Potential A-Bomb / Belgian Congo House Rule

@mhal21 I don’t play poison gas warfare for one simple reason. Poison gas was not as much of a thing as people think it was in WWI. Yes it was terrifying and it made the headlines when it happened, but the estimates are that around 150 000 casualties happened due to gas, which is something like 2-3 days of a huge battle on the Western front.
I know some people have dabbled with it so there is stuff out there. You might want to hop on the Axis and Allies Facebook page to ask your question !

@Imperious:

Unit on both sites are drawing board, partially developed, or fully developed naval and air units. The LZ-135 was never built, only drafted on paper and in this sense it was real.

A fair point, though it should be remembered that some on-the-drawing-board concepts are less real than others.  Germany’s proposed H-Class battleships began as realistic designs in 1938 or 1939, and one or two of them were actually laid down.  When the construction work was suspended, however, drawing-board work continued on-and-off until 1944.  The design kept getting upgraded, and kept getting more and more unrealistic; from about 1941 onward, these designs can be regarded as purely paper studies, with zero chance of being built and thus little need to keep practicalities into account.  But at least they were being designed by competent naval architects, in contrast with Hitler’s propensity for sketching battleship designs on the back of envelopes.  (This fondness was an odd one, in view of his land-warfare orientation, but wasn’t entirely out of character: he believed that he knew more about warfare than his professionally-trained generals, and he similarly felt that he could come up with better battleship designs than professional naval architects.)  Hitler once proposed building a battleship armed with 800mm guns of the Gustav / Dora railway artillery type; in a rare example of common sense winning over Hitler’s fondness for gigantism (as illustrated by the 188-tonne Maus tank), an admiral managed to talk him out of the idea by pointing out that no existing German harbour was large enough to accommodate a ship big enough to carry guns of that size.

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

@Ichabod:

YG,

1. Did you update your house rules in this thread (modify your original post), if so, what are the HR’s that are no longer being used?

2. Heavy Bombers Tech…I think you and your team got the right happy medium there! The classic edit. of 3 dice was over kill. Even 2 dice is overkill. But rolling 2 dice, but only selecting the “1” dice with the best results ensures the concept of the “heavy bombers” tech as an almost more than likely good hit, but still not overkill.

I’m going to be playing in a table top tournament (42 setup) soon that’s a 3 day event. But for a side table game with no time rush where we can leave the table setup over night…ect, I’d like to try to get a G40 game with your house rules (if I can get people to go along with it). Anything really out of the ordinary that I should expect? Also, are your house rules designed to make it a balanced game, as in no bid for the allies?

Cheers!
Ichabod

Hey Ichabod,

I decided to unstick the thread with just my ideas, and leave up the thread which have my ideas that our group actually plays with. Here it is… http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38351.0

BTW… the R&D Heavy Bomber rule is an oob rule, and I agree that it’s better than the past editions. In the link I provided, all my changes to R&D breakthroughs are highlighted in red.

There are many things to talk about when it comes to how my rules change the game… but balance was the main driving force so yes, no bid required. The VOs give clear ways to win the game, the NOs just make sense, and the modified facilities clearly favor the Allies.

If you are planning a game, you can email me cliffsidebunker@outlook.com and we can find a way to talk over the phone.

@Baron:

Hope UK Pacific new turn order will help smooth the game flow.
Do you intend to merge it with ANZAC when you have less players around the table?

I don’t think so, the group loves the speed of the game with the separate UK nations… but they want something a little closer to oob rules. Also, it’s believed that the new victory objectives help balance the game the way a combined UK Pacific and ANZAC combo once did. It still needs a few tweeks to the NOs.

@timerover51:

Hmmm, that would be a reasonable approach as well.

I was merely making an observation that each bombardment ship supporting each infantry +1 on 1-to-1 basis…is the same as rolling one bombardment die per infantry at 1 and not preemptive

like you can arrange the rules to appear as only a minimal rule change, and then people are less resistive

i like the idea of tanks the 4/4 tanks can be like tigers

oh wow that will be helpful…