japan and W USA are one move away from each other.
3 - ICs and build limits also present a problem.  In the older games, you simply have ICs and their build limit is based on the IPC value of the territory they are on.  I don’t know how to incorporate Major and Minor ICs into the older games.  I simply used the new unit values with the old IC rules.

Well, I hope this helps you.  If you would like my setup changes, let me know and I can post them for you.

Anzac, in reality, could only defend itself versus an eventually over-extended Japan pushing south. 6 IPCs will build just enough Inf to survive. I dont recall Anzac invading anywhere except into New Guinea whereas Canada at 11 IPCs could build Inf & Transports to do what it actually did, re-inforce United Kingdom bedises have its own beach & army on D Day. Boring maybe but definitely more realistic to what happened & a mark of a good simulation is to be as realistic as possible. The designers put a Canadian emblem on the board - too bad they didn`t distinguish the Canadian forces that should be on the board (like the Anzac) & possibly provide some control markers, as well.