Axis & Allies Global 1942(An alternative to Larry Harris's Global 1942)



  • Hey everyone!  I was very interested in playing Larry Harris’s Global 1942 Setup, until I actually set it up on my game boards.  One problem I(and everyone else who only owns Europe 1940 2nd Edition and Pacific 1940 2nd Edition)have is that Germany doesn’t have enough tanks since only 12 are provided in Europe 1940 2nd Edition.  However, my main complaint is that the setup displays a severe lack of historical accuracy.  For example why does Russia start with Bryansk when the Germans took the city in 1941?  Also why doesn’t the United Kingdom possess Syria and Iraq?  These two nations were conquered by the British in 1941.  Anyway enough said.  I created this Global 1942 Setup for those of you who are dissatisfied with Larry Harris’s setup.  I also included some new rules about Research & Development one of which is derived from Young Grasshopper(Research Dice costing 3 IPCs each).  Please take a look at my setup and tell me what you think.  I am open to suggestions as to how it might be changed.

    Axis & Allies Global 1942

    This game is intended to be played on the two game boards included in Axis & Allies Europe 1940 and Axis & Allies Pacific 1940.

    Rules of Play

    **-All powers begin the game at war regardless of their initial diplomatic status in Global 1940.  **
    -The National Objectives from Global 1940 remain the same in Global 1942.  
    -The world power of France does not exist when the game begins.  However, if Paris is liberated by the Allies, France may take their turn after ANZAC providing that Paris is not under Axis control and/or French units are present on the board.

    Turn Order:
    Russia
    Germany
    United States
    Japan
    United Kingdom
    Italy
    China
    ANZAC

    Changes to Research and Development

    #1  Research dice now cost 3 IPCs each.

    #2  Each major world power(Soviet Union, Germany, United States, Japan, and United Kingdom) may choose two weapon developments to start the game with.  ANZAC and Italy can each choose one weapon development before the game begins.

    Initial Setup:

    Soviet Union�28 IPCs
    Karelia: 2 Infantry
    Novgorod: 9 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Minor IC
    Archangel: 4 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
    Vologda: 3 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Urals: 1 Infantry
    Timguska: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry
    Siberia: 1 Infantry
    Amur: 1 Infantry
    Russia: 12 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 5 Artillery, 2 Tanks, 2 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, 3 AAA, Air Base, Major IC
    Tambov: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
    Rostov: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Volgograd: 3 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAA, Minor IC
    Kazakhstan: 2 Infantry
    Caucasus: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 AAA
    Northwest Persia: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Sea Zone 127: 1 Submarine
    Sea Zone 100: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer

    Germany�56 IPCs
    Norway: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
    Finland: 4 Infantry, Control Marker
    Vyborg: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
    Denmark: 2 Infantry
    Normandy-Bordeaux: 2 Infantry, Naval Base, Control Marker
    France: 3 Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1AAA, Air Base, Minor IC, Control Marker
    Holland-Belgium: 2 Infantry
    Western Germany: 5 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
    Germany: 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Tanks, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAA, Major IC
    Poland: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Tanks, 1 Tactical Bomber
    Baltic States: 4 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 1 Tank, Control Marker
    Belarus: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, Control Marker
    Smolensk: 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, Control Marker
    Greater Southern Germany: 2 Infantry
    Slovakia-Hungary:  1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Mech. Infantry, 1 Tank
    Eastern Poland: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, Control Marker
    Western Ukraine: 3 Infantry, Control Marker
    Bryansk: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Tank, Control Marker
    Romania: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks
    Bessarabia: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Ukraine: 6 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA, Minor IC, Control Marker
    Southern France: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Naval Base, Minor IC, Control Marker
    Yugoslavia: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
    Southern Italy: 1 Fighter
    Bulgaria: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Greece: 1 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
    Crete: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Morocco: 2 Infantry
    Algeria: 1 Infantry
    Tunisia: 1 Infantry
    Libya: 2 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter
    Tobruk: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    French West Africa: Control Marker
    French Central Africa: Control Marker
    French Madagascar: Control Marker
    Sea Zone 108: 2 Submarines
    Sea Zone 113: 2 Submarines, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 93: 1 Transport

