Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

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.

@Pitt79 please elaborate the usa russia scenario thanx

@Ichabod:

@simon33:

Strikes me that the factory downgrade when you lose and regain a major is harsh and arguably unfair.

What if factories are limited to the production value of the territory if not on original soil, but also limited by the type of factory? .

Do you mean this restriction (of producing only the value number of the territory) only to apply for the countries that capture the major, like Japan capturing India, or the US landing on W. Germany just to reduce the factory to a minor?

I would think this would be another way to add some balance. Forward factories next to Russia only producing 2 units for Germany…ect.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

@Charles-de-Gaulle said in Global 1939 (simple alternate setup for 1940 2nd.Edition):

(This version has been supersede by Version 3.  Please proceed here for the latest dedicated setup.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41080.0)

Global 1939

Try this link to find the Version 3 of this alternate setup: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30608/global-europe-pacific-1939-for-1940-2nd-editon

This is an alternate setup for those of you who have 1940 2nd Edition.  It brings the start date to September 1939 only implementing a few special rules.  If you would like to play the Europe or Pacific side alone, go to
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38589.0
Questions and comments are welcome!  
                          de Gaulle

Try this link to find the Version 3 of the Europe / Pacific setup: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28154/simple-1939-setup-variant-for-global-1940

I hope this helps!

-Midnight_Reaper

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  :-D

I’ll be able to post set up this weekend any comments on it will help

I was thinking of playing games in which russia had to take Non African original axis territories for his national objective (ie no +14 off africa).

However this money is very useful for russia to survive mid-late game. How should russia be compensated?

I put 2 russian destroyers and 2 cruisers in the black sea with a transport. Russia battleship in the baltic sea in sz 115 where the cruiser is.  I also gave russia a bomber.

You may be thinking it is a bit much, but they can’t actually go anywhere and get blasted easily by germany anyway. However it should equate to the late game money russia would have gotten off of africa.

What do you guys think?