Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@The-Captain

Awesome ! One of my Favorite parts of G 40 Expansion :)

@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.

Resource token values.
Worth 1 Icp each. Built in AA D@1
WHEAT
OIL DERRICK

Worth 2 Icps each. Built in AA D@1
COPPER
RUBBER
IRON
REFINERIES Built in AA D@2

Worth 3 Icps each Built in AA D@1
URANIUM
If you have an AA Gun in theses territories with tokens you can D@2 but not use both AA guns.

These all can be SBRed up to 3 damage each. Lose income for them until repaired
and refineries up to 6 damage. Don’t repair refineries
suffer a -1 movement for ground or naval or planes or nothing.
Have a chart for this.
Also all of these can be convoy raided up to 3 also.
This represents all transporting vessels at sea.
Remember most of these resource tokens are in normal territories too.

Start out slow with this. You don’t want to keep chasing it.

Pill box counter ? Can SBR them ?

Need to take this to a new topic thread for resource stuff.

@Charles:

If you want to have the full experience, also use this neutral expansion ruleset along with the new powers:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.msg%msg_id%

All playtests of this addition of 11 powers used these new neutral rules, and I definitely recommend you play these two house rules together.  It allows for fun things like South Africa invading Portuguese colonies, Bulgaria and Italy invading Turkey etc.

We are currently working on implementing the 20-power ruleset for other Global setups.  If you would like to play this add-on in a Pacific/Europe solo game, I can post the theater rulesets on request.

Charles De Gaulle, has your group worked on any other setups recently besides 20 powers in 1940?  I am formally putting in a request (or fan vote) for 1936 with with 20 powers.  Maybe some of the smaller countries that weren’t conquered by Germany yet could act as pro-allied neutrals.  I just think 20 powers would work well from an early starting point.  More variables to “rewrite” history to some extent.  Anyways thanks for your efforts.

@Narvik:

I guess the map designers made all this mistakes on purpose, just to start an extra conflict inside the original conflict, man. Dont tell me they made the map wrong seven times in a row just by accident, I dont buy that, man.

I love how Narvik says man after every sentence.  It carries with it an air of sincerity and character.
:-D

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

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

I don’t think the US could be charged for passing through the Suez, since they’d have to be at war to get there.