Been meaning to post Gargantua’s “Research Facility”. It’s discussed here:
I used it in conjunction with Der Kuenstler’s Tech tree and found it to be quite enjoyable. Basically each country starts with a Research Facility that produces 1 tech token per turn. The Facilities can be captured, bombed or destroyed depending on your preference.
Anyway a cool unit and one that will be added to “Global 40 HouseRules” which is discussed in the “Redesign” thread.
yea I’d just stick with what you got for now. While using different means with the global game, having Germany and even Italy a chance to battle in the Atlantic is a good option imo.
What I haven’t done yet is try and steamroll Russia. That’ll be next test. : )
Good action SS and Karl as well for doing the drive : )
After playtest on AA50, I realized that Axis setup needed to receive more Navy based on OOB IPCs values and StB mutation from combat unit to SBR only unit required an additional Tactical Bomber to compensate for the missing attack “4” for regular combat.
I provided below 2 adjusted setups for StB Cost 5, and all this modified roster quoted: one for 1942.2 and one for AA50 1941.
These setups also include Convoys SZs (4 IPCs to maxed out) which can be raided by Submarines only on these maps.
It helps Axis to compensate for the rapid growth of Allies Navy due to 5-6-8-12-15, lower cost structure.
Germany’s u-boats were clearly more interesting in ATO. However, TcB and Destroyers Depth Charge have to be @1 only. Giving Depth Charge @2 to Destroyer was too high and was too easy to sink all u-boats.
For US, the lower cost for warships allows US to built sea units on both sides. However, have to remember that a Full Carrier with 2 Fighters (A4 D7 C26) is easier to built but weaker than OOB (A6 D10 C36). An hard lesson learned when IJN wipe out US West Coast fleet.
Tactical Bomber being able to pick ground unit (on land) or naval target (at sea) was pretty interesting.
Japanese player decided to take one hit on a carrier but later US TcB got a hit and pick a Carrier. Japan chose to loose 1 already damage carrier but, after combat had to ditch 1 Fighter because of not enough room on his last Carrier.
TPs were at 8 IPCs but get 1 hit and a single roll @1 per group. Was pretty straight forward for a new player.
It provides a minimal risk in many cases against Allies dispersed TP with DD.
With Destroyer defending @1 and last TP also defending @1, this gave an even option to keep one or the other, except against Subs. So, there is no predictable outcomes with lasts remaining naval units.
StBs A1 in SBR were dangerous but AAA @1, TcB D1 and Fg D2 or D3 provided an efficient defense.
U-boats were more efficient at reducing UK and US money than any German StB (needing a critical number to fight interceptors).
I got time to add more details and much more elements from Triple A Redesign sequence (like targeted First strike: Interdiction Patrol)
This is a unit profiles for G40 Redesign, I will try to test on my boardgame.
Do you think it can be interesting on board map game?
The Depth Charge sequence for Destroyer is inspired by YG’s 3G40 project.
This allows to not block Sub’s submerge (which is realistic from a ship-to-ship POV).
I also used SS long time play-tested HR, Destroyer blocking Sub’s Surprise strike on a 1:1 basis.
These two abilities seem better at depicting Sub warfare with not so complex mechanic.
The Naval sequence will be:
0- Interdiction Patrol: 1 roll @1 against Sub or surface vessels (up to 1 roll max against each unit) crossing SZ defended by Sub or Destroyer (against Sub only), prior to actual combat.
1- Submerge or Surprise strike
2- Anti-Sub Patrol: Depth charge against submerged Subs
Tactical bomber @1 each
Destroyer @1 @2 each, up to 1 roll max per submerged Submarine
3- General combat:
Roll Fighters [and AAA in land combat, if attacking aircraft present],
then roll TcBs,
All other units.
Surviving Transports escape roll @1 (place in SZ)
Air retreat, attacker then defender,
Attacker’s general retreat
If no general retreat, cycle to phase 1.
Increasing dogfight occurrences:
Up to two aircraft, either Fighter or Tac Bomber, can land in a just conquered territory, if aircraft have 2 move left for NCM after battle.
A land unit must first conquered the territory before allowing any aircraft to land on.
