One thing I like about this idea is that it brings South America into the action. As big a board as A&A Global is, it can be easy to have too many powers in too small a space.

I tried this out and liked it a lot. Italy having a boost to put them in a better starting position was nice. And it was also nice to have another ally making landings in Europe/Africa, as it seems with my games that UK always falls quickly.

One significant change I tried was making the Dutch connected to France, the same way London and Calcutta are connected– separate economies, but everything else being united. I mostly did this to allow the use of blue pieces for the Dutch. But I liked the result of French African pieces being reinforced by Dutch pieces and being able to move together.

@eroxors:

What were the game results? When did the Dutch receive their NOs (what was their final income)? Was there any discernible difference in the Pacific?

Thanks for trying it out.

They got the South American NO by the second turn. They kept a Dutch ship in the Pacific the whole game by moving a sub to SZ 52. It took quite some time for ANZAC or India to take control of the DEI as Japan was gunning very fast for Calcutta and all effort had to go toward keeping the capital.
Their highest income was 26 including NOs.
It did not make a difference in the Pacific. This is because the sub fled in order to keep the NO, and Japan never tried for the DEI, and when ANZAC never built enough transports to make use of the newly acquired infantry from the DEI.

Here’s were the Dutch were helpful. They built a ragtag navy of around 5 subs, 4 destroyers and 1 aircraft carrier. They destroyed the Italian fleet in SZ 92 allowing the Americans to land straight into Rome.
What did not work so well for the Dutch was transporting infantry and artillery into French West Africa. It took too long for those units to walk to Egypt to find some Italians to fight.

But for the sake of game mechanics, it is important that we say that Germany “liberates” Rome. Also, for the sake of game mechanics, we can only take historical accuracy so far. Which means that if Rome is liberated by Germany, then we pretend that all the Italian territories all over the board will be perfectly happy to come back under the rule of Italy no matter the actual feeling of those people in actual history.

@Make_It_Round:

Thanks for the interesting case study, MacN…

However, the liberation of Rome would not change the pro-Allied status of the units in Tobruk in the example you cite.

(They would be lost forevermore to the Italians.)

The rules for the recapture of a capital are not affected by the new rules I propose regarding a capital falling.

So if I lose Rome, and subsequently more territories due to them becoming pro-allied, the only way I can regain those territories is through military take-over. Correct? On that same note: if Germany or Japan conquers those pro-allied territories that used to be Italian after Rome has been liberated, do they become Italian as a liberated territory or do they go to the conquering nation?

Have you thought about what should happen if a capital is liberated? Do all units and territories revert back to their original owner or do they stay neutrol pro-enemy territories and units? What if they become neutral pro-you territories?
Say Rome is captured and Tobruk becomes pro-allied neutral. If Rome is liberated Tobruk could become a pro-axis neutral. All that income and those units stay immobile until an Axis unit can get them back into the infrustructure.

@Gargantua:

Are none of you guys playing with the current rules?

for each suface ship roll 1d6, for each sub or fighter roll 2d6, (Aircraft Carriers don’t roll dice)

if you roll 1, 2, or 3,  do 1, 2, or 3 damage.   if you roll 4, 5, or 6,  you do none.

I love it when the actual rules are better than any suggested house rules.

@Der:

@MacNaughton:

@Der:

I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?

You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.

But using that reasoning why don’t we have to pay for the gas when we move our armor? Or pay for the bombs we use in strategic bombing?  Or pay to fix battleships and carriers?

Because paying to upkeep a unit is different than paying to deploy a unit or build a facility.

@Der:

I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?

Because this game is both strategic and economic. And those two aspects are absolutely linked. All of your economic advantages are dependant on your strategic maneuvers. And all your deployments that enable your strategic maneuvers are dependant on your economic strength. It is the principle by which the game is balanced at the start and the principle by which nations gain the momentum toward victory.
You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.

A graduated cost- Now there’s a  good idea!

@Make_It_Round:

@MacNaughton:

I don’t think that we need to limit the # of entrenchment counters on a territory. Why not?

Well, we can only build 1 entrenchment counter per territory per round, to a limit of 3 territories. The game rarely lasts even eight rounds, so I wager that we’ll never experience the nightmare scenario of facing +20 entrenchment counters when attacking Moscow. Maybe three to five, but rarely more.

Best,

M_I_R

I agree with you completely. I mentioned +20 trench counters in Moscow as the justification for limiting the number of trenches placed per turn (like you suggested).
Also, I wasn’t thinking that Moscow itself would ever have 20 trenches. The Germans have to move through 3 territories before they get to Moscow. Depending on how the trench rule is limited they could have to fight through a large number of trenches before killing any Moscow units.

I’m with M_I_R. It should cost 1 IPC to build a trench, infantry building a trench should not be allowed to move on that turn, you can only build 1 trench in a territory in a turn, and you cannot build more three trenches in a turn.
In addition to this, I think that territories should be limited to the total trench value they can have. It would ruin the game for USSR to invest heavily in trenches and force the Germans to get through 20 soak kills before they can kill a single unit in Moscow. Here some suggestions toward that limitation.
1. A territory’s trench value cannot exceed the number of infantry in it. This is tricky. What happens if infantry move out of the territory? Does limiting it this way get rid of the point of heavily defending a territory with minimal infantry? How are the Pacific islands ever going to be well entrenched?
2. A territory’s trench value cannot exceed 3. This one is plain and simple. But, once again, does this ruin the point of the trench rule?
3. A territory’s trench value cannot exceed its IPC value. I like this one the most. It is simple, and it uses the relative importance of a territory as its own moderator concerning its defensability. Capitals have greater infustructure, therefore can be more readily defending with things like trenches. The downside of this is that Gibralter was specifically named as needing trenches, but wouldn’t be able to have any with this rule.

Paris fell quickly.
As I said, I didn’t play too long. Austria-Hungary started making moves into Russia and Italy well. The Ottomans took Egypt and looked good to start taking the rest of Africa. Italy didn’t have much to begin with and wasn’t going to last very long. All-in-all, it isn’t hard for the Central Powers to dominate mainland Europe. It is simply a matter of if they can keep USA and UK from landing.