Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@crockett36

No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

You should make one, I don’t have a 1940 copy but have friends who do and would love to have one. Still I always like to put in a Bismark no matter what time period, just to stress Britian because they have vast, if thin superiority in the Atlantic ocan.

Add German CA in SZ26
Change RU CA to SS in SZ21.
Change OE CA to TR is SZ20.
Russian cannot attack OE on turn 1, and not subject to mines in SZ20.
Allow TR to absorb a mine hit by loss of a load.
Add German SS to SZ18.
Germany can mobilize infantry in Munich.
Switzerland is IMPASSABLE.

Nice try, but the problem with house rules is they unbalance the game. Who will buy trannies anymore when you can put infantry on destroyers ? You must then change cost and abilities to the whole shebalong of units, in order to rebalance it, so now you got a brand new game, the A&A Carolina edition.  :-D

just for some historical facts, I happen to know about 2 incidents where infantry used destroyers for transport. First was the amphibious assault on Norway 9. april 1940. A German destroyer with a crew of 360 sailors could take 200 infantry as cargo. For the attack on Narvik, 2000 Austrian infantry that was part of an mountain division, did sail on 10 destroyers, from Germany to Narvik in Northern Norway. Their first problem was they could not make an amphibious assault against a well defended shore. They had to debark at a port like passengers from a liner. And the only reason they succeeded debarking at Narvik was the Norwegian officer in command at Narvik was a pro Hitler Nazi. Their other problem was that all heavy equipement and supply had to come on trannies. So there are no way around a tranny. Their last problem was that after 9 days under deck the fighting spirit was low, so they would need a couple of days to recover. There are a reason the Allies made Landing Crafts for the Normandy invasion. Another issue conserning your game is that an average A&A infantry unit is supposed to represent an army of 100 000 men or something, not 2000 men. A rule like this could work in a tactical level game, but now so much in a grand strategy game like A&A. But with that said, this was actually an optional rule in the A&A Revised edition from 2004.

Oh, and the other example I know is the Dunquirk evacuation after the fall of Belgium, this is also in 1940. The myth says it was a fleet of civilian sailboats, rafts and canoes that lifted 350 000 british infantry from the beach over to UK. The fact is, it was 20 british destroyers that did the job.

So to make a house rule that got a link to the real war, I say a destroyer got the ability to ferry, or bridging, one infantry unit across one or two sea zones in the combat phase only, either as amphibious assaulting an empty enemy territory, or if its not empty let the defender roll a preemptive strike, and if the infantry on the destroyer survive, he can attack. Or for a Dunkirk evac, let one defending infantry retreat via a friendly destroyer, even if this last suggestion is blatantly cheesy

@UncleSam0330:

Regarding the Excel file, you all are certainly welcome to use it! I’ve also integrated the rules and charts into electronic versions of the original 2nd edition rulebooks but I’ve not posted those because I’m not sure if that’s OK/legal to do outside of my own private use.  :? If it is OK, I’d be happy to post those as well.

I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, but OK. I mean that it’s illegal in the sense that writing Transformers fanfiction is illegal: It probably violates a copyright law, but Hasbro is never going to do anything to you because you aren’t making money off of it and they won’t waste the time and effort to sue you.

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.

read the link above, it solves most of the bugs ive been working out since i posted this