Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@The-Captain

Thank you for clarifying.

@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.

Ichabod,
This project is finished.  I left a link on the first post to the latest version.  All the rules you need to play are from 1940 or specified with the setup.  Countries like Poland are simply made pro–allies.  Although this is 1939, it is only suppossed to be a one turn rewind of 1940.  To faciiliate blitzkreig, Germany can take Poland, Denmakr, Norway, and Holland/Belgium before the Allies can react.  France is suppossed to fall turn two.

As for Russia, it can take all the territories you mentioned.  (See the politicial situation changes).  All other rules are left as OOB because I want this to be a generic setup that people can customize as they want.

Europe 1939 is finished, and I will get the Pacific and Global finalized soon.

Indeed!
The “Empire Highway to India” must be controlled by the Allies.

And maybe the risk of loosing 4 of 5 transferred IPCs is compensation enough for the option to support the defence of India or gain assistance in the Battle of Britain.

Hi all,

Been a long time reader on the boards, but this is my first time posting! Been an avid AA player and history buff for a long time. Sorry to post here at such a later date, but I wanted to get an opinion.

My take on adding Canada to the game without too much drastic effects on the playability involved a couple of moving parts.

Give Canada the 7 ipc income of the Canadian territories to spend each turn, but that same ipc value still counts towards the UK as well, with the UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Do the same thing for South Africa, giving them both South Africa territories and Rhodesia for a 4 ipc total. Again, UK still controls the money as well, with UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Both Commonwealths still play as part of the UK, buy, move, combat, etc. Essentially just adding 11 ipc income.

To counter this so it’s not unfair to the Axis, do the same thing with Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Slovakia-Hungary on the map of course). Those four powers would have a total of 9 ipc value between them. I figured the extra two ipc’s would have minimal effect.

Essentially all I did was add ipc’s and therefore troop numbers to the game, just forcing them to be used at their respective locales.

My only thought with this was would the immediacy of the minor Axis powers being on the front lines basically effect gameplay on the Eastern Front more so than the added Commonwealth powers would in Africa and Europe? I don’t want to hurt the USSR unfairly.

Any feedback would be great! Glad to finally post and be a part of the community!

@oztea:

I like this idea a lot. I had a similar idea a while back, wherein to win you had to get to a certain number of points. 2 points for each capital, 1 point for each non capital VC, and 1 point for each National Objective you satisfied this turn.

You calculate the axis total, and the allied total.

Lets spit ball, the axis wins if they have 20 points at then end of turns 1-5
or they win if they have 18 points at the end of turns 6-10
or they win if they have 16 points at the end of any turn after 11 they win.

The Allies would win if the axis falls below 10 points at the end of turns 1-5.
Or if they fall below 12 points at the end of turn 6-10
Or if they fall below 14 points at the end of any turn after 11.

I’m gonna have to digest this and see how the math works in different situations, regardless… it’s great to hear from someone that believes in the points per city formula, and I really like the idea of points for objectives as well.

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.)

if people want to know, just look in the back of the AAE40 rule book where it distinguishes all types of units