Other House Rules

Hi Ben, good to see more people playing this game. There is a lot in this post to digest and reply to. Have you play tested any of these house rules? How to you find the mines, railway guns etc. affect your games? The group I play with uses a lot of the same markers/rules and we love en.

@Ben_D:

I’m posting here to see how this set of house rules gets picked apart, because feedback is always great if it’s not too negative :).�  By no way am I looking to change the official rules of course, I’m just looking to refine some ideas for my games.

ok, cool. I’ll have to start off by saying I am generally satisfied by the 6.1 rules and set up.

• Fortifications may remain after a territory is conquered.�  They can be removed by the controlling power on its turn (they’re not automatically destroyed).�  If it’s there, why not use it just in case you need it?�  The defenders can’t dismantle anything if there’s no defenders left, and they used it instead of destroying it before they got defeated, so it should be up to the player who’s in control of it to decide on his/her turn what happens to it.�  Another point here too: do you really see big concrete walls and bunkers being completely obliterated by an attack?�  I don’t.�  I know there’s damage, but not enough for them to be complete rubble.

Fortifications may not just represent just concrete walls and bunkers. They could be trenches, barbed wire, AT ditches, earth works, dragon’s teeth etc and so on. Generally, after an attack, a lot of this stuff would be compromised to the extent that it is useless. I also feel that if the attacker had the means and moxie to hit a fortified territory, it should be up to them to build new fortifications. After all, they decided to blast the snot out of everything. Regardless, I think the line of thinking here is that, once attacked, defending forces in fortifications have been rooted out of their positions (hence, the one round bonus of the forts then that’s it), letting the attacker occupy the forts stands in contradiction.

• AA guns only fire at 3 targets maximum each, and are considered as equipment, not an expendable unit (they do not fire at the X amount of aircraft if the amount of aircraft exceed 3; they’re not destroyed unless target by a SBR).�  I took this one straight out of G40.�  It’s a rule that all the people I play with and myself like.�  I don’t know, love it or hate it lol.

I like the 3 shot rule from '40 and we use it in our Global 39 games. Only difference is that the AA in our games is an expendable unit (often used to absorbed hits on defence). Additionally, we set no limit on the number of AA guns allowed in a territory and we follow the rule that only so many guns may fire–- e.g. 4 planes, 6 guns, only two guns get shots.

• Subs are detected by Destroyers 2-1 (not 1-1).�  The technology was there to allow this kind of thing, so I don’t see why not.�  This can be researched, whatever makes more sense.�  I don’t know what that research would entail exactly at the moment.�  Subs are fairly powerful in this version…

I don’t think sonar is a bad tech to be able to research. I don’t see it as a starting ability though. The original ASDIC had very large limitations.

• The values of the following territories are:

• Canadian convoy zone: 2 (not 3)

• British Columbia: 2 (not 1)

• Helsinki: 2 (not 1)

• Viedma: 2 (not 1)

• Santa Cruz: 2 (not 1)

• Corrientes: 0 (not 1)

I switched these around so that Factories could be built in most cases, mainly for gameplay purposes, but also to say that there could’ve been production on the land territories in the real war.�  I took away from the Canadian Convoy zone just to keep Canada’s base income unchanged.�  I added one value point total (which makes it out to be 4 overall) for Argentina to make it a little more viable to go there for the European Axis, but took one away from Corrientes to not make it five, and make it more of a more strategic territory than anything else.�  I added one value point for Helsinki to make it legal to have a factory there.�  It makes for more interesting gameplay as well.

A matter of preference I guess, as regards the IPC values. When I play as the Axis, I generally transport re-enforcements to Finland by sea and air. Factories end up in Romania/Bulgaria. Usually, by the time I’m in position to get to Argentina, the Allies have overrun her.

• If Finland and Argentina are activated, they each collect 4 IPCs per turn. (instead of Finland and Argentina collecting 3 IPCs per turn).�  Redundant, I know, I’m just being Mr. Obvious haha.

• Santa Cruz/Sea zone 61 has a naval base there (instead of nothing being there).�  This was done so that Argentina could at least consider building a navy there, and the Axis force controlling it.

