I think the game works well enough without either of these exotic additions. But, this does sound like a good idea for another scenario.

That sounds like pretty cool stuff, but I don’t want to add any new units to the game. The object of this scenario is to provide an interesting 1939 scenario for beginners/casual gamers. I don’t want to make it too technical or anything like that.

In response to your playtesting and more of our own, we have decided to release a drastically different rule set, version 3, in order to address some issues brought up. Many things have been tweaked, changed, or added, so be sure to read the whole document before playing with this new rule set:

Axis & Allies Europe: 1939

VICTORY CONDITIONS: Control two enemy capitals (capitals are comprised of Moscow, Germany, Northern Italy, United Kingdom and United States) for one turn.

There are 5 playing nations: Soviet Union, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom (and minor allied and neutral countries), France/United States. Italy is played using Japanese pieces from one of the other game boards, and France/United States uses United States pieces.

Turn Order: Germany, Soviet Union, Italy, the United Kingdom, and France/United States.

SPECIAL RULES:

Additional IPCs on Turn 1: Germany starts with 15 IPCs to spend on its first turn.
                  Italy starts with an extra 6 IPCs to spend on its first turn.
                  UK and France start with an extra 10 IPCs to spend between the two of them.
NEW UNITS MAY ONLY BE PLACED IN THEIR PLAYER’S INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OR ADJACENT SEA SQUARE. THIS NEGATES THE PACT OF STEEL RULE.

Soviet Union:

The Soviet Union must remain at peace until Germany or Italy initiates hostilities against the Soviet Union. Then it must declare war against both of these countries and no others.

Soviet convoy does not become active until Germany or Italy attacks the USSR.

The Soviet Union may only use half of their income, rounding up, until Italy or Germany initiates hostilities against the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union owns the pink territories and they are considered part of Soviet Territory.

Captured Soviet factories can only produce a number of units equal to that territories’ IPC value each turn.

France/United States:

U.S. convoys become active when the USA enters the war (i.e. France falls).

Maginot Line: French infantry in Eastern France or Vichy France defend on a 3 if attacked from Germany or Northern Italy, respectively.

The two British Convoys valued at 3 IPCs are French; if France falls they become British. If they have been occupied by Axis naval units, they will still need to be reoccupied by Allied powers.

Mid-East:

The total IPC value of the yellow Mid-East territories is counted to the end of each round. This money is divided between the French and British immediately for use on their next turn (in a fashion similar to British convoys in A&A Pacific).

The Industrial Complex in Egypt may only deploy 1 unit per turn.

Vichy France:

If France falls to the Axis, French IPCs are claimed by the conquering player and any French land or air units in Vichy France, the Middle East, or North Africa immediately become German (they may not move until the following turn). Any remaining French land or air units in Allied territories become British.  French naval units are scuttled (removed from play).  The French convoys become British (if under Axis control at the time, they must be liberated first). From this point forward the French player is now the United States; nothing special happens if France is liberated.

Plunder:

If the Axis conquer any of the minor allied powers (including Netherlands-Belgium and Corsica) or neutral territories (all of which are originally under the jurisdiction of the British player), that Axis country immediately gains “plunder” from the bank equal to twice the IPC value of the territory conquered to spend on their following turn (territories with no IPC value yield a plunder of 1). This only works the first time a territory of this nature is conquered.

Pact of Steel:

Axis powers can deploy units using each other’s Industrial Complexes.

Lend-Lease:

Allied units in Red territories can be absorbed by the Soviet Union during the Soviet’s purchase phase.

Other Rules:

Strategic Bombing raids can only destroy up to the IPC value of the territory in which they are conducting the raid.

Fighters cost 10, Carriers 16.  Tanks defend on a 3.

Transports can carry any of the following combinations: 2 infantry, 1 infantry and 1 tank, 1 infantry and 1 artillery, 1 infantry, 1 artillery, or 1 tank.

Destroyers can bombard.

The United States gets an industrial complex.  No new ones can be built.

Allied units may not enter Soviet territory until the Axis initiates hostilities against the Soviets.

If France falls, all Mid-East IPCs go to the UK by default. They may not be given to the United States.

The British marker is used on the side of the IPC chart to keep track of Mid-East territories.

UNIT PLACEMENT

GERMANY: 13 IPCs
  Germany: 6 infantry, 4 tanks, 2 artillery, 4 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial            Complex, 1 AA gun.
  Austria: 2 infantry, 1 tank, 2 artillery.
  Czechoslovakia: 5 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter.
  Hungary: 3 infantry, 1 tank, 2 artillery.
  Finland: 2 infantry.
  Baltic Sea: 1 battleship, 1 destroyer.
  Danish Sea: 1 transport, 1 sub.
  Denmark Strait: 2 subs.
  Barents Sea: 2 subs.
  Mid-Atlantic: 2 subs.
  South Atlantic: 2 subs.