Keeping 2 basic units of G40 Redesign cost structure:
Destroyer A1 D1 C5 (0.96),
Submarine A2 D1 C6 (1.33, 0.67)
But all other units are adjusted according to ENIGMA-Vann formula so to keep
Cruiser A3 D3 C8 (1.13) and
Battleship A4 D4 C15 (1.12), 2 hits, better in combat compared to Destroyer (0.96) but both even combat ratio based on same IPC basis (1.12).
Fleet Carrier A0 D2 C12 (0.87), 2 hits, still carry only 2 aircraft and is stronger than OOB Carrier (0.49) on same IPCs basis, but weaker in absolute combat values.
Still, Full Carrier with 2 Fgs A2 D2 for A4 D7 C26 (0.72, 1.11) has a stronger combat factor than
OOB Full Carrier A6 D10 C36 (0.53, 0.88).
Full Carrier 1 TcB & 1 Fg A5 D7 C27 (0.77, 1.03) is stronger than
OOB Full Carrier 1 TcB & 1 Fg A7 D9 C37 (0.48, 0.75)
Also, both aircraft types have special abilities which can compensate and also because of cheaper Full Carrier compared to OOB units.
Tactical Bomber A3 D2 C8 (1.13, 0.75) now gets targeting capacity on Sea and Land units, and also get Depth charge @1 against submerged Subs.
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (0.98) directly fire at aircraft first, as usual for my HR. But treated as OOB when there is no enemy’s aircraft.
Strategic Bombers cannot be part of regular combat, but get A1 in SBR dogfight.
This units profile allows a full spectrum of combat values for Naval combat:
Carrier A0 D2 C12, DD A1 D1 C5, Sub A2 D1 C6, Fg A2 D2 C7, TcB A3 D2 C8, Cruiser A3 D3 C8, BB A4 D4 C15
Now, Cruiser at 8 IPCs is taking the middle place of Destroyer in OOB roster
Of course, setup will need adjustments because of cheaper aircraft and Carrier.
Rating is 2 OOB Full Carrier A12 D20 C72 –-> 3 Full Carrier A12 D21 C78
2 OOB Fighter A3 D4 C10 (A6 D8 C20) —> 3 Fighter A2 D2 C7 (A6 D6 C21)
2 Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 C11 (A6 D6 C22) —> 3 TacB A3 D2 C8 (A9 D6 C24)
2 Strategic bomber A4 D1 C12 (A8 D2 C24) —> 2 StB A0 D0 C5 & 2 TcB A3 D2 C8 (A6 D4 C26)
2 Destroyer A2 D2 C8 (A4 D4 C16) —> 3 DD A1 D1 C5 (A3 D3 C15)
2 Cruiser A3 D3 C12 (A6 D6 C24) —> 3 CA A3 D3 C8 (A9 D9 C24)
Also, cheaper boats will increase the pressure on Axis much earlier in game.
However, Subs are still potent offensive units with pretty good elusive capacity.
Destroyer (0.96) (Depth charge on submerged Sub: 1.92 max)
Cannot block Subs CM or NCM,
but each Sub moving through a SZ controlled by Destroyer must submit to 1 @1 anti-sub defense roll per DD, up to 1 roll @1 per Submarine.
Block Submarine’s First strike on a 1:1 basis
Cannot block submerge but can Depth charge submerging Sub:
Depth charge against submerged Subs, after Submerge or First Strike phase and prior to regular combat:
1 roll @1, only for on going combat round, up to 1 roll per submerged Submarine max.
Destroyer doing Depth charge can still roll in regular combat.
1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine (1.33, 0.67 / FS 2.00, 0.89)
Cannot block Subs or surface vessels CM or NCM,
but each Submarine or surface vessel moving through a SZ patrolled by Sub (Sub cannot control SZ) must submit to 1 @1 Sub potshot defense roll per defending Sub, up to 1 roll @1 per Submarine or surface ship moving through SZ, whichever the lower.
Stealth Move: Submarine CM or NCM is not block by Destroyer and
in Combat Move, only Subs attacking do not allow scramble from adjacent Air Base
Submerge or First strike prior to 2- Depth charge and 3- General Combat phase,
First strike: Destroyer blocks Submarine’s First strike on 1:1 basis
Submerge: Destroyer does not block submerge but can do Depth charge @1at submerged Sub, up to 1 roll @2 per Sub max.