I don’t like it as the Allies will just end up with the naval base (if they’re smart)

• Argentina may be activated by Italy.�  They may build any unit available to them (Argentina not being able to produce anything except one infantry per turn in Viedma and only activated by Germany).�  I made this one because it’s just not ever viable for Germany to go down there.�  At least Italy has a shot.�  I know it doesn’t make sense politically, but I thought this compromise was worth the gameplay.

Yes, Italy should be able to activate Argentina. I wouldn’t be too quick to say it doesn’t make political sense, there is a significant Italian community in Argentina. I know some personally.

• All of the national objectives are directly taken from the A&A Global 1940 edition (instead of the Global War 1939 edition).�  Some territories are amalgamated for balance purposes, which are Finland (for one of the Russian N.O.'s), French Indo-China and Saigon (for one of the Japanese N.O.'s).�  All of the Dutch East Indies are included with the exception of Dutch New Guinea (for one of the other Japanese N.O.’s).�  There are some unique N.O.'s for Canada as well.�  The Canadian N.O.'s will be at the bottom of the post.�  The game has more I.P.C.'s than any other game variant (I’m comparing heavily to G40), so you can look at it in terms of inflation.�  Units are worth less because there can be more of them.�  Why would the N.O.'s go the opposite direction in terms of how much they provide?�  G40’s N.O.'s make sense and are worth more than the ones in GW39, so this follows the inflation trend I mentioned.

• Sea zone 28 is divided in two, creating sea zone 28 and 141 (or 28a), with sea zone 28 bordering sea zones 23, 24 and Northern Spain, making sea zone 141 / 28a border sea zone 24, Bordeaux and Northern Spain (instead of having only sea zone 28).�  This was done to prevent the Americans from doing an amphibious assault on France from New England.�  This can’t even be done effectively to this day, so how would they be able to in the '40s? Transporting men and equipment to friendly territory across an equal distance is a different story, considering the circumstances and logistics.�  D-day was launched from England, not New England haha.

Humour appreciated. I think the map as it is sits fine. The US being able to hop across and hit Europe makes Germany/Italy have to be a bit more careful about running around slapping everyone in sight. The US landing in Europe changes things quick, especially if it is well coordinated and followed up. I like the dynamic here. Maybe you could lobby the developers to make some of your changes to their up coming global '36 map (which promises to be uber epic)?

• French warships that have Vichy allegiance may move and attack on Germany’s turn (instead of being immobile and only able to defend).�  I don’t actually know what the Vichy government did with their warships, but it would make sense to me if the Germans pressured them into using them to their advantage.�  I guess there was a threat of increased resistance within France if too many demands were made, but it’s a two way street, and occupying military can also be brutal.

Vichy ships defended against Allies attacks in French African holdings, but were not used offensively by the Germans as far as I know. I don’t believe Vichy would have been keen on what you are proposing and would expect more than a few French Naval personnel choosing to scuttle their ships instead.

• The minor industrial complex in Calcutta can only produce 3 units, and can produce any unit.�  It may also be upgraded to a major factory (instead of being forced to build 3 infantry first then 3 units of any kind except capital ships, and not being able to be upgraded).�  I don’t really understand the restriction here in the original rules.�  I’m guessing they reflect how the F.E.C. actually operated in WW2.�  The F.E.C. and the Indian government had ample enough resources and probably funding for infrastructure upgrading.�  I’m not aware of the specifics of the relations between India and the U.K. during that time, I know they weren’t favorable, but could they not have made agreements for economical and military developments?

I think this rule has a lot to do with game balance. Japan has enough to contend with without allied major factors in that theatre. India certainly did have a formidable industrial base and made a huge contribution to the allied war effort that is not properly recognized to this day. On the other side of the coin, there was a lot of resistance to Britain from the Indian Congress and that some Indians/Burmese actually fought on the side of the Japanese ––now there’s an interesting rule, Japan takes Burma, gets one infantry to represent these forces ##maybe next time##— Anyway, we allow Anzac and FEC to build new factories, in eligible territories, which can then build capital ships.

