Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@the-captain

Due to the fact that whilst most of your rules are historically accurate, their execution I have some problems with. To fix that, I wrote an article on changes to The Captain’s rules:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37504/let-s-make-the-axis-and-allies-global-1940-expansion-rules-even-more-accurate?_=1636385389023

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

Yes I agree that more VCs needed in PTO and Japan should have to work to get that 1 more VC in the PTO. I do have a VC Capital in Manchuria for my 40 game but with not having 18 inf in area it doesn�t seem to get pressured much.
Singapore is out of the question due to Japan being so strong by islands from G40 game reports. Got to make Japan earn it. Just some thoughts.

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

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

Just an idea, never tried this but it should work: put the “collect income” phase form the end to the beginning of the turn. Right now the rule book tells, that you have to collect income at the end of the turn, where you receive money for all countries you just conquered. It’s the widest expansion of your force in a certain round and for that reason associated with a “maximum income”. In the course of the round, when the other parties start their combat moves you probably lose previously conquered terrain and hence IPCs you just have “earned” in your turn of the round. Starting a turn with the collect income phase would let you earn less money a turn in comparison to the collect income phase at the end of the turn. Eventually that’s the logic behind the idea:

rules: collect income at the the end - widest expansion - maximum income - more units could be bought - prolongation of battles -more time invested
idea:  collect income at the beginning - smallest expansion - only minimum income -less unit could be bought - shortening of battles due to less resources - less time invested.

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?

I like this! Perhaps $1 for 102,3,8 as well?