    United States�50 IPCs
    Central United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Major IC
    Eastern United States: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
    Alaska: 2 Infantry
    Western United States: 4 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
    Midway: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
    Hawaiian Islands: 2 Infantry, 2 Fighters, 1 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base
    Sea Zone 101: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 2 Transports
    Sea Zone 26: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier(carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone: 10: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport

    Japan�53 IPCs
    Chahar: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Control Marker
    Anhwe: 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, Control Marker
    Jehol: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Shantung: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Kiangsu: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, Naval Base, Control Marker
    Okinawa: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
    Manchuria: 4 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAA, Control Marker
    Korea: 2 Infantry
    Japan: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
    Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
    Aleutian Islands: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Wake Island: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Air Base, Control Marker
    Guam: 1 Infantry, Air Base, Control Marker
    Kwangtung: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Control Marker
    Philippines: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Air Base, Naval Base, Control Marker
    Palau Island: 1 Infantry
    Caroline Islands: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base
    Gilbert Islands: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Burma: 5 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 2 Artillery, Control Marker
    Shan State: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
    Malaya: 2 Infantry, Naval Base, Control Marker
    Sumatra: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
    French Indochina: 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Control Marker
    Java: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
    Borneo: Control Marker
    Celebes: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Dutch New Guinea: Control Marker
    New Guinea: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    New Britain: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Solomon Islands: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Sea Zone 19: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 6: 2 Destroyers, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carriers (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Battleship, 2 Transports
    Sea Zone 31: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 35: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 33: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber)
    Sea Zone 42: 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 2 Fighters), 1 Battleship
    Sea Zone 49: 1 Submarine

    United Kingdom (Europe)�36 IPCs
    Iceland: Air Base
    Quebec: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, Minor IC
    New Brunswick-Nova Scotia: Naval Base
    Scotland: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
    United Kingdom: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 1 Strategic Bomber, 3 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
    Gibraltar: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Naval Base
    Malta: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA
    Alexandria: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
    Egypt: 2 Infantry, Naval Base
    Syria: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    Trans-Jordan: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Iraq: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
    Persia: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
    Eastern Persia: Control Marker
    French Equatorial Africa: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
    Anglo-Egyptian Sudan: 1 Infantry
    Ethiopia: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
    Italian Somaliland: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
    South Africa: 2 Infantry, Naval Base, Minor IC
    Sea Zone 106: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 109: 1 Destroyer
    Sea Zone 111: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 91: 1 Destroyer
    Sea Zone 99: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 71: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

    United Kingdom (Pacific)�6 IPCs
    West India: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry
    India: 7 Infantry, 3 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
    Sea Zone 39: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Transport

    Italy�12 IPCs
    Northern Italy: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, Major IC
    Southern Italy: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Minor IC
    Albania: 1 Infantry
    Morocco: Control Marker
    Algeria: Control Marker
    Tunisia: Control Marker
    Libya: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Fighter
    Tobruk: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Sea Zone 97: 1 Destroyer, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 96: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

    China�12 IPCs
    Kansu: 1 Infantry
    Suiyuan: 2 Infantry
    Tsinghai: 1 Infantry
    Shensi: 2 Infantry
    Hopei: 3 Infantry
    Sikang: 1 Infantry
    Szechwan: 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Fighter
    Kweichow: 3 Infantry
    Yunnan: 5 Infantry
    Hunan: 3 Infantry
    Kiangsi: 4 Infantry, Control Marker
    Kwangsi: 3 Infantry, Control Marker

    ANZAC�10 IPCs
    Egypt: 1 Infantry
    Western Australia: 1 Infantry
    Northern Territory: 1 Infantry
    Queensland: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, Air Base, Naval Base
    New South Wales: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 2 AAA, Naval Base, Minor IC
    New Zealand: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base, Naval Base
    Sea Zone 62: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport



  • Looks nice, but i really need to set it up and compare it to the original and the LH setup.

