Balanced 1914 Setup?

@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.

Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.

Axis & Allies and Zombies setup for Axis & Allies 1941

This house rule adapts the initial setup of the zombie version to 1941. Plus: You can now buy artillery, worth 4IPCs. And, the two new industrial complexes can place units following the normal 1941 rules.

Soviet Union - 7 IPCs

Russia: 5 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 Industrial complex Archangel: 3 infantry Karelia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery Caucasus: 3 infantry, 1 tank, 1 Industrial complex Urals: 2 infantry Siberia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery SZ 4: 1 submarine

Germany - 12 IPCs

Germany: 4 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Western Europe: 3 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 fighter Southern Europe: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 Industrial complex Eastern Europe: 5 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 artillery Norway/Finland: 2 infantry Ukraine: 3 infantry, 1 tank West Russia: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank North Africa: 2 tanks SZ 5: 1 battlesihp SZ 6: 1 submarine SZ 9: 1 submarine SZ 15: 1 submarine SZ 16: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 transport

UK - 12 IPCs

United Kingdom: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Anglo-Egypt Sudan: 2 infantry, 1 tank French West Africa: 1 infantry Union of South Africa: 1 infantry, 1 artillery (we recomend to add 1 Industrial complex) India: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 Industrial complex Australia: 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 Industrial complex Borneo: 1 infantry Eastern Canada: 1 tank Western Canada: 1 infantry Gibraltar: 1 fighter SZ 8: 1 battleship, 1 destroyer SZ 10: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 14: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 29: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 33: 1 destroyer, submarine, 1 transport

Japan - 9 IPCs

Japan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Manchuria: 2 infantry, 1 artillery Coastal China: 2 infantry Southeast Asia: 1 infantry, 1 artillery Caroline Islands: 1 infantry SZ 31: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine SZ 45: 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 2 fighters, 1 destroyer, 2 transports SZ 46: 1 aircraft carrier, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer, 1 transport

USA - 17 IPCs

Eastern US: 2 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Western US: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 Industrial complex Brazil: 1 infantry Alaska: 1 infantry Hawaiian Islands: 1 infantry Philippine Islands: 1 infantry Northwestern China: 1 infantry Szechwan: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 Industrial complex SZ 11: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 37: 1 submarine SZ 40: 1 battleship SZ 42: 1 aircraft carrier, 2 fighters, 1 destroyer, 1 transport

ATT: Santa Bárbara Historical Play Group

@monsieurmurdoch I am not sure how these house rules would interplay with 40 since the scope of warfare was so different. Hospitals and ambulance customization could. I hope you can find a 1914 game. Keep an eye out. And, I do have some plans for barb wire, trenches, etc. Thanks for the feedback!

A sides offer to Italy may include turning over control of different powers to the player controlling Italy.

(e.g. Triple Entente can, in their offer, give control of the US to the Italian player as a part of their offer.)

-Midnight_Reaper

Oh cool, we’re back! For a few days there I wasn’t able to get the site up.

I like the idea of a round 0 build up, but I think the implementation needs more work.

The first issue I’m anticipating is just sheer amount of time it would take to go around the table piece for piece. Beyond that you also have the issue of players matching each other (out in the open) by choosing to place all their TUV in just a few hot spots, at the expense of everywhere else. And finally, without any limits or caps for individual territories or sea zones you will likely see a ton of front line units, placed just outside the range of any opening attacks.

My suggestion would be to have more structure to the zero round, more rules defining where the units can be placed, or perhaps some kind of initiative role to determine the sequence in which they are placed.

One approach might be to just scale back the number of units or ipcs that are included in this process. So instead of taking all the starting TUV and putting that in a tray, you might just use a portion of the total, or perhaps instead allow players to add some smaller amount of TUV on top of the normal starting totals. Not only would that make things faster, it would also provide some much needed structure to the set up process.

Particularly with sea zones, instead of a race to be the first to occupy the contested ones (that border multiple originally controlled territories), you could restrict where naval units can be added to just those sea zones that already have a ship etc. Same deal with land.

You might make it a secret placement only revealed after everyone has recorded all their placements. Or you could break it down by unit type, first bases then inf then tanks then fighters then ships etc.

For ease of use, the more this zero round looked like a bid the easier it would be to implement. Although in this case it would be like a bid for all sides.

Again I like the idea a lot, I just think it needs more polish.

@Baron:

Only a few against computer AI.

::blink::

Well under your ‘train’ of thought (hehe) all planes and boats in WWII games should have unlimited movement.

You cannot approach it like that lol it would wreck the game.

Railroads give land units +1 movement just like shipyards and airfields in G40 give planes and boats +1 movement.
You should not be able to rail into a contested tt.

All these problems are solved if you remove the extra movement and instead allow naval bases to shelter ships in harbour.
The ships can still be targeted by bombing raids; altogether this creates the mechanics for a much more realistic depiction of both the Taranto raid (and the copycat Pearl Harbor operation), and the general usefulness of Gibraltar (which by the way should not be a tt but a UK NB in Southern Spain).