Cannot hit Submarines nor aircraft.
2D in Convoy SZ.
[variant Move 3-4]
Taken as last casualty,
Carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
Transport (reg combat variant) (0.38 or less)
[Variant M3: Move 3-4, Cost 8, 1 hit, each TP also gets 1 escape roll @1]
Defense 1* * 1@1 for all friendly TPs group in SZ
Carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
Can be taken as casualty according to owner’s choice.
[Variant M3: Move 3-4, Cost 9, 1 hit, (0.89)]
Shore bombardment @3
1D in Convoy SZ
Fleet Carrier (0.00, 0.87)
Carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB):
2 Fgs A4 D7 C26 (0.72, 1.11),
1 Fg & 1 TcB A5 D7 C27 (0.77, 1.03),
2 TcBs A6 D6 C28 (0.83, 0.79)
Air operation allowed for 1 plane, if damaged.
Gives +1 Defense to 1 Fighter defending when paired 1:1 with Carrier (Carrier Air Patrol)
Shore bombardment @4
1D in Convoy SZ
Fighter (0.98) (SBR: 0.98)
Defense 2-3 (3) when being supported by an AB in invaded TT or a Carrier in embattled SZ, on 1:1 basis
Move 4-5 (M6 from AB as escort for bombers)
Hit aircraft first, then AAA, then owner’s selecting his own casualties as usual.
SBR A2 D2,
1D in Convoy SZ.
Needs no Destroyer to hit Subs.
Can retreat aircraft 1 adjacent TTy after first combat round (announce before attacker’s retreat).
Tactical Bomber (1.13, 0.75) (Depth charge: 0.38) (TBR: 0.38)
Move 4-5 (M6 from AB for TBR only)
Can pick any land or naval enemy’s unit (excluding aircraft) if rolling a hit
TBR A1 D1, damage 1D6 on AB & NB (avg dmg ratio: 3.5 IPC /8 IPCs= 0.4375 or 2.92 - 8/6 = 1.6 IPCs damage / SBR)
1D in Convoy SZ
Needs no Destroyer to hit Subs.
Depth charge against submerged Subs, after Submerge or First Strike phase and prior to regular combat:
1 roll @1, only for on going combat round, no max roll per submerged Submarine (stackable rolls).
Tactical Bombers doing Depth charge can still roll in regular combat.
Can retreat aircraft 1 adjacent TTy, after first combat round (announce before attacker’s retreat).
Strategic Bomber (0.00/ SBR: 0.96)
Move 6-8 (M8 from AB for SBR only)
0 hit in regular combat,
SBR 1 hit, A1 D0, damage 1D6 (avg dmg ratio: 3.5 IPCs /5 IPCs= 0.7 or 2.9 - 5/6 = 2.1 IPCs damage / SBR)
[OOB avg dmg ratio: 5.5 IPCs /12 IPCs =[i] 0.458 or 4.6 - 12/6 = 2.6 IPCs damage / SBR]
OOB G40: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = 4.583 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCs
Sum: 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/StB run
1 StB Cost 5 damage D6 doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 3.5 IPCs = 2.917 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs
Sum: 2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/StB run
1 TcB Cost 8 damage D6 doing TBR without interceptor
5/6 TcB survived * 3.5 IPCs = 2.92 IPCs
1/6 TcB killed *8 IPCs = -1.33 IPCs
Sum: 2.92 - 1.33 = +1.59 IPCs damage/TcB run
Giving +1M, +2M on SBR or TBR only,
Gives +1 Defense to 1 Fighter defending either AB’s territory or adjacent SZ & TT.
Allows up to four units to scramble, either Fg or TcB.
Scramble can occur in either an adjacent SZ or an adjacent TT.
Do not allow scramble if only Submarines attacking an adjacent SZ.
Anti-Aircraft Artillery (0.00, 3.00 / AA from 1.50 up to 4.50)
Defense 2 or 3AA@1
Roll 3@1 vs up to three aircraft, 1 roll max per aircraft or, if no enemy’s aircraft, roll regular defense @2.
This is not preemptive fire: roll in regular combat phase.
Move as any ground unit in CM and NCM.