    And even then it should be playtested to see if there are any obvious flaws or sucker punches possible.



  • Ya, you’ve gotta set it up to get a feel for what it’s like.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    anything is better than Larry’s 1942 setup.  It made NO historical sense whatsoever.



  • I hear you man!


  • 2018 2017

    You made china into a beast holy crap!  Not much chance of taking it over now.  With no diplomacy the UK and Russia should send as much as they can to support it as early as possible, it doesn’t feel like Japan has any more than G42 to attack china with at least.  Its like 36-40 Chinese units as opposed to ~15 in the G42.  Without a MiC Japan cant really alter the balance in time, also the reshuffle of the navy, air and adding Japan troops to Burma doesn’t alter how much pressure Japan’s china $$ will be under starting C1.

    Eliminating france doesn’t change much but having played G42 quite a bit, I would note that having the single blocker that goes after all the other allies has nearly foiled the most critical Japanese attack in the game for me.

    Like your research ideas but shouldn’t Russia choose Heavy Bombers to deny it to the axis even though they cant really use it themselves?

    Glad to see someone putting fresh ideas out there.



  • Ya China is a lot stronger but the Japanese can still over power them quite quickly since the Chinese units are pretty spread out.  I’ve done a little play-testing of this set up and I find that it’s pretty balanced.  For Russia I would choose the Advanced Artillery cuz you can really boost your offensive capabilities.



  • I dont think you should limit the startup techs to 1 country only.
    1 on each side would be better as some techs are so usefull that the allies will always be able to take these before the Axis that can really use them can get them.

    Although taking heavy bombers away from the germans also removes it from the other allies.



  • You should probably state your goal: do you want to be able to enjoy a balanced game among friends, or do you want to spread this setup to the entire community?

    Because people will only start playing this setup if it’s had a lot of feedback. If you want more (in depth) feedback on the setup you should think about setting up the pieces in TripleA, and post the setup as a savegame on the forums. No promises, but it will be easier for people to see what the board looks like and maybe try playing a couple of turns.



  • @Ozymandiac:

    You should probably state your goal: do you want to be able to enjoy a balanced game among friends, or do you want to spread this setup to the entire community?

    Because people will only start playing this setup if it’s had a lot of feedback. If you want more (in depth) feedback on the setup you should think about setting up the pieces in TripleA, and post the setup as a savegame on the forums. No promises, but it will be easier for people to see what the board looks like and maybe try playing a couple of turns.

    That is a good idea, it helps people playtest it better as well.



  • @Karl7:

    anything is better than Larry’s 1942 setup.  It made NO historical sense whatsoever.

    What’s wrong with Larry’s 1942 setup? My group tried it last weekend and had fun.



  • The limiting of the techs to one nation makes it too gamy.

    If I where russia, I would then take rockets, to prevent germany from taking rockets and killing me.
    If I where germany, I would take Improved Shipyards, because, NO WAY i am letting usa have 15% discounts on ships, that would just end the game right there.
    US is then either taking super subs, long range aircraft or, increased factory production, just to prevent japan from producing 4 units in each of the main land factories of japan.
    japan will then take the one US didn’t take
    and UK takes Warbond.

    The long version is: US, UK and Japan gets something good, USSR gets something decent, and germany screwes over US.

    Improved shipyardes for US from round 1 is just insane.

    If you wanted to balance it, you could have each side get three techs, and they would get to chose which power would get them. but, the clinch is, the least important powers would chose first. Important is determined according to the scenario. What way, you can chose between getting a good tech, or getting it with an important nation. Improved shipyards is great with US or japan, not that good with USSR, italy or anzak.

    as a suggestion:
    Anzac(/china?)  chose first
    Italy chose second
    USSR Chose third
    Japan chose fourth
    UK chose fifth
    Germany choose sixth
    US choose seventh.

