America, Great Britain and ANZAC (107) vs Germany, Italy and France (66) vs Russia, Japan and China (75). No National Objectives.
I realize that the difference in wealth between the teams is a lot especially between 107 and 66. But if you look at the board you will see that the gap will decrease quite fast. The British empire is vast and thus will be hard to hold onto against all of her opponents.
China can leave china. also cant decide whether i want to keep them the same i.e. build only infantry and art, or let them build everything and give them a factory or two, one in Manchuria and second in Kiangsu. also giving them their mainland territories back from japan. That would mean i would have to paint up some pieces or get some from HBG. Also that would mean Japan would only make 15 at the start. I am also assuming everyone would capture kwangtung, french indo china and Borneo. that would raise their income right back up to 24 plus the Philippines for another 2 up to 26.
Set up will remain the same as Alpha 3. other than a few changes
Germany will start with Finland, Bulgaria and Greece
Italy will get Yugoslavia
french cruiser in 110 is moved to 105 off of Bordeaux
French units in England switched to British units and British units in France turned into French units
Maybe’s
Minor IC added to New Zealand like in OOB i realize it was a typo but i think it should be there.
add 2 french infantry to French indo china, mabye a cruiser in 36 or cruiser and destroyer.
Cant decide whether i want neutrals to be able to be invaded without consequence, or not able to enter at all. I am more in favour of invadable.
Turn order would obviously have to change i was thinking something like
Germany 35
Russia 37
America 52
Italy 12
Japan 15
Great Britain 28E 17P
France 19
China 23
ANZAC 10
I have yet to try this, need to find time, but i think it would be loads of fun. input, criticism, anecdotes, anything is welcome good or bad. If something similar has been tried before PLEASE TELL.
America, Great Britain and ANZAC (107) vs Germany, Italy and France (66) vs Russia, Japan and China (75). […] input, criticism, anecdotes, anything is welcome good or bad.
I assume these house rules are set in some kind of alternate history scenario because they feature:
Japan as an enemy of Germany and Italy, instead of the ally it was in real history.
France as an enemy of America, Britain and ANZAC, instead of the ally it was in real history.
Russia and China as enemies of America, Britain and ANZAC, instead of the allies they were in real history.
France as an ally of Germany and Italy, instead of the enemy it was in real history.
Japan as an ally of Russia and China, instead of the enemy it was in real history.
Do your house rules provide some kind of rationale for these different alliances?
@CWO:
America, Great Britain and ANZAC (107) vs Germany, Italy and France (66) vs Russia, Japan and China (75). […] input, criticism, anecdotes, anything is welcome good or bad.
I assume these house rules are set in some kind of alternate history scenario because they feature:
Japan as an enemy of Germany and Italy, instead of the ally it was in real history.
France as an enemy of America, Britain and ANZAC, instead of the ally it was in real history.
Russia and China as enemies of America, Britain and ANZAC, instead of the allies they were in real histo
France as an ally of Germany and Italy, instead of the enemy it was in real history.
Japan as an ally of Russia and China, instead of the enemy it was in real history.
Do your house rules provide some kind of rationale for these different alliances?
Russia was never an “ally”. They invaded Poland and Finland and Stalin wasnt exactly a nice dude. They happened to have the same enemy, so we gave them stuff.
If you pretend that UK/France had a falling out over Dunkirk, and assume China has agreed to some sort of alliance with Japan (essentially agreeing to a Manchuko scenario) you could make up some reason why this happened. Other than that…how about a fun scenario???
Russia was never an “ally”. They invaded Poland and Finland and Stalin wasnt exactly a nice dude. They happened to have the same enemy, so we gave them stuff. If you pretend that UK/France had a falling out over Dunkirk, and assume China has agreed to some sort of alliance with Japan (essentially agreeing to a Manchuko scenario) you could make up some reason why this happened. Other than that…how about a fun scenario???
Yes, Stalin was a ruthless tyrant. Yes, the USSR invaded parts of Finland and Poland (and for the matter, all of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, plus Bessarabia further south). Yes, the wars on the Eastern and Western Fronts were a temporary confluence of interest between the USSR on the one hand and Britain and the US on the other – but that still made them allies. They even called themselves the Allies, along with all the other countries who were fighting the Axis powers. It should also be noted that Larry didn’t call his game “Axis & Anglo-Americans + Russia”.
But anyway, I have no objection to non-historical scenarios and to exploring alternate-history might-have-beens. They can be a lot of fun. I was just asking what rationale, if any, Gliven’s rules provided for the power blocks he uses. He might have been basing them on interesting historical information that was new to me – such as when I read not too long ago that during the war, the Egyptian government had engaged in secret talks with Germany about removing the British from Egypt.
Nothing historical about this. I just thought it would be fun and interesting to have 3 different sides duke it out. Europe vs Asia vs new world/Britain. Something new to play.
I was also thinking about a free for all type of game where everyone made about 30 ipcs and you start with nothing but you get 100 to spend on whatever you wanted. captured territories are worth 3 and captured capitals are worth 10. Could apply to any axis and allies board. kinda like risk but with axis and allies units and rules.
that would be cool :-D
