Sergeant Cutter

Sergeant Cutter · Nov 3, 2021, 1:52 AM

Thank you for the feedback. That is a good point where the decreasing bid would penalize the first turn strike too much. Do you think 20 IPC for turn one and 10 IPC for turn two would be better balanced?

@barnee I have not played AAA but have heard good things about it.

@The-Captain that is an impressive set of rules and very well presented. It is a lot to implement all at once but I imagine it makes for a fun game. I gave the Rule set a quick read but will have to give it a more thorough examination later.

Sergeant Cutter · Nov 2, 2021, 2:38 AM

Having played Global 1940 a number of times I have discovered what many, if not all, in the community have before me. The game is unbalanced, the Axis have an advantage. I have perused the forums and found two generally accepted ways to re-balance the game. The first is an Allied bid and the second is the version three balance mod. I shy away from using a bid, because bids encourage Axis players to continue to use the same overused optimal strategies. Such as the German push to take Moscow and the Japanese turn one attack. A bid does nothing to discourage these strategies. I have enjoyed playing the balance mod because it encourages players to expand into underutilized sections of the map, but it still suffers from players doing the same scripted moves turn one.

I have two ideas that could help balance the game and encourage different strategies by giving players different starting options. They are as follows:

Starting technology. Each major power (Germany, USSR, Japan, USA, UK and ANZAC, and Italy) gets one free technology before the start of the game. Selection is randomized with a dice roll, but the rolling player gets to choose the number rolled from either technology chart. Because certain technologies are overpowered, the opposing team gets a “veto,” that denies one technology but which allows the rolling player to select any neighboring technology on the chart. For example, Russia rolls a one for their technology and can select either heavy artillery or advanced submarines. The German player does not want to fight heavy artillery and so declares a veto, prohibiting Russia from selecting that technology. However, the Russian player can then select heavy bombers or advanced mechanized infantry (6), rockets or jet fighters (2), or still pick super submarines (1). In this way each power gets to select a technology that will help them in some way but not overpower them. (I learned in test play that long range Japanese aircraft are a nightmare).

These starting technologies can effect game play from the first turn. UK radar can make Sea Lion and the Calcutta Crush prohibitively expensive so the UK player can be more aggressive with his buys. Improved ship building can give the Italians a chance to build a navy etc. The game is different each time it is played and scripted moves face new challenges.

Nations that have lost their capital can still collect 50% of their income (rounding up) and place units in industrial complexes they own.

Optimal Axis strategies are to kill Moscow and Calcutta. This rule allows Russia to retreat from Moscow if there is no hope of defending it, and still produce (limited) units. The Axis cannot just aim for a capital and destroy an entire nation by taking that one territory, they have to capture all its industrial centers. This rule also allows France to contribute in small ways too. A French airbase in Morocco or Syria have proven surprising useful. This rule does not change starting moves but can effect how players fight in mid to late game.

What do you think? Are these two rules enough to balance the game? My small group has had fun with them but we are not expert players. How do you change up the standard scripted turn one moves? I have one additional idea but have not play tested it:

If Russia or USA are attacked before their first turn, the attacked Nation immediately receives a bonus 30 IPC which they can spend on their turn. This bonus goes to 20 IPC on turn two, 10 IPC on turn three, and 0 IPC on turn four. So if Japan attacks USA turn one, the USA gets 30 free IPC, and if Germany attacks Russia turn two, the USSR receives 20 free IPC. This is an immediate counter to aggressive Axis players but is not a guaranteed bid that encourages that same aggressive behavior.

I do not know if this idea would work and would appreciate the community’s input on all three house rules. My bottom line is that I do not want to change the map, set up, or core rules but I would like to play a game that is not the same every time.

Please tell me what you think and happy rolling.

Sergeant Cutter · May 29, 2022, 4:29 AM

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

Sergeant Cutter · Aug 2, 2022, 8:56 PM

@superbattleshipyamato

I am not a HBG officianto, and have only played a modified version of their 1939 game but I judge it to more accurately portray several aspects of the war than Axis and Allies.

First, the addition of Communist China, Free/Vichy France, and minor nation economies show the diversity of the conflict. Canada and South Africa need to build and ship military units to the conflict, resources don’t just teleport across the Atlantic like in Axis and Allies. Communist and Nationalist China make that theater multi-faceted which players can use to their advantage.

Technology is greatly improved and actually usable. In all out of box Axis and Allies, technology is to Random to reliably use in game. HBG adds a usable system to the game.

Unit tactics: Axis and Allies started using combined arms in later versions with artillery and tactical bombers. HBG expands upon this with improved Blitz rules and a variety of new unit types.

Territory and Sea Spaces: I don’t like all of HBG’s choices but I think they made some great changes to the map like making islands border multiple sea zones, and convoy squares/lines allow submarine convoy raiding to occur instead of Axis and Allies where submarines were easily hunted down and destroyed.

Special Rules: I like that a lost capital does not necessarily mean that a nation falls apart. Russia and the UK can both move their capitals and continue the fight. I think this is historical and a good change to the game dynamic.