If AAA against up to 3 aircraft:
1/6 TcB shoot down *8 IPCs = 1.33 IPCs * 3 = 4.00
1/6 Fg shoot down *7 IPCs = 1.17 IPCs * 3 = 3.50
3.75 IPCs shoot down per combat round if at least 3 attacking aircraft
2.50 IPCs shoot down per combat round if only 2 attacking aircraft
1.25 IPCs shoot down per combat round if only 1 attacking aircraft
If AAA against up to 2 aircraft:
1/6 TcB shoot down *8 IPCs = 1.33 IPCs * 2 = 2.66
1/6 Fg shoot down *7 IPCs = 1.17 IPCs * 2 = 2.34
2.50 IPCs shoot down per combat round if at least 2 attacking aircraft
1.25 IPCs shoot down per combat round if only 1 attacking aircraft
Here is additional units which are optional and require new sculpts to play with:
Militia (0.00, 6.00)
Marines (2.67-5.33, 2.67)
+1 Attack in amphibious assault,
TP can carry 2 Marines, can load 1 on Battleship
Bunker (0.00, 2.88)
Requires 1 Inf, MI, Art, Elite, Marines or militia to work.
1 such unit must share same TTy to repair damage.
Mobile Artillery (1.92, 1.92-2.38)
Can blitz but cannot give blitz to Mech Infantry,
Gives +1A to Inf or MI, paired 1:1
Gets +1D paired 1:1 with Tank
Elite Infantry unit (1.92)
Can load 1 on Battleship, or 2 on TP,
Gets +1M paired 1:1 with Tank and blitz with it,
Can load 1 on Air TP during move CM or NCM,
Load 1 Elite unit CM or NCM.
Escort Carrier or Light Carrier, as a Sub Hunter (0.49)
Carry 1 Fg (0.49, 0.98) or 1 TcB (0.64, 0.64)
_Gives +1 Defense to 1 Fighter defending when paired 1:1 with Carrier (CAP)
Escort Carrier blocks Submarine’s First strike on 1:1 basis,
Does not block Submerge.
Cannot block Subs CM or NCM,
but each Sub moving through a SZ controlled by CVE must submit to 1 @1 anti-sub defense roll per Escort Carrier, up to 1 roll @1 per Submarine.
Allows to built up to three Infantry and can be built on 0 or 1 IPC TT or Island.
Has 6 damage points, not operational if 3 or more damage.
AA_Baron M units & set-up charts Redesigned for 1942 2ndEd_1941_AA50.doc_
I love your work! Hope to see more of it.
I’ve managed to get your 1.1 map and your 7.3 rules downloaded, but cannot get the mediafire link to your 7.3 charts and new pieces file to work. Is there any chance that you could e-mail it to me? Please send it to doug#pearson#31415 - at - gmail -dot- com (omit the '#'s).
This seemed to be the only way to get hold of you. Sorry if this was not the proper method.
Doug ‘Bowser’ Pearson
So, I canÂ’t see the images in the original post. All I see are Photobucket meter images. Apparently the download limit or bandwidth limit or something has been exceeded? Or some other problem? Anyone have an idea what the problem is?
IÂ’m curious as to what the Larry Harris quote is in one of the images. Can someone share the quote?
Photobucket screwed us all by starting to charge about $40 a month to post pictures on 3rd party sites - a service that has been free for years. It’s a shame but I’m not paying for that.
Larry’s quote says something like “I must point out that I encourage the use and implementation of house rules”
Nah, I wrote this stuff more or less off the cuff! Obviously you know I’ve been thinking about the underlying issues for a while, but it’s not like this particular set of rules is super-well-thought-out. I’m more than happy to shift some income around from the Europe side to the Pacific side. Maybe the Atlantic subs NO for the UK should be 3 IPCs, and the ANZAC NO should be 5 IPCs – it’s an easy tweak that gets the balance b/w theaters a little closer. Similarly, we could cut the USA bonus for north Africa down to 3 IPCs, and maybe add another NO for the USA in the Pacific. Something like…3 IPCs if the USA owns Formosa and has land units in Formosa, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa? I’d rather over-correct in favor of the Pacific, anyway.
And, yeah, probably no tech – I’d prefer to focus on these NOs for the first game, see how they play out, keep it simple.
I love these rules. My only thought would be “can one play with the victory conditions but with an open ended game”, instead of playing a distinct number of rounds whether it be 8 or ten rounds? I guess you can play until one sides concedes or maybe holding a a certain amount of victory points for a specified number of rounds. I’m aware that if Tokyo, Washington or Berlin fall the game is over but was wondering if Sired Blood’s Group play a version where the rounds aren’t strictly specified.
I’m impressed with this setup; I like the way you’ve made it possible yet not necessarily desirable for players to manually recreate a position similar to the starting 1940 set up. I think you’ve given everyone some fun new options in a way that’s balanced and interesting. Kudos!
My only serious complaint is that for me a big part of the appeal of a 1939 setup is that Germany can choose whether or not to provoke England and France into war…and that England and France can, in turn, choose whether to convert an act of war into a reason to invade! I’m not seeing that here; it looks like Germany starts at war with France and England.
I would want some set of add on rules like this: Germany, France, Italy. and Britain all start the game at peace. Germany may declare war on Britain and/or France at any time. If an Axis power invades Poland, Britain and/or Grance may declare war on that power. If an Axis power declares war on France, then Britain may declare war on that power. Otherwise, Britain and France may freely declare war on any Axis power beginning at the start of turn 3.
Britain gains a new NO: while not at war with any European power, it collects 2 IPCs for each of Norway, France, and Poland that is under Allied or pro-Allied control.
France gains a new NO: while not at war with any European power, it collects 5 IPCs.
Germany gains a new NO: while at war with at least one European power (including Russia) it collects 5 IPCs.
Something like that.
Also, a minor nitpick on the initial setup: I’d rather remove the starting Russian factory in Volgograd instead of removing the one in Kiev. Kiev was industrialized earlier, and starting with the factories up near the front and having to build some in the east later gives more of the flavor of ‘retreating’ Russian industry.
Finally, this setup might work well with the Dutch minor power rules being discussed right now in another house rules thread. With more time (maybe) before the war starts, the Dutch might be able to do something interesting! And they would start with control of Holland in some games, which is also interesting.
Anyway, this scenario you’ve written is fun and I hope to try it sometime!
Yup, this all sounds fun.
You can just add 2 or 3 infantry and 1 or 2 small boats to the Dutch East Indies if you want and call it a day; that’s thematic and won’t unbalance the game.
Taamvan’s idea of merging all of the various minor Allied powers into a “Free Forces” player is also interesting. It gets at what I see as the core problem: there are several nations whose economies are so small that they don’t mesh comfortably with the pricing structure for Global 1940 units. For example, French North Africa + Central Africa + Madagascar + Syria + Indochina = 10 IPCs…not even enough to buy a minor factory, even if the rules allowed you to collect income or make purchases without a capital. Holland + Congo + Java + Sumatra + Celebes = 15 IPCs…enough for a factory, but not really enough to buy a navy that can accomplish anything against the Japanese. You’d much rather have those IPCs going to the British (or ANZAC), because the start-up costs are too high – if you’re trying to buy a factory, and then some infantry, and then some planes, and then a carrier, and then a transport, well, by the time you can afford all of that, your transport won’t be landing troops anywhere until turn 8, and if you try to skip any of those steps, then your fleet gets sunk or your factory gets captured. ANZAC already starts with some infantry and an air force, so when they earn income they can get it into play much more quickly.
One way to handle this is to mush the French and Dutch and Norwegians and Polish together, so that they all add up to one efficiently-sized power.
The other way to handle this is to scale down part of the Global 1940 economy that deals with minor powers. Infantry and artillery are already affordable for minor powers; the problem is boats and factories. So, make those cheaper and weaker for small powers!
A “patrol boat” costs 5 IPCs, attacks at 1, defends at 1, carries 1 infantry, and moves 1 sea zone. A “training camp” costs 6 IPCs, can be built in any originally owned territory, and can build up to 2 total units each turn, all of which must be either infantry, artillery, patrol boats, AA guns, or fighters. Training camps are destroyed if they are captured by enemy land units. Training camps may be bombed as if they were minor factories; like minor factories, they can accumulate up to 6 damage and lose one point of production capacity for each point of unrepaired damage.
The only minor powers are France, Holland/Belgium, and China. Minor powers can collect and spend income even when they do not have a capital. Only minor powers can build training camps or patrol boats.