    Different suggestion:
    Anzac(/china?) chose first
    Italy chose second
    UK chose third
    Japan chose fourth
    USSR Chose fifth
    Germany choose sixth
    US choose seventh.



  • Here’s the issue with not limiting the techs to one nation.  If I’m the US and I did get the Improved Shipyards tech I don’t want Japan to be able to pick it up as well and just cancel out my tech.  However I do kind of agree with you I’ll consider making changes.



  • I should mention that I have a group of friends who are going to try playing this set up with me on the 11th of November so we’ll see how it goes.



  • @Kreuzfeld:

    The limiting of the techs to one nation makes it too gamy.

    If I where russia, I would then take rockets, to prevent germany from taking rockets and killing me.
    If I where germany, I would take Improved Shipyards, because, NO WAY i am letting usa have 15% discounts on ships, that would just end the game right there.
    US is then either taking super subs, long range aircraft or, increased factory production, just to prevent japan from producing 4 units in each of the main land factories of japan.
    japan will then take the one US didn’t take
    and UK takes Warbond.

    The long version is: US, UK and Japan gets something good, USSR gets something decent, and germany screwes over US.

    Improved shipyardes for US from round 1 is just insane.

    If you wanted to balance it, you could have each side get three techs, and they would get to chose which power would get them. but, the clinch is, the least important powers would chose first. Important is determined according to the scenario. What way, you can chose between getting a good tech, or getting it with an important nation. Improved shipyards is great with US or japan, not that good with USSR, italy or anzak.

    as a suggestion:
    Anzac(/china?)  chose first
    Italy chose second
    USSR Chose third
    Japan chose fourth
    UK chose fifth
    Germany choose sixth
    US choose seventh.

    Different suggestion:
    Anzac(/china?) chose first
    Italy chose second
    UK chose third
    Japan chose fourth
    USSR Chose fifth
    Germany choose sixth
    US choose seventh.

    Okay Kreuzfeld I’ve made a few changes to the Research and Development Rules.  Please tell me what you think!



  • Instead of giving a couple weapons development to each power from the start that would greatly effect the opening round, would you consider giving them a free break-thru on turn 2 and turn 3 according to the turn order to bring weapons in as the game goes on (Italy and Anz only get it on turn 2). So on R2 Russia gets a free break-thru and can either choose its weapon like you said, or you could have them roll a dice, then choose the weapon that corresponds to the roll from either chart (get two to pick from). You could eliminate weapon’s as they get taken, or allow overlap (up to you). �

    You could still allow each power to buy development dice starting on the first turn and try to get a break-thru for 3 IPCs each.



  • @HeinzGuderian:

    Okay Kreuzfeld I’ve made a few changes to the Research and Development Rules.  Please tell me what you think!

    Hi!

    I like it.

    I liked the idea behind the original idea too, it was just a little bit too exploitable. I like the decrease in cost from 5 to 3 ipc for the die. As wild bill have suggested, there are many ways of making the techrules, but it is important that the rules are not too complicated.

    Great job in making a new scenario, I hope it works out into a well balanced game.



  • @HeinzGuderian:

    Here’s the issue with not limiting the techs to one nation.  If I’m the US and I did get the Improved Shipyards tech I don’t want Japan to be able to pick it up as well and just cancel out my tech.  However I do kind of agree with you I’ll consider making changes.

    But there are only so many usefull techs for each country to start with.
    Rockets are next to useless for the US and japan but verry good for Europe area.
    Shipyards are useless for the USSR.

    And some techs are clearly more powerfull then others.

    I personaly never play with tech as it is way to random. 1 lucky roll and you can have a huge advantage but if your unlucky you can also get crap or even nothing.
    I think that dice itself is already pretty random ( no not going into discussion with LL vs Dice ) but tech is just over the top there.