All in all, I think that HBG made a great game that grew past what Axis and Allies culminated at with Global 1940. Their games are much more complex and I would like to see Global War 1939 reinvigorated into more of a step between Global War 1936 and Axis and Allies 1940, but that is why I house rule things. Historical Board Games do not make “official” Axis and Allies but I think for an in-depth war game that the learner has surpassed the master.

Sergeant Cutter · May 29, 2022, 4:29 AM

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

Sergeant Cutter · Nov 3, 2021, 1:52 AM

Thank you for the feedback. That is a good point where the decreasing bid would penalize the first turn strike too much. Do you think 20 IPC for turn one and 10 IPC for turn two would be better balanced?

@barnee I have not played AAA but have heard good things about it.

@The-Captain that is an impressive set of rules and very well presented. It is a lot to implement all at once but I imagine it makes for a fun game. I gave the Rule set a quick read but will have to give it a more thorough examination later.

Sergeant Cutter · Nov 2, 2021, 2:38 AM

Having played Global 1940 a number of times I have discovered what many, if not all, in the community have before me. The game is unbalanced, the Axis have an advantage. I have perused the forums and found two generally accepted ways to re-balance the game. The first is an Allied bid and the second is the version three balance mod. I shy away from using a bid, because bids encourage Axis players to continue to use the same overused optimal strategies. Such as the German push to take Moscow and the Japanese turn one attack. A bid does nothing to discourage these strategies. I have enjoyed playing the balance mod because it encourages players to expand into underutilized sections of the map, but it still suffers from players doing the same scripted moves turn one.

I have two ideas that could help balance the game and encourage different strategies by giving players different starting options. They are as follows:

Starting technology. Each major power (Germany, USSR, Japan, USA, UK and ANZAC, and Italy) gets one free technology before the start of the game. Selection is randomized with a dice roll, but the rolling player gets to choose the number rolled from either technology chart. Because certain technologies are overpowered, the opposing team gets a “veto,” that denies one technology but which allows the rolling player to select any neighboring technology on the chart. For example, Russia rolls a one for their technology and can select either heavy artillery or advanced submarines. The German player does not want to fight heavy artillery and so declares a veto, prohibiting Russia from selecting that technology. However, the Russian player can then select heavy bombers or advanced mechanized infantry (6), rockets or jet fighters (2), or still pick super submarines (1). In this way each power gets to select a technology that will help them in some way but not overpower them. (I learned in test play that long range Japanese aircraft are a nightmare).

These starting technologies can effect game play from the first turn. UK radar can make Sea Lion and the Calcutta Crush prohibitively expensive so the UK player can be more aggressive with his buys. Improved ship building can give the Italians a chance to build a navy etc. The game is different each time it is played and scripted moves face new challenges.

Nations that have lost their capital can still collect 50% of their income (rounding up) and place units in industrial complexes they own.

Optimal Axis strategies are to kill Moscow and Calcutta. This rule allows Russia to retreat from Moscow if there is no hope of defending it, and still produce (limited) units. The Axis cannot just aim for a capital and destroy an entire nation by taking that one territory, they have to capture all its industrial centers. This rule also allows France to contribute in small ways too. A French airbase in Morocco or Syria have proven surprising useful. This rule does not change starting moves but can effect how players fight in mid to late game.

What do you think? Are these two rules enough to balance the game? My small group has had fun with them but we are not expert players. How do you change up the standard scripted turn one moves? I have one additional idea but have not play tested it:

If Russia or USA are attacked before their first turn, the attacked Nation immediately receives a bonus 30 IPC which they can spend on their turn. This bonus goes to 20 IPC on turn two, 10 IPC on turn three, and 0 IPC on turn four. So if Japan attacks USA turn one, the USA gets 30 free IPC, and if Germany attacks Russia turn two, the USSR receives 20 free IPC. This is an immediate counter to aggressive Axis players but is not a guaranteed bid that encourages that same aggressive behavior.

I do not know if this idea would work and would appreciate the community’s input on all three house rules. My bottom line is that I do not want to change the map, set up, or core rules but I would like to play a game that is not the same every time.

Please tell me what you think and happy rolling.

Sergeant Cutter

@Sergeant Cutter

Best posts made by Sergeant Cutter

Latest posts made by Sergeant Cutter

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

L25 French Rebalance FlyingBadger (Axis) vs Simon33 (Allies+0) #1

2024 Playoff OOB Round 1 Pacifiers Board (+42) v Gamerman01

L25 PtV Stucifer (X+9) v Argothair (L)

BM4 FASTHARD1985 & Oskar2KX (X) vs fasthard (L+20)

L25 OOB TSK23 (X) vs Martin (L+40)

L24 OOB Myygames (X) vs GovZ (A+42) Game II

In how many hours can you complete a G40 game

L25 G40 OOB Dawgoneit (L+50) v Jacob16 (X)

34

17.6k

40.2k

1.7m