Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@The-Captain

I would love to hear more about your Most Precious Soviet Strategies. I love talking about strategy, especially if it’s about my favorite power when it comes to tactical decision making 😀

As part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 & 1943 House Rules Expansion, Naval Mines are being play testet during the 2023 Autumn & Winter Axis & Allies gaming season.

Final results will be posted here.

Feel free to play test on your own. Rules are attached below.

Captain

1. G40 Naval Mines.pdf

FBC9643C-5703-4B6B-8E07-557FA9698BAA.jpeg

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

@CWO:

A&A is fundamentally a board game, and its relationship to more rigorous military-simulation wargames (both hobby-level and professional-grade) is roughly the relationship that the Monopoly board game has to the kinds of economic-simulation games that are detailed and accurate enough that they could be used as teaching tools in a management school curriculum.

I agree to the Monopoly comment, or maybe better said, without historical events and situations to use in conjunction with play, then A&A is just a glorified version of Risk.  But, I want some history and random events that change the play of the game.

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  :-D

@CWO:

Cruiser sculpts are actually fairly easy to distinguish from destroyer sculpts because the destoyer sculpts nearly all have transom sterns, which means that the back part of the ship is square or, in a couple of cases, rounded.  The cruisers have cruiser sterns, which are pointed.  (The first version of the German Hipper-class cruiser had a transom stern, but it was changed to a cruiser stern later.)

This is a good point.  The ‘flat’ stern of the Destroyers is a distinguishing feature except in the case of Russia, whose Cruiser also has a transom stern.  You’re right, I mean – to the discerning eye, the pieces are certainly distinguishable.  Our play style, however, is usually more on the ‘pushing plastic’ side.  We want to keep it fast and fun and the Crusiers have been by far the biggest source of confusion all the times that we’ve played.

Here is the chart for special units we use. Note that most have a limit that can be on the board at one time. Most come from AA 1941, with the German Mech. Artillery being from Historical Board Gaming.

| Name
M. Art.
Tiger
JS-2
P-40
FW-190
He-111
Hood
Esc. Car.
Kongo
| Nation
Germany
Germany
USSR
USA
Germany
Germany
UK
UK US J
Japan
| Cost
5
7
7
12
11
8
12
8
12
| Att
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
0
4
| Def
2
4
4
5
4
1
4
1
4
| Move
2
2
2
6
5
7
2
3
3
| Limit
N/A
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
| Special
Art., Can blitz with tank, boosts inf or mech to 2.
Tank, Rerolls 6’s when in battle.
Tank, roll of 1 hits enemy tank if possible.
Fighter, Attack 2 and Defense 3 in SBR’s
Fighter, Decreases 1 enemy Fighter’s Aor D  by 1 in battle or raid.
Bomber, does not add 2 to SBR rolls.
Cruiser, Bombard at 4, fires up to 2 AA shots.
Carrier, carries 1 fighter or tactical bomber.
Cruiser, Bombards at 4.
|