Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@FranceNeedsMorePower

That’s a better idea, especially since Japan is usually somewhat stretched to the limits on their declaration of war on the US.

@all-encompassing-goose

Okay then. I would rather the Axis win, so…

Just some thoughts on how I might implement a TSRR rule in our Global game. I feel this may help out in the bidding process. If Russia can get it’s troops back to Moscow, the Allies may not need such a high bid.

A -The Trans-Siberian Railroad was made to bring mass troops from all over Russia. Therefore, ALL troops gathered along the Trans-Siberian Railroad countries may move freely from one end to the end on Russia’s NON-COMBAT move. This move may only go ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! There was only one rail and it took 8 days from end to the other. This railway may ONLY be used by Russian troops. The route exists along Russia to Samara, Samara to Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk to Tunguska, Tunguska to Yenisey, Yenisey to Yakut SSR, SSR to Buryatia, Buryatia to Amur.

B - Exceptions: If Axis controls any country of The Trans-Siberian Railroad, it is then sabotaged and no longer functions until Allies liberates. It then can be used on its FOLLOWING non-combat move.

C - The Trans Siberian Railroad may bombed by Tac/Strat Bombers the same as Naval and Air Bases. (See Rule Book)

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.

divide attack and defence values by 2.
Converts from D12 to D6 or half.
There is more variety available for the 12 sided dice.
3 is 1.5 on a D6 so you may need to fudge the numbers a bit
Build cost in 1940 is all at once so 5/5/5/5= 20IPC rather than 4 turns each @$5

In case they dont add the 1940 rules at the end. Not all have this included anymore.

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.

@Vareel:

some units just don’t seem to have any nitch.

’

All the units in AAP40 have a niche, you just have to think about it more. Some are not as sexy as they used to be (tanks, battleships) and some are certainly bought less by certain players, but in general this is representive of history.

This set of unit stats is the best to date.

Why should crusiers be able to be traded with fighters?

the tac bomber rules already give them a clear role and make alot of sence except they are simpler that yours.

I do like your rules for infantry supporting tanks on the defence, except I dont like tanks costing five. tanks are big things that take alot to produce they should be expensive and players should not be able to build stacks of them (unless they are the russian player, in AAE40 the USSR should not be able to buy mech inf and instead can buy tanks at 5.)