• The minor industrial complex in Sydney can produce any unit (instead of being restricted from building capital ships).�  What’s actually stopping the Governments of Australia and New Zealand from deciding to produce these ships?�  It’s certainly not lack of resource, and maybe funding.�  The infrastructure was there to build ships.�  The Australian and New Zealanders’ governments in the '40s, I assume, simply chose not to allocate the funding in those types of projects.

See above.

• Industrial complexes may be built on friendly territory if the territory is not under control of another allied nation’s capital (instead of only building on original territory).�  I took this one from G40 somewhat.�  The local populous is supportive of your cause, so what would stop you from co-operating with them in terms of industry and economy?
  Ex. : Any Axis power can build a minor industrial complex in Iraq, and industrial complexes may be built on Minor Axis territories by the power that activated them.�  The U.K. may build an industrial complex on Free French territory, or Russian territory if Russia no longer has a capital (if the U.K. has units claiming the territory), or a pro-allied nation’s territory.�  If the capital of a Major Power is liberated, then all of the infrastructure on the territory it formerly controlled is reverted back to its control.�  (This is an agreement between all player controlled powers).

Can’t see Soviet citizens allowing capitalist powers to build or control industry in the USSR…just can’t see it. I like the factory rules that way they sit. As it is, Germany is permitted to build ICs on eligible minors.

• Japan may build a major factory in Siam (instead of only being able to build a minor one).�  With the Thai manpower, Japanese know-how and available resources, I figured it wouldn’t be impossible to get something like this done.

I think this was done for balance. A lot of folks did not like the major in Siam. They thought it made Japan too  strong in the theatre. I just get creative and build factories on other territories as well as Siam, use rail/trucks/transports to connect them.

• The Nationalist and Communist Chinese can place all of the units produced anywhere on territory they currently own, including the ones conquered/liberated in the same turn (instead of being limited to 3 per territory previously owned).�  This was pulled out of G40, which I found was a good mechanic.

balance is the issue here and I think the Nationalist forces (and the Chinese in general) faced logistical difficulties which are reflected by the current rules.

• The Communist Chinese may purchase artillery, mechanized infantry and tanks if Urumqi is under Communist Chinese control and Novosibirsk is under Russian control (instead of only being able to build infantry).�  I know this one’s really debatable, but I figured since the U.S.S.R. is very close by, the Communist Chinese have direct access to these kinds of equipment, the same way the Nationalist Chinese do with India (although the Nationalists only have artillery, obviously).
  I just send the stuff into China as the USSR. They get to fight together anyway.

I also downgraded the factories in Fukuoka and Karelia, because the territories are only worth 2.

I’d like to keep the major in Karelia and add at least a minor in Stalingrad. Would rather see Fukuoka value raised then IC lowered.

Just for some extra info (totally unnecessary): we also play with naval & land mines, 3 tiers of factories (minor (3), regular (10), major (12) ), rail and railguns.

We play with some of these too. I’d like to try the third tier of factories, I’m big on HBG providing rules here though (I’m OC like that).

I hope to hear from you soon!

---

Canada’s N.O.'s:

5 I.P.C.'s for having Sea Zones 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 & the Canadian convoy zone free of any Axis warships (which means aircraft carriers and transports don’t count, but aircraft on aircraft carriers do).�  This N.O. is supposed to represent the fight for the Battle of the Atlantic, in which Canada was a primary participant.

5 I.P.C.'s for having at least one land unit in either 2 European territories (excluding the U.K., Scotland & Ireland), or 1 European territory (excluding the U.K., Scotland & Ireland) and 1 African/Middle-Eastern Territory, or 1 European territory (excluding the U.K., Scotland & Ireland) and 2 territories on the Pacific side of the map, or 1 African/Middle-Eastern territory and 2 territories on the Pacific side of the map.�  This N.O. is supposed to represent the Canadian contribution to the Allied effort and the propaganda campaign.

2 I.P.C.'s for having a minimum of 4 warships (excluding transports) at any given time.�  This N.O. is meant to show that resources and manpower are freed up for other objectives and projects, because the need to have a navy large enough to sustain a war effort overseas is met.

(I posted these in another thread about G40)