SOVIET UNION: 18 IPCs
  Moscow: 1 infantry, 1 Industrial Complex, 1 AA gun.
  Leningrad: 1 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Industrial Complex, 1 AA gun.
  Stalingrad: 1 infantry, 1 Industrial Complex.
  Archangel: 1 infantry, 1 Industrial Complex.
  Baltic States: 1 infantry, 1 artillery.
  East Poland: 1 infantry, 1 tank.
  (Bessarabia, Vyborg, Caucasus unoccupied).
  Siberia: 1 infantry.
  Turkestan: 1 infantry.
  Ukraine SSR: 1 infantry.
  Belorussia: 1 infantry.
  Russia: 1 infantry.
  Karelia: 1 infantry.
  White Sea: 1 transport, 1 sub.

ITALY: 9 IPCs
  Northern Italy: 5 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 Industrial Complex, 1 AA gun.
  Southern Italy: 2 infantry, 1 tank.
  Libya: 2 infantry.
  Sicily: 1 fighter.
  Rumania: 2 infantry, 1 artillery.
  Bulgaria: 1 infantry, 1 artillery.
  Central Mediterranean: 1 sub, 1 battleship.
  Tyrrhenian Sea: 1 destroyer, 1 transport.
  (Sardinia unoccupied).

UNITED KINGDOM: 19 IPCs
  United Kingdom:  2 infantry, 1 tank, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial          Complex, 1 AA gun.
  Canada:  1 tank, 1 Industrial Complex.
  Malta:  1 fighter.
  Atlantic:  1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 transport.
  Celtic Sea:  1 transport.
  English Channel:  1 destroyer, 1 transport.
  North Sea:  1 sub.
  Davis Straight:  1 transport.
  Straight of Gibraltar:  1 battleship.
  Eastern Mediterranean:  1 destroyer, 2 transports.
  (Gibraltar and Iceland unoccupied; 2 convoys worth 5 IPCs).
Mid-East:  (see special rules for Mid-East income).
  Egypt:  3 infantry, 1 tank, 1 Industrial Complex* (see special rules)
  Trans-Jordan:  1 infantry, 1 artillery.
  (Syria, Iran, and Palestine unoccupied)
Neutral and Minor Allies:  (do not contribute to UK income)
  Yugoslavia:  2 infantry.
  Greece:  3 infantry, 1 artillery.
  Crete:  1 infantry.
  Denmark:  1 infantry.
  Norway:  1 infantry.

FRANCE:  17 IPCs
  France:  3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 Industrial Complex.
  Eastern France:  1 Tank, 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun.
  Vichy France:  2 infantry.
  Tunisia:  1 infantry, 1 artillery.
  Morocco:  1 infantry.
  Algeria: 1 infantry.
  Syria: 1 infantry.
  English Channel:  1 destroyer, 1 sub.
  Western Mediterranean:  1 destroyer, 1 transport.
(Corsica, Netherlands-Belgium are unoccupied; 2 convoys worth 3 IPCs).

Well, of course the downside to having the USSR dump men and material in other countries in this game is the SAME reason Stalin never considered for a moment during the real war - it would be taking away communist troops from the defense of the motherland to defend a non-communist state. Such an action would not only have been against the communist doctrine of  the time, but also against the common-sense idea of prioritizing your own safety over the safety of your neighbors. If Germany wants to discourage the USSR from engaging in this strategy, it need only park a sizeable army on the Russian frontier.

And let me put it to you this way - Britain felt that she needed aid badly during the Blitz and the U-boat blockade. I have little doubt that if Stalin had offered military aid in the form of weapons and/or vehicles, or even an expeditionary unit, Britain would not have declined the offer. The USA was essentially already providing the UK with the same, and simultaneously remaining at peace with Germany (despite the fact that her merchant marine was more or less openly at war with U-boats on the high seas at the time!). I can’t say as much for the USA, but I’m not willing to complicate the rules just for the sake of this small discrepancy. If the USA needs to worry about being invaded, then the histories have already gone so far from the beaten path that I’m willing to accept such a possibility.

If in gameplay this proves to be too much of a boon to the allies, I will strongly consider a xenophobia clause for Russia as well. This would not, note, stop her from going on naval maneuvers.

For one thing, what is going on in tekkyy’s game is just plain bad allied gameplay, not bad rules insofar as I can see. for one thing, there is no reason that one should not find a russian bomber in any area that the germans intend on attacking.

I will be happy to play against anyone in order to justify the board’s rules as soon as I can get my hands on the A&A Europe board. It is currently at a friend’s house and needs to be recovered before I can play a game over forums.

Other than that, all I can say is that all is conjecture at this moment, because the potential problems you all have raised were not addressed in my initial round of playtesting, and niether have any of you conducted enough of your own playtesting (IMHO) to discover whether these percieved problems are in fact a reality. If you are truly interested in making this scenario better rather than just sniping at it for spite’s sake, please play about three games as each side AT LEAST before you make any initial judgement calls.

