2011 revision suggestions
So as I understand it, the Europe '40 and Global '40 rules are currently under revision for a new 2011 release. Due to the bloat of other topics on this forum regarding this I’d like to set forth a few ground rules.
Please don’t comment on anyone elses ideas without offering at least one on your own, and try not to get into debates about minor nonsense.
Thank You in advance for your cooperation.
I’d like to personally suggest a few changes:
- The USSR should have a pacific naval force. At least a few subs and possibly a cruiser or destroyer, like they had in real life.
- The UK should be vulnerable to a Sealion invasion by Germany, but there should be a rule that allows Canada to still collect and spend its own income to build British units.
- Italy should not start out at war with France and UK.
- China should be allowed to operate naval and air bases, and the Chinese fighter should be allowed to attack targets outside of China, as long as it lands back inside Chinese territory.
- Cruisers should be able to pair with Tactical Bombers to increase thier attack by 1. In reality, many cruisers in WWII were equipped with Radar fire control to coordinate attacks by other naval and air forces better.
- Strategic Bombers should be able to be used for one thing only… Strategic Bombing. This was used heavily during WWII and isn’t represented well in the game as noone wants to lose thier Bomber to AA/Intercept fire because they could be used for other attacks.
JimmyHat last edited by
I like some of your options listed, to help get the ball rolling I’ll add in my critique:
I don’t like the first option because I feel the naval balance to be pretty fair. Adding even a few subs to the pacific theater would just make it more likely for USSR to declare war on Japan when the fleet leaves port. The naval setup is so precarious, I hate to add 12-14 Russian ipcs to the mix.
I really like the second part of your second bullet. The territories are already marked on the board so it is easy to identify. Add in the rule that any captured land (other than UK capital) by Canada is given to US. (they wouldn’t collect until their next round) India at times is already making 4-6 ipcs, why not add another UK minor making roughly the same should London fall.
I like your third bullet as well, Italy should decide when it goes to war, it collects no NO’s until it is at war though. This prevents the wicked Taranto move as well as preemptive attacks on Tobruk.
I’m a bit confused by your 4th point, I was under the assumption that should China capture an airbase or Naval base, that it would not be dismantled and would work for all allied shipping. Do you instead mean that China should be able to build these items? If so, I don’t think that’s necessary, at most China should get the ability to repurchase the flying tigers should the Burma road remain open a round.
Point 5 doesn’t do it for me, although I see where you are going. Cruisers for the most part never get purchased, they cost too much and don’t do anything that other ships can’t do better. Giving them a special ability makes them an asset to the fleet again, and is a worthy cause. I don’t think this is the right implementation however. If they are to be paired, I would prefer they be paired to carriers, giving them a 3 in defense perhaps.(aa guns) Another possible fix would be to make them aa guns of the sea, but then their cost would have to rise because everyone would have 1 per fleet!:)
I really really really don’t like your last idea. I love the new strategic bombing rules so much that if my state allowed it I would marry them. With strategic bombing now having its own combat structure, where units fire when they should, (aa guns target incoming, low flying bmbs, not nimble ftrs) and the added cost/benefit of having idle ftrs over your factories you still see the occasional raid. Now however the defense has the advantage and can scramble unlimited ftrs. Perhaps putting a limit per airbase or some such rule will rectify the situation.
***My personal suggestion for a change would be the addition of 1 more japanese transport. Starting with 4 means that they can swoop the money islands on J2 if they like or possibly assemble a massive invasion fleet for India or ANZAC J3. I also would enact the rule that Italy is nuetral at the start of the game, Germany cannot move into its provinces until Italy declares war on a nation that Germany is at war with. This could get messy with Italy-Russia conflict, so may need some refining.
NMaresca last edited by
I’m writing from Brazil. I have been playing Axis&Allies for 20 years. Congratulations for yours gameboards!
Now, I played AAP40, AAE40 and AAG40 with Alpha+2 setup and I think, the balance of forces better a lot but, it continuos very favorable for Japan…
The problem is a strong and big number of japanese airplanes. When comparing with Germany, the number of japanese airplanes are two times higher. When the Battle for Great Britain began, Germans launched more than 3.000 planes in the air. In the beginnig of the Pacific war, Japan had 1.500 planes. I suggest:
In the Japan island there should be only 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber and 1 Bomber.
Manchuria there should be 1 Fighter and 1 Tac Bomber.
Korea and Okinawa there should be without airplanes.
China continues very weakness. We need remember that Japan goes to the Pacific because the continental war with China was stagnated. Japan needs resources from Indonesia and Malaya to continuos the war with China. In Alpha+2 the japanese ground troops are more strong. It’s ok, because, in the end of 1939 more than 800.000 japanese soldier was in China. This sound is good but, I think that the terriotries contiguos to the japanese territories in China – Chahar, Anhwe and Huna needs 3 chinese infantry each. In this form, the japanese commander needs think a lot about what to do… and the chinese forces have a possibility to participate more realistically.
In number of ships and capital ships I think the Alpha+2 balance in Pacific is perfect.
Other considerations for the Pacific:
Reduce 1 Tac Bomber in India.
Reduce 1 Fighter in New Zealand.
Put 1 Bomber in Philippines.
Considerations for UK (Europe and Global):
Jointed the Mediterranean Fleet in ZS98 was perfect! Now we can reproduce the battle of Taranto! Very nice. But I think in the metropolitan waters, the fleet is very dispersed around the island of the Great Britain. Does the fleet is jointed in Cairo, why not in Great Britain? It’s a easy job for Germans destroy the fleet piece by piece around the island with submarines and planes…
Although this, my suggest is not radical:
Transfer the battleship in SZ110 to SZ109 and put a destroyer in ZS110 with the crusader. I think more satisfactory protect at least one battleship and so more realistic.
Thank you for the opportunity !
Nelson Maresca - from Brazil
JimmyHat last edited by
Epic Fail. I got sent to the “House Rules” cellar.
This is no “cellar” alot of posts go on here.
Haha don’t go knocking my favorite part of the forums. Sounds interesting.This isn’t really a revison but I wouldn’t mind a 1942 setup for the game.
oztea last edited by
Italy has to start at war with France/UK so….
A) Germany can attack Southern France G1
B) UK would just attack them unprovoked anyway on UK1
If you made this change the setup would need to change dramaticly
These arn’t really revisions that would ever be considered but I think it would be interesting for air and naval units to be limited by their bases. In other words air units only able to land so may troops in a territory unless on an airbase or naval units can only travel so far and so long away from a naval base.
i rock last edited by
The naval base parts a great idea IMHO because it will increase the value of the pacific islands more for naval refueling bases making air bases even more important to protect your based ships.
Yeah thats what I thought. I mean when I got Pacfic I thought oh thats so cool! Now I can have battles on all these iconic islands like in the Pacific theater. But for most except for those involved in NOs their useless. This would make island warfare more important.