Any pre-existing G36 variants for the G40 board game?

This rule is part of the G40 House Rules Expansion

Please note, that this set up is in addition to the OOB set up.

The fighting in The Pacific Theatre now has a new dimension. “Island Jumping” is a crucial part of the Total Economy for both sides.

As part of the intense fighting in The Pacific, the Increased Ship Building rule is also implemented (soon to be posted at this site).

G40 Expanded Pacific Additional Set Up.pdf

I would use these rules:

(1) if the defender sees a key battle coming and can predict that they’ll want an unusual order of loss, they can leave a note, send an e-mail, etc., informing the attacker of their preferred order of loss, and the attacker will then follow that order.

(2) if there is no note, the attacker will provisionally use a standard order of loss.

(3) after seeing the results of the battle, the defender can pay 2 IPCs to the bank per casualty that they want to switch. You didn’t want to lose your bomber after all? Fine, pay 2 IPCs, and you can have your bomber back in exchange for one of your infantry. This should be expensive enough to deter casual abuse but still cheap enough that if you would really be upset about the order of loss, you can fix it without too much drama. Don’t think it’s fair that you should have to pay to set up your order of loss exactly the way you want it? Well, then, you should have foreseen the battle and given orders in advance. Don’t feel like thinking that hard every turn? Well, then, you can always just cough up 2 IPCs. It’s a way of speeding up the game while making sure that nothing unacceptably bad will happen because of order of loss issues.

very sorry everyone, we were experiencing technical difficulties today.

@Narvik:

@simon33:

If you use the same logic you should get rid of the Japanese NOs for Calcutta, Hawaii and Sydney. Not sure I like that change.

That would actually help Allies a fair bit and also keep peace between Germany and USSR for longer on the average. Would more peace make the game better? I’m not sure that it would. It would increase the number of Sea Lions though - perhaps that would be good.

Yes and no. It would be crazy if Japan can squeeze 5 more IPC out of a rocky island than the original owner can. But, if we change the words in the rule, and say that anyone who control Hawaii island and the adjacent seazone 26 with its convoy zone, will get a 5 IPC bonus, representing international trade with South America or something. Do the same with Sydney and seazone 62, and now I can endorse it, man. Now it makes sense to me.

About your other topic, the possibility of longer time of peace between Germany and its partner in crime, Russia, who knows man ? The current OOB NOs sure reward aggressive play, since Germanys choice between a 5 IPC peace NO dont catch up with the 15 + wartime NOs. But, the OOB NOs also make it a scripted game, but not a historical correct scripted game, since in the real war Germany first had to try a Sea Lion before it would attack Russia. Now, since the designer obviously want a lot of action, and not a sit and wait game, he trough in a lot of NOs to speed up the pace. And that is why we can see everything that happened from 1939 to 1941 in the first Turn of any A&A game. But if you ask me, I think its too many NOs in play, it should be max 3 to each nation, and they should represent something abstract like international trade, shipping, oil etc that is not already printed on the map. Actually there are no need for NOs, you only need Victory Cities to win. If Germany want to win the game, it should attack Russia because of the VCs there, not some derogatory NOs.

IMHO, NOs only have a meaning in this game if they are a part of some bidding system.

Increasing the peace time economy with russia (10 IPCs for both) while giving the wartime Leningrad +5 bonus NO to Russia, can give a better balance toward allies while giving more incentive to attack UK early and Leningrad later, to block the new russian income.

How did you edit the map?

Unfortunately leaving it for a week isn’t an option.  We could take pictures and reset it, but the players tend to change based on who is available.

I like the grand battle idea, we may give that a whirl.

@kbudm:

So my friends and I wanted to branch out from the WWII theme and sort of create our own version of this game. We decided on the time period of either the American Civil or Revolutionary War because we think it would be very unique and fun to play.  We’ll of course have to create a new game board and figures and the such, so this won’t be something that happens overnight lol.

I would suggest using Japanese artillery and infantry pieces for cannons and elite infantry (infantry with bayonets) and then using one of the other nations, perhaps the UK for the normal infantry (infantry without bayonets), also if you do civil war you will have to account for rifled barrels on muskets and cannons, possibly as tech.  Unit colors would have to be red for the British (Revolution), Blue for the Union (Civil war), blue for the patriots (Revolution), Grey for the confederates (Civil war), and some other color a lighter shade of blue perhaps for the French (American Revolution), other units you would need to account for would be spies, calvery, ironclads (Civil), and other warships. :-D hope this helps, if you come up with a rule set and map please share, sounds very cool!

ok