Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@The-Captain You’re absolutely right, but as the Russian player I’ve been glad to see those factories bombed out. Germany has moved the Southern Italy, Berlin, and Paris factories underground as they consider those the main factories they’ll be producing from. The Allies learned this the hard way too the India Industrial Complex took a lot of bombing damage. It’s kind of late but UK may finally put that factory underground.

Not saying these are at all perfect, but I posted about some potential Vichy house rules for 1940 a while back as well! Just thought I’d share here in case it sparks anything for you as well or anything to go along with your own!

I explain my thoughts in this post, but my hope was to avoid any massive deviations to the standard A&A game play. By that I mean, I didn’t want to go crazy adding or changing a ton of specific rules or anything that exist in the game already.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26099/vichy-france-global-1940?_=1688593330283

it’s one of those things where you have “12 IPC’s left” and someone is wanting to build ships but dont just want 2 subs

@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.

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

@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.

I’m a big fan of minor axis allies and felt the same rules could be applied to allies also.

I see UK w/ Canada and Union of S Africa as minor allies
I see FEC w/ Anzac and DEI as minor allies
I see USA w/ Brazil as a minor ally

I am going to give this a try next time we play.

that would be cool :-D