Even if I don’t get to play against one of you online, I assure you all your concerns have led me to request another round of playtesting with my friends, especially revolving around the idea of a permanently peaceful Soviet Union.

As a final note of historical conjecture on my part, I would argue that Stalin had no serious plans whatsoever to attack Germany. His officer corps decimated, his industry still growing, and his outdated equipment and training all left him in a severely inferior position relative to the German Wermacht at the start of the war. There are reports that Stalin was actually quite confident in the cease-fire agreement held by his country with Nazi Germany. In any event, I can see Stalin going to war only as soon as he felt that the Soviet Union was truly prepared. I would guess war no earlier than 1944,  and even that would have required some very silly decisions to be made.

Before you go saying that my scenario is “a farce,” make sure you play the game a few times to get a feel for it. A lot of things may seem bad on the surface, but actually work out in practice. Please don’t judge a book by its cover, in other words.

That said, I am considering adding in a variable that somehow allows the SU to get involved in the war later on, although certainly cunning soviet troop maneuvers can get the SU into the war easily enough as it is (and so I’m not quite sure what you all are complaining about).

Just test the scenario for yourselves before you go off calling “a farce” and whatnot.

It seems that many of you are held up on the idea of keeping the game turns in line chronologically with the actual events of the war. I would like, therefore, to introduce you to a concept that doesn’t change my game at all, but has helped me accept some of the seemingly more difficult problems revolving around the progression of time. I think of it as “elastic time.” What this means is that basically, a turn might represent a variable span of time, depending on what is accomplished during it. The first turn of my game, for example, might represent nearly a whole year, while the third turn might represent possibly only a month or two. Now you may reject this concept, thinking that if the time span varies, then so would the IPC output. But as we all know, the IPC output of the game is turn-based instead of the continuous stream that it would have been in real life. Therefore, it is only an approximation to begin with, and we may allow ourselves to think of the relatively large outputs during the “short” turns as the result of a buildup of military industry, or the relatively low output during the “long” turns as the result of a somehow sluggish or exhausted economy.

Ultimately, I think of time in Axis and Allies in this way because in my view it is not so important to keep the game’s events running on a strict timeline. Yes, it is important to keep things roughly within a time constraint - I would not brook the idea of thinking of a single turn as only a day or as much as three years - but so long as I can see a progression of events within the gameplay that were either actually done at the time or feasible at the time (to the best of our knowledge), then I am happy.

You might look at it another way - simply put, that it is not so important how much time has elapsed, but whether the order of events has maintained its integrity.

@ Cobert: Remember, the UK WAS powerful. Spain might have joined because they were Fascist, Turkey might have joined because of a chip on its shoulder from WWI, Saudi Arabia might have been forced to fight for the Allies, ALTHOUGH there were strong fascist sentiments in Iraq and other middle-eastern countries at that time… so it is kind of a toss-up. Can’t say for the other stuff.

@ Flashman: You really should try playing my scenario. I think it will restore faith in a flexible 1939 scenario. I have seen Germany take down the French both quickly and never at all, so it all depends on how much each power is willing to commit to the battle for France. And no, no player has Blitzkrieg rules. Everyone is given the benefit of the doubt, supposing that they might have all fought to the best of their abilities. Yes, this will lead to some historical innaccuracy, but then again I’ve always thought that so long as it doesn’t get out of hand, that was kind of the point of playing the game - to see how things might have gone differently.

@ Gewehr: You might want to try ignoring Eastern France and going straight for Paris on the first German turn. If you spent your pregame resources well, it is possible, and then all of the Vichy French will help you out as well. Just make sure that the UK can’t reinvade and use your airforce well, and it should be concievable.

@ tekkyy: If Germany hadn’t killed France quickly IRL then I believe it would have been bad news bears for Germany there too.

And thus the benefit of NOT declaring war on the Soviet Union is demonstrated.

France can indeed be POWERFUL if the British and the French are ready to commit to its defense. This is especially true if the Germans don’t do all that they can to crush France on the first turn if it looks like the Allies are going this route. I don’t find this particularly ahistorical, as the British and French, if they had had the will, COULD have had larger and better-trained armies ready. The bocage would have become as devastating for the Germans as it was for the Americans in 1944.

Now as for the rules regarding the Russian navy. I will keep things simple in the interest of keeping the game simple. The rule shall be that Axis ships moving into a sea zone occupied by Russian vessels will be considered to be opening hostilities between Russia and the Axis. However, submarines may still pass under neutral vessels without incident so long as a neutral or Allied destroyer does not also exist in this sea zone, as per normal game rules. I have made it this way in order to avoid the problem of an event in which Axis vessels exist in the same sea square with Russian vessels at the time that the Axis makes war on Russia. Moreover, I justify this historically (if somewhat weakly) by saying that Axis ships meeting any craft equipped to defend itself in international waters would likely have been fired upon, as the US merchant marine did - the reason being that German vessels especially were given a generally free reign of targets in the Atlantic, insofar as I know.