Submarine Movement and Customized Map

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

This rule allows players to move a specific number of land combat units in order to reinforce front line units, build up forces for future offensives or simply as decoy to confuse the enemy, etc.

Paratroopers and Soviet Partisans can both become handy in order to disrupt enemy Strategic Rail Movement.

G40 Strategic Rail Movement.pdf

My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;

The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected. There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here). The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest. I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space  reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.

@master4709:

SS, that is an interesting idea with naval and air bases. What made you decide to not be able to purchase any during the game and limit 3 movement to non-combat only? Can they still be damaged by SBR?

The idea was for strategy and forcing the 1 extra turn for combat. Im not a big fan of bases but everybody else likes them. Yes the Air and Naval bases can be SBRed. Airbases still can scramble 3 planes for naval battles. Plus get the +1 move.

Are railways needed for a map this big for the USA and USSR?

For me we use the railway for Russia, US and Burma road. 2 Inf or 1 inf 1 Art can move 2 spaces ( Russia move 3 if they get there NA ) only per turn. The railroad is marked on my map.

I think I will add the convoy zone boxes to the map.

Yes I would too. Germany needs these boxes for game more.

@Black_Elk:

That’s a clean map Ryuzaki_Lawlie!

The color selection is ideal. Though the black impassibles still jump out at me

From a design standpoint the only things that catch my eye are the two round sea zones surrounding Japan and Hawaii.

It feel like you need one in the Atlantic to balance things out aesthetically. Have you considered the possibility of one surrounding the British Isles?

Or maybe Iceland? Or maybe both?

I still think Mercator is a bit tight in Europe, a little stretching there might be ideal, even if it was just along the vertical axis. I think the map would still read fine, but you’d get a few more pixel for units into those key European spots. Also if you were willing to shrink South America slightly you could almost curve off a 10th of the map height at the bottom of the screen (which is notorious for players forgetting units in the south sea hehe) without really needing to change Africa/Australia of the pacific. Basically a slight bend would go a long way, even if using Mercator for the baseline.

Oh and I think the possession colors for Dutch Borneo and British Sarawak and North Borneo should be reversed.

My only suggestions :)

Nice work man. That would be a fun map to form the basis of a 1939 game, or any year from 39 on.

I like that you have not yet imposed on the map any extraneous information such as IPC values or VC. This means the map is adaptive for many purposes. I like the general division of territories. Only that the projection is a bit large at the poles for my tastes. If we could shrink them up slightly I think the map would be ideal. Its really more about screen dimension for me when it comes to the Big World Map that Wandering Head made. These days most screens are very long relative to their height, so standard Mercator always seems blown out a bit in tripleA to me, especially at the south end, and of course Europe is always tight. I wish the center picker for tripleA was better at housing units to smaller scales. Its a little better than it used to be, especially with the guiding lines, but still Europe loves to clutter up haha.
:-D

Again though, great design direction!

I’ll probably shift the continents (turning their general direction), and stretch out northern Africa and Europe, will probably require North America to get a bit skinny, but I think the big benefit from this, is that potentially more European spaces can be added. This will allow me to add more to the Mediterranean however (and it really needs the space), perhaps round out where Rome is. Africa, I think needs a bit more work. South America possibly as well, but I sort of need an idea of which cities can be considered major not only there, but elsewhere. Vladivostok will defiantly get added in with it’s own space.

I picked black for impassables, since it tells me that there is nothing there, no play space, it’s simply temporary, and they are there for the designer’s benefit.

I’m not sure where else to put a rounded Sea Zone, I’m considering more though.

All friendly VCs give +1 movement to all friendly land units during noncombat, so long as those units began their turn within said territory.

This is the best/simplest way. And follows already tested OOB rules (Air and naval get +1 from bases, now ground gets +1 from VCs)

Many suggestions that have made on this forum were mainly a work in progress or a “spaghetti on the wall” as some says.
Here is a new topic I just posted to discuss one important and evolutionary House Rule about sub naval warfare which I think worth the time to read:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515

How about making it, if you don’t controll an oil rich territory, all unit movemt, except INF and ART (they could use horses for that) have only half their movement, and may not blitz.

MECH, ARM, BB, DD,TP and SS move only 1
CV,CA and fig move 2
BOMBERS move 3

Could also be used in AAR and if defined also AARHE…  Just define oil rich territories first.

Imperious Leader:
the whole idea of subs is to be on station waiting for some target to come by… If you just allow any destroyer to “SEE” the sub automatically on CM it defeats the purpose. I feel you must install that roll the DD has to make to achieve detection ( either that 3 or 2)

++++ Thanks Imperious Leader for your comments, you are right, I’ll drop this. Ditto the hidden subs.
Here are the new rules (bold stuff is new):

A player can submerge a submarine in his NCM phase or during his CM phase
when he retreats from an attack. Place a control marker under the
sub every round after the round where the sub submerged. When two markers are under the sub, it has to surface
in the next round. (In effect, it can move 8 fields submerged: 2 in the submerging round, 2 in marker one
round, 2 in marker two round, 2 in surfacing round).
(This may be a bit too much, I’ll have to playtest it. Maybe one marker is enough, making for 6 fields)

A submerged submarine may move through hostile sea zones without restriction.
Exception: When it enters a sea zone with an enemy destroyer in it, a die is rolled
for every sub in the pack. All subs must surface if at least one 3 is rolled (super sub: one 2)
Corollary: It is only allowed to enter a sea zone with a destroyer in it in a combat move phase.
Combat ensues when the subs have to surface.
The number of destroyers does not influence the detection dice roll, only the number of subs
(similar to AA gun / Fighter / Bomber rule)
The player may of course make a normal move and simply surface and attack the
destroyers in its CM.
All subs in the same sea zone have to surface at once.

**If a destroyer enters a sea zone where submerged enemy subs are stationed in a combat move,
they are detected on a roll of three (on a two for super subs). Again, roll as many dice as there are
subs in the sea zone, the number of destroyers has no effect. If a sub is detected, they are all detected
and have to suface.
(Optional rule: DD can go sub hunting: if they only move one sea zone in their CM phase instead of two

this has to be declared in advance - they may add 1 to their detection roll.**
Subs are never detected during a destroyer non combat move.

**4)  Attacking and defending subs may submerge except when an enemy destroyer is present (as stated in LHTR 1.3.).
If the sub submerges during combat, this round counts as a full submerging round.
Example: A sub has one marker under it, indicating that it has been submerged for two rounds.
In this round, it attacks on its CM phase, but retreats during the attack by submerging (or, if victorious, it
submerges in its NCM phase). Do not remove the control marker, instead, place another control marker under
the sub.

The markers are only removed if the sub surfaces during its NCM phase. (In effect, giving the opponent
the chance to take at least one combat action against subs even if he does not posess destroyers).**

So, I think I’ve thought of most of the stuff that can occur, I’ll start playtesting,  any feedback is welcome :-)
Additional thought: with this new sub capabiltiy, maybe it would be wise to raise the price of the sub?
(for instance to 10 IPCs?) And maybe the super sub advantages should not be applied to the DD detection
roles. Any comments would be much appreciated.

Regards,
sponge