Global 1940 US & UK Lend-Lease

@crockett36

No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.

@all-encompassing-goose

I think this a great idea-I just think it’s too complicated. Make it so the Bulgarian infantry can only move in three territories: Bulgaria, Greece, and Yugoslavia.

I have been reading about your house rules, and you should put them into one giant rulebook like The Captain. Keep up the good work!

@fat-belly-general

I really like this idea, as it allows even in a three player game to have two players as the Axis.

From what I’m reading yes you can move those pieces on your actual turn again.
As midnight said US can make non combat moves to plan.
China have a bit of hope. Lol
Calcutta saved ?
This will give each country some extra planning and moves to think about during turns which was stated to keep players more focused per each countries turn.
Lots of things to check out

@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.

Place 1 partisan in each axis controlled empty territory of Russia. Defends at 1.

That actually does sound like a good idea for coastal artillery. I think that’s more inline with the D-Day game as well I can’t recall.

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.)