  • I agree with Shadow about tech being a possible game breaker. The big thing about oob tech is you can invest heavily, but come out with nothing, or a lucky roll gives you the game (oob really sucks IMO). If you are going to mandate tech into the game though, then I would integrate it into the game over a couple turns, not from the start.

    I think that if you give each power a break-thru to then roll for a tech, it levels the playing field some, because every power would get something (most get two), instead of one power gets the key to victory because of a lucky break-thru roll. With most powers getting two techs they should get something useful to their cause.

    I also think that the entire tech chart should be open for each power, I’m just not too sure that they should be allowed to pick because that might be too much of an advantage. Considering that the allies will be getting more tech because they simply have more powers should also be looked at.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The following would be too complicated for actual use in a game (because you’d need to differentiate and track too many things), but tech upgrades would be more realistic if they worked differently from the OOB rules in two ways.  On the plus side, they’d be more or less automatic for everyone: as the game progresses over the span representing 1939-1945 (a span during which technology progressed enormously), technology would evolve upward automatically (though not in identical areas for the various powers), without any need for research investments or dice rolls.  On the minus side, tech upgrades would only apply to the units bought after the upgrade, not to every unit already on the board.  It’s that minus factor which would make this idea too complicated for general use.

    On the other hand, a managable variant (whch would make use of any special extra sculpts that players own from HBG or othere sources) would be to allow every power to automatically introduce at one or two pre-defined rounds of the game one or two special units with special abilities.  These units would not necessarily be the same for each power.  The use of different sculpts would solve the visual differentiation problem, and limiting the concept to just one or two special units per power (rather than, say, half-a-dozen tech upgrades) would prevent things from getting too complicated.  Players would have the option of buying these special units, but would not be obliged to do so.



  • @CWO:

    The following would be too complicated for actual use in a game (because you’d need to differentiate and track too many things), but tech upgrades would be more realistic if they worked differently from the OOB rules in two ways.  On the plus side, they’d be more or less automatic for everyone: as the game progresses over the span representing 1939-1945 (a span during which technology progressed enormously), technology would evolve upward automatically (though not in identical areas for the various powers), without any need for research investments or dice rolls.  On the minus side, tech upgrades would only apply to the units bought after the upgrade, not to every unit already on the board.  It’s that minus factor which would make this idea too complicated for general use.

    On the other hand, a managable variant (whch would make use of any special extra sculpts that players own from HBG or othere sources) would be to allow every power to automatically introduce at one or two pre-defined rounds of the game one or two special units with special abilities.  These units would not necessarily be the same for each power.  The use of different sculpts would solve the visual differentiation problem, and limiting the concept to just one or two special units per power (rather than, say, half-a-dozen tech upgrades) would prevent things from getting too complicated.  Players would have the option of buying these special units, but would not be obliged to do so.

    I really like your idea of ‘special units’.  Which special units would be most beneficial to Axis & Allies Global 1942, in your opinion?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @HeinzGuderian:

    I really like your idea of ‘special units’.  Which special units would be most beneficial to Axis & Allies Global 1942, in your opinion?

    It would depend on individual player preferences, and on the availability of special sculpts, so I don’t have any specific recommendations to make.  Just to give an example: my A&A OOB sculpt collection includes (in Germany’s current black colour) some older-model Panther tanks (the pre-Battle of the Bulge type), some older-model small Stukas (dating back to when they were serving incorrectly as German fighters) and some older-model small 88mm AAA guns (dating back to when they were serving incorrectly as German field artillery).  If I were planning to use them as special units, I’d designate them respectively as the Jagdpanther tank destroyer, as the cannon-armed anti-tank version of the Stuka, and as the antitank gun (PAK) version of the 88mm AAA gun (FLAK).  This illustrates the concept of taking an existing sculpt and working backwards to invent a plausible special unit function for it.  But players could instead work in the other direction: think of a special unit function they’d like to use in the game, then try to find a sculpt on the market (such as at HBG) or in their collections that looks roughly right for the part.

