Trans-Siberian Railway

No Trans Siberian railway in 40G AB, but you could always house rule it.

It is wrong that Russia cannot pull all those troops West to protect Moscow , as happened, historically, Worsham.
But then Germany should never be able to build the large number of Mechs that all players buy, when they did not have the industry to make them or the fuel to move them. And don’t get me started on the US’ inability to compete with the Axis economically, when they could and did outbuild them all.
The gane should have a time limit on it. If the Axis cannot win quickly, then
It should be considered that  the US will eventually overhaul them.

The 1999 Pacific game worked like that. Made the game have a clear ending. These Global games can go on for 30 plus Turns, which is silly.

Dear Wittman,
I agree that the Axis has advantages that are a-historical. My suggestion would be two fold for the Eastern front. Firstly, take away the major IC on Germany(Berlin)-or at least its ability to produce units other than infantry. This will recreate the fact that the strength of the German war industry was West in the Ruhr. Also it will make it a longer trip for German units to Russia.
    Additionally, to recreate the moving of Russian factories Eastwards, have a rule that allows Russia to move any minor IC one space per turn as a noncombat movement, so the Germans cannot use captured Russian IC’s(unless they capture Moscow, but then that turns into a minor IC anyway.)

I will check out the 1999 Pacific game you mentioned.
Good luck, God Bless you all, and have fun from,
-AxisandAlliesGeneral

The game does have a clear ending;  it is the moment where

1. The Axis concede because they cannot destroy Russia
2. The Axis concede because they can destroy Russia, but have either lost the troops or failed to gain the territory that would be needed to complete the conquest of the world
3. The Axis concede because they are tired and they need to go to bed but if they had more time and rage left they would still beat the Allies, for sure.
4. The Allies make the Axis concede (this may involve a headlock or even a tag-team headlock)
5. The Allies concede, primarily for reason #3 but they could still probably win anyway, and do not officially admit defeat, its just most of the pizza and beer are gone and they just don’t have the heart to roll it out.

@AxisandAlliesGeneral:

Dear Wittman,
I agree that the Axis has advantages that are a-historical. My suggestion would be two fold for the Eastern front. Firstly, take away the major IC on Germany(Berlin)-or at least its ability to produce units other than infantry. This will recreate the fact that the strength of the German war industry was West in the Ruhr. Also it will make it a longer trip for German units to Russia.
     Additionally, to recreate the moving of Russian factories Eastwards, have a rule that allows Russia to move any minor IC one space per turn as a noncombat movement, so the Germans cannot use captured Russian IC’s(unless they capture Moscow, but then that turns into a minor IC anyway.)

I will check out the 1999 Pacific game you mentioned.
Good luck, God Bless you all, and have fun from,
-AxisandAlliesGeneral

The game is A-historic for various reaons, its a game remember.
Distances are wrong completely. Aircraft could barely make it to germany from london, here they can fly to moscow. It was not possible for combat aircraft to get from berlin to london.

Also US getting into the war because UK-Pac is attacked is rather stupid. It should just be on a timer or untill attacked ( other then philipines ). Like round 4 or something.
Russia got an NO for getting into afrika and the middle east.

And for the axis the game is on a timer, get to money parrity while keeping a decent board position in time before the allies steamroll you. Allies just have to stall for time, even taking moscow isnt a big deal if allies are strong in the atlantic and afrika.
The US just skipping islands and moving from hawai all the way to queensland and attacking.

@AxisandAlliesGeneral:

Dear Wittman,
I agree that the Axis has advantages that are a-historical. My suggestion would be two fold for the Eastern front. Firstly, take away the major IC on Germany(Berlin)-or at least its ability to produce units other than infantry. This will recreate the fact that the strength of the German war industry was West in the Ruhr. Also it will make it a longer trip for German units to Russia.
     Additionally, to recreate the moving of Russian factories Eastwards, have a rule that allows Russia to move any minor IC one space per turn as a noncombat movement, so the Germans cannot use captured Russian IC’s(unless they capture Moscow, but then that turns into a minor IC anyway.)

I will check out the 1999 Pacific game you mentioned.
Good luck, God Bless you all, and have fun from,
-AxisandAlliesGeneral

Bottom line, this is a great suggestion. I think Germany starting with a mionor in Germany will fix a lot of things that BM mode does not. It gives Germany option to buy nave G1 for sea lion. And if they do, the G2 10 art is less attractive. Now, if Germany enhance the Factory G1 it gives the allies more freedom to operate

Guys, I think you have all said great things. I hope some people take a few
on board.
I have thought fro some time, how all US Inf should be Mech for the same price of three and transported across the Ocean, as if they were basic Inf (so Tank and Mech on one TT).  Perhaps, not allowing the Axis  to buy Mech at  all, should also be a rule.

The downgrading of the German IC is interesting, and actually reverts to the first edition setup. It’s the equivalent of a bid for the Allies since it would slow down the massive German mobile stack for a turn unless they invest in upgrading the minor or possibly put one in Romania.

I also like the idea of the US treating mechanical infantry like conventional infantry.

Not sure why the game needs any tweaks on that account, as you are talking about some house rules combined with nerfing Germany quite badly.  The setup for Germany isn’t really the problem, its the fact that SBs are OP by virtue of their versatility combined with the fact that Russia is too weak and poor to do anything about Germany much less the other 2 angry Axis is the core of it.

Unf, if you make Russia even a bit tougher, you make Germany’s job much harder and it will need the full commit of all 3 Axis to kill USSR, which makes the game less versatile because other strategies that don’t tackle Russia first and focus on it will become less viable.

Really, Russia’s starting weakness does fit with the 1940 game and history, what doesn’t really fit is that by 1943, Russia would have more tanks (and better) tanks than Germany, which is not how things play out in the game (since Russia doesn’t really increase in power since it is under so much pressure from game-start).

@taamvan:

Really, Russia’s starting weakness does fit with the 1940 game and history, what doesn’t really fit is that by 1943, Russia would have more tanks (and better) tanks than Germany, which is not how things play out in the game (since Russia doesn’t really increase in power since it is under so much pressure from game-start).

Of course we all know that each country’s turn and or game round doesn’t fit an actual time period. One country’s turn could represent two weeks or several months the next round.

So…I like to think of a G40 game petering out around August 1942 (start of the Battle of Stalingrad). At this point in history, the Axis were at the verge of winning. However, the 6th Army was surrounded at Stalingrad while the UK and ANZAC forces’ victory at El Alamein eliminated the threat to the Suez Canal. Also, naval battles against Japan altered the strategic balance of power in the Pacific.

In the games that Russia can push back Germany from Stalingrad or when the US is at that point that it can prevent Japan from re-taking back the Money Island NO…that’s when I’ll call it 1943.

Russia should at least get to move 2 pieces a turn on the railroad 2 spaces.

I’m with wittmann on game having so many turns for game.

Another different 40 game I’m testing is where axis needs to have control of so many victory city’s by the end of turn 10. This gives the axis a chance to win game early until the allies money kicks in and forces Japan to hold most if not all there starting victory city’s. This test turn out pretty good. All countries are at war at start of game.

Also testing now victory city points. Any side gets to a certain amount wins the game. Also seeing if this can happen in 10 turns only.

Wittmann have you tried any of these things in your game ?

Hi SS.
I am afraid not. I have not got a group, with whom to play. I can only play here on this forum. I would happily trial it, had I the time.