After having its capital looted, France becomes a minor power for the rest of the game and follows all of the ordinary rules for a minor power. Liberating Paris does not restore France to its status as a major power. In addition to its usual starting units, France starts with a training camp in French Equatorial Africa.
Holland/Belgium is already a minor power at the start of the game, and owns Congo, Java, Sumatra, Celebes, and Dutch New Guinea. Holland starts with an infantry in Java and Sumatra, a patrol boat in SZ 44, and a training camp in Dutch New Guinea. ANZAC’s national objective can now be fulfilled even if Dutch New Guinea is controlled by the Dutch. Neither the UK nor ANZAC may “nationalize” Dutch territories, although Dutch territories are Allied territories, and so the UK and ANZAC (and America, once it joins the war) may freely land fighters and other units there.
China is a minor power at the start of the game, and in addition to its usual starting setup, China also starts with training camps in Yunnan, Szechuan, Sikang, Shensi, and Suiyuan. The “special rules” for China no longer apply; China is just an ordinary minor power. Yes, this means China can now build artillery or fighters on any turn that China can afford them, and it means Chinese units can roam freely outside of China – but it also somewhat limits China’s ability to deploy units to arbitrary new territories.
If you want to have the full experience, also use this neutral expansion ruleset along with the new powers:
All playtests of this addition of 11 powers used these new neutral rules, and I definitely recommend you play these two house rules together. It allows for fun things like South Africa invading Portuguese colonies, Bulgaria and Italy invading Turkey etc.
We are currently working on implementing the 20-power ruleset for other Global setups. If you would like to play this add-on in a Pacific/Europe solo game, I can post the theater rulesets on request.
Charles De Gaulle, has your group worked on any other setups recently besides 20 powers in 1940? I am formally putting in a request (or fan vote) for 1936 with with 20 powers. Maybe some of the smaller countries that weren’t conquered by Germany yet could act as pro-allied neutrals. I just think 20 powers would work well from an early starting point. More variables to “rewrite” history to some extent. Anyways thanks for your efforts.
I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.” I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y. A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist. The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable
I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date. These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran). As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII. And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading. Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.
You have some thoughts about new rules and new units for the Milton Bradley-era A&A? I am right there with you. I posted some thoughts late last year / early this year. I will link them below so that you can find them. If you want to discuss these rules, I recommend commenting on the relevant post rather than right here. But you do you.
One thing I will mention. I like paratroopers and paratrooper rules. But using bombers to cart around paratroopers is both silly and not historically accurate. So, I wrote rules for another new unit, the Air Transport or Cargo Plane unit. Think of them as Transports in the sky - with less cargo capacity and more movement points. See, when you fold in both the Paratrooper and their trusty steeds, the cargo plane / air transport, then I think you’ve got something…
Midnight_Reaper’s New A&A Classic Rules:
1(Classic) Simple Cruiser Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
1a(Classic) Cruisers or Destroyers for Classic?: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41552.0
2(Classic) Paratrooper and Air Transport Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
3(Classic) Armored Cavalry and Troopers - Rules for two ground units for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
4(Classic) Heavy Artillery - Rules for a new ground unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0
5(Classic) New Research Rules - Outsmart your Enemies: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41479.0
6(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41480.0
6a(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic, at a Lower Dose: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41481.0
7(Classic) National Advantages - A new way to help balance Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41482.0
8(Classic) New Unit Surcharge - New Economics for Classic : https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41483.0
9(Classic) Special Forces - New Optional Unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41484.0
9a(Classic) More Special Forces Options for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41485.0
10(Classic) Incendiary Thoughts - Strategic Bombing and Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41486.0
11(Classic) Unit Prices & Balance - New Economics for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41487.0
12(Classic) New Initial Setup - New Setup for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41551.0
Like I said, I have some thoughts on the subject… And I’m not even done with this series, just mostly done…
My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;
The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected.
There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here).
The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest.
I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.
As the two game boards are combined there may be anomalies, especially for the UK player.
I thought (& think) the UK player has two ‘Treasuries’.
In addition, the ‘Commonwealth’ (the UK ‘emigrant colonies’) deserves it’s own three ‘Treasuries’.
The other GP starting income totals are due to the ‘historical notes’ on Germany & the USSR.
As to the USA points - it is suggested there should be one & one only Territory value for each space on the board.