    One point to note is that, unlike the basic units that every power has access to under the OOB rules, the special units could be power-specific.  This could lead to some interesting battle dynamics.  For instance: while I would have prefered every nation in A&A 1941 to have its own sculpt models, I’m happy that the game designers choose the German Tiger and Russian IS-2 as the tank units for the Axis and Allies respectively.  The black Tiger and marroon IS-2 sculpts would work very nicely in 1942 or 1940 as special heavy tank units for the Germans and for the Soviets, since both the colours and the designs are appropriate for those countries.  Only Germany and the USSR would have special heavy tank unit available to them, which is more or less accurate historically because such tanks were rare or nonexistent for the other powers.  (Personally, I’d feel very strange using an American-green Soviet heavy tank or a Japanese-orange German heavy tank.)

    On a related point, a way to combine practicality with diversity would be to develop quite a few of these special units for each power (assuming the right sculpts could be found), but to have the associated house rule state that each power can only use a maximum of two types in any given game.  Each player could choose which ones to use, but would have to limit himself to those ones.  This would save the players from having to keep track of too many combat performance statistics in any given game, while at the same time creating variety between games as different choices get made in each one.


  • 2018 2017

    Here are some fun, not too playtested ideas I’ve been brainstorming.  Doesn’t add a ton of flexibility/flavor to the game (the existing unit set is pretty solid), but neither do cruisers, tac bombers etc,

    Marines Cost 5 (US Japan? only)

    1/2 Attack during amphibious invasions at 2, with artillery 3

    Self Propelled Anti Tank Gun (SPATG) Cost 5

    2/3 move 2, fires first strike on defense (one unit only), hitting armor first if it exists

    Self Propelled Artillery Gun (SPAG) Cost 5

    2/2 move 2, combos with mechs/inf as artillery

    Escort Carrier Cost 11

    0/2 move 2 takes only 1 hit carries only 1 plane

    Attack Transports  (naval unit) Costs 10

    1/1 move 2 carries 3 infantry blocks movement

    Strategic Bomber Cost 13 (undercosted)

    Cruiser Cost 11 (overcosted)

    3/3 move 2 bombards at 3

    Banzai Trooper Japan only Cost 4

    1/2 move 1 sacrifice during the defense to make them first striking

    Cossack Trooper USSR Japan Mongolia only Cost 3

    1/1 move 2 can only be produced 1 per controlled “horseman” territory (eg Mongolia, Caucasus, Soviet Far East), place without factories directly on “horseman” territories

    Armed Merchant (naval unit) Cost 6

    1/1 move 2 carries 1 unit can amphib

    Destroyer Cost 8  (Japan UK only?)

    2/2 move 2 can carry 1 infantry cannot amphib



  • Thanks for the input!  I like the suggestions that you and CWO Marc are putting forward, however, I think that they would make the game just a bit too complicated.  It would probably be feasible to give each world power a single special unit but not multiples.  Any suggestions as to the placement/number of units in my setup?



  • Would rather make these tech developments replacing the current techs ( not sure which would be good to replace )

    Invasion Tactics ( all inf attacks on 2 when attacking amfibious )
    Rationale: once you do a lot of invasions you get better at it.

    Towed Art  ( art can be paired with mech or tank to move 2 spaces, blitz rules from towing unit apply )
    Rationale: in the war all the art was towed

    Internal communications ( inf/art/AA can move to spaces in home countries but cannot blitz,  for germany the 3 fench zones are considered home country as well as italian zones ,pro axis neutrals are not. )
    Rationale: Rail lines existed in these countries, the defender/original owner will have carrages that can be used to move men and equipment faster over greater distances.

    The last 1 will help germany a little in defence againts any invasion but will also allow russia to pull out its far eastern troops in 3 turns.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 32
  • 11
  • 40
  • 49
  • 8
  • 27
  • 23
  • 11
I Will Never Grow Up Games

56
Online

13.5k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts