G40 House Rules - What Do The Pros Think?

  • Interested in what people who have played the game a lot think this will do in terms of playability. It’s been a lot of fun for me, and I prefer it to the original set up - but my instincts aren’t as honed as most of you, who can detect flaws on an advanced level. How could this slant the game?

    Allies have some distinct advantages (more income, loss of London significantly less catastrophic) but also disadvantages (cleaving Canada from Britain gives less force multiplication, axis base of power more fortified, more likely Sea Lion occurs). By the way, the fortresses are all based on what actually existed in those territories at this time in the war. Only one I kept out was the Maginot Line in France, as it was inconsequential and would change the course of the game too much.

    Each new rule is in a box below. Goal was to be both realistic and add a new dimension to the game without throwing it off. Looking forward to your thoughts!


    New Stationary Unit: Fortresses

    The Game Starts Out with Fortresses in the Following Territories:


    Western Germany
    Northern Italy

    Role: All infantry, mech infantry, and artillery units in territory have increased defense +1 (defend at 3)

    Cost: 15

    Can be built on any territory controlled since the beginning of your turn.

    Can be damaged with strategic/tactical bombing; inoperable with 3 or more damage points, up to 6 damage points possible.

    Can be repaired like air/naval bases, and also has built in anti-air defense against bombing like them.

    Changed Unit Prices:

    Strategic Bombers cost 14

    Cruisers cost 10

    Unit Changes:

    Each cruiser rolls an anti-air shot before combat against attacking planes, hits at 1. Each cruiser has only one anti-air roll no matter how many planes are attacking. If one plane is attacking two cruisers, both cruisers roll for anti-air. If anti-air hits, attacker chooses which unit(s) to remove before combat begins. Anti-air rolls do not stop cruisers from defending that round.

    National Objective Updates:

    Increase Japan National Objective for Avoiding Unprovoked Declaration of War against ANZAC/UK and Invasion of French Indochina from 10IPC to 15IPC per turn.

    Add German National Objective: 7 IPCs if Germany controls UK (London). Theme: High Strategic and Propaganda value

    Add German National Objective: 3 IPCs if Axis controls Belgium/Holland, Normandy-Bordeaux, Denmark, and Western Germany. Theme: Atlantic Wall

    New Rules For Purchasing Technology:

    Technology: Buy tokens for 5IPC each, choose tier of research you wish to assign it to. If you roll a 6 you get a technology in that tier to roll for, 4-5 token is saved for a later turn to roll, 1-3 token is discarded. If token is saved, tokens technology tier cannot be switched. If you win a technology in a tier, all tokens in that tier are discarded. You may have multiple tokens in multiple tiers.

    4 Tiers for tech based on:

    Land (Paratroopers, Improved Mechanized Infantry, Advanced Artillery)
    Naval (Radar, Super Submarines, Improved Shipyards)
    Air (Long Range Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighters)
    Strategic (War Bonds, Rockets, Increased Factory Production)

    If you acquire a technology, you do not get it until the collect income phase at the end of your turn (Note: Because of this, you can use war bonds at end of the turn it was acquired, as money received can only be used the next turn).

    New Technology Detail Changes:

    Jet Fighters defend at 5, not attack at 4. Same rules as in book for escort/interceptors apply.

    Add +2 to all War Bonds rolls to calculate IPCs earned

    Radar Tech turns Cruiser anti-air defense to +2. See rules above for how Cruisers use their anti-air defense.

    Paratroopers do not require coinciding land / amphibious invasions to attack a territory. Ability can also be used as non-combat movements.

    The Dutch Liberated Territory Rule

    Allied (and Axis) nations territories can be liberated by their allies if the territorys capital has been captured. These territories should be treated as friendly neutral territories, along the lines of the Dutch East Indies. They do not require the enemy to capture them first for allies to receive income value. Example: After the fall of France, UK can send soldiers to French African territories and collect income from them. They do not, however, receive this income automatically; ground forces must enter the territory to occupy it.

    British Second Capital Rule:

    If London is captured, all of Britains European Economy IPCs go to its conquerer. However, the following turn all Sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern Territories IPCs (Turkey, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Egypt and further) still held by Britain transfer to Calcutta, assuming it is also not captured. All unoccupied British American, European and North African (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) derived IPCs are considered stranded. Britain may, however, liberate territories and have Calcutta receive IPCs for them; for example, if London falls but British troops are in Southern France, those IPCs may go to Calcutta. If Britain controls Morocco, however, but has no soldiers there, that territory would become stranded. If Calcutta is captured, no Pacific territory automatically transfers to London; however, the same rules apply regarding troop occupation. If Britain has soldiers in Malaya and Calcutta falls, that IPC value can be collected by London. If Calcutta or London is liberated, economic control over respective territories reverts back to the initial format.

    ANZAC Split Economy - Canada

    Canada is not controlled by UK, it is controlled by ANZAC, with the economy being split (ANZAC Europe starts out with 7IPCs, UK Europe with 21). There is no Second Capital rule with ANZAC; ANZAC Pacific receives economy for all conquered/liberated East African/Middle Eastern Territories bordering Sea Zones 70, 71, 72, 76, and 80 and all territories in Asia (including Asian Russia). ANZAC Europe receives economy for all American and North/West African Territories including Sea Zones 81, 82, 83, 87 and all European territories (this includes all Russian territory on the European Map). This rule is void if one of the capitals is captured; IPCs anywhere may be acquired by the remaining capital by physically moving ground units to the territories.

    ANZACs split economies, like UKs, share technology.

    All British units on Canada are replaced with ANZAC units, including ships in Sea Zone 106.

    All prior ANZAC National Objectives apply strictly to ANZAC Pacific Economy.

    ANZAC European National Objectives:

    5 IPCs if UK, Scotland, Newfoundland, Greenland, and Iceland are free of Axis soldiers, Canada controls all of its original territories, and all bordering US territories are controlled by Allies. Theme: Basic Defense Perimeter.

    5 IPCs if America is at War with the Axis. Theme: North American Shared War Economy.

    New Unit Placements:

    Germany starts with a Submarine in Sea Zone 67

    Germany starts with a Submarine in Sea Zone 114

    Germany starts with a Submarine in Sea Zone 112

    Germany starts with a Tactical Bomber in Holland/Belgium

    Germany starts with a Fighter in Poland

    US starts with a Destroyer in Sea Zone 89

    ANZAC starts with 2 Infantry and 1 Fighter in UK

    ANZAC starts with a Destroyer in Sea Zone 119

    Russia starts with 1 infantry in Bryansk

    Russia starts with 1 infantry in Smolensk

    New Victory Cities And Victory Rules:


    • Johannesburg in Union of South Africa
    • Kiev in Ukraine
    • Chicago in Central US


    • Frankfurt in Western Germany
    • Milan in Northern Italy

    New number of Victory Cities on map: 24

    Total Under National Control at Start:

    5 American
    5 British
    2 ANZAC
    4 Russian
    1 French

    3 German
    2 Italian
    2 Japanese

    Axis Needs 14 Victory Cities total to win.
    Allies Need 18 Victory Cities total to win.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The Game Starts Out with Fortresses in the Following Territories:


    Western Germany
    Northern Italy

    Too many starting forts will lead to WW1 game.

    Remove Malta ( waste) and Ukraine ( they had nothing, Sevastopol is not representative of the entire Ukraine)

    Remove Poland ( no such fort exists)

    Could add one for France, but you need to playtest for balance.

    You can’t just add stuff that favors the allies ( with more forts, and the defender being the allies) without a counter balance to the axis.

  • Reasonable. Germany had an eastern wall which they began extending into Poland, but it was far from the Siegfried line. Also fair on Ukraine; mostly added it because if Germany has a fortress in Poland, Russia needed to have one on it’s eastern front or it would get unfair.

    Get your point about Malta, but that’s why I think it’s ok to leave it in. The city was HEAVILY fortified like Gibraltar and Singapore. Considering only one infantry is there (and unlikely too many more will join), it won’t change the game much but makes an attack on the city more realistic.

    Northern Italy, Western Germany, and France all had big fortifications so added accordingly. If you give Germany 2 more infantry in West Germany at game start this fortress does not substantially change the aftermath of the attack.

    As far as the WW1 Critique though, I disagree. Fortifications are costly to build, and can be tactically bombed before an invasion and rendered ineffective in battle. It adds a new level of strategy to the game. Do you want to just see if you can muscle through, or do you want to send a bomber or two to “soften” up the defenses? Considering you only need 3 damage points, a single Strategic Bomber hitting a fortress (assuming it avoids anti-air) will render it ineffective for the round. The catch is that you lose that bomber as an attacking unit. Makes a player just have to take more into consideration - which would be realistic in battle.

  • 2020 '18 '17

    Mr. Piscolar;

    the fortress idea is OK, but it seems OP when you can build them to defend key VC strongholds like Moscow.  Your point about inactivating them is interesting, but that’s not how the rules for Airbases work, you can’t disable them right before the scramble.  It is sort of interesting to imagine a fighter intercept/bomber part of that transaction, but at some point you simply need all your planes in order to overwhelm, you can’t split them off to wrack the forts first, or the defense becomes too favorable (because you have increased defensive power by +1 or reserved the planes for this task, either outcome increases the defense vs offense pretty dramatically).  When you are talking about potentially adding +1 defense to 40+ units, it becomes OP.

    Actual fortresses are not realistic in WW2, as they were captured by paratroops, reduced by bombing, surrounded and besieged, or simply bypassed and ignored.

    Your ANZAC idea is fun and interesting, but unless ANZAC takes the risk of moving its assets to Brazil, there wont be much coordination there.  Not sure why you would cleave off a second grey team.  Why not just clarify your original idea by making the ANZAC team better (by giving them Canada and 1-2 ships 1-2 units) at the expense of UK Atl.?  UK isn’t really a viable team at that point but neither is a 7 income independent team with split forces…

    I like the special NOs from Balanced mod, but I’m not sure why you’ve added NOs that are active based on what teams already pretty much have or go for from the get-go.  NOs should draw the players into an unexpected alignment to incentivize new play, not reward them for doing what they were already going to do.

    Adding German Units seems very odd since they are usually getting a bid of 20+ against them, now the required bid would be even higher.  You have offset some of the Axis advantage with other NOs, but I wouldn’t make the Germany start position even more advantageous its extremely powerful as is.

    You also added several Axis NOs for just being Axis, these aren’t necessary to bolster their already dominating economic position and they aren’t dependent on what the Axis choose to do.  Giving Japan an NO for attacking allied zero $ islands or for Germany to attack Iceland are some examples of encouraging the player to do something that otherwise he would rarely or never choose to do.

    the VC condition is messed up OOB, good effort on trying to change it

    Tech/Cruisers/Bombers; these are similar to other suggestions, I think the tech doesn’t need new incentives to go after it, several of them are awesome and the rest are junk.  Unless you nerf the good ones and improve (all) the bad ones, making them easier to get doesn’t really balance anything.  Smart to reshuffle the Charts, but the “Land” one is packed with junk.

    Crusiers are OP if they are 10 AND AAA.

    Bombers are OP at 12, but if they cost 14, SB isn’t viable and buying them in bulk isn’t either.

    These are just a ton of interesting extra rules, which are all fun and creative but they don’t seem to balance Axis vs Allies any better than standard rules.

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1
  • 11
  • 2
  • 16
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys