G40 Governments in Exile

Howdy folks. I’ve got a series of simple house rules that add a little bit of historicity & complexity to the game’s political situation without requiring new pieces, trackers, loads of exceptions & things to remember, etc. They’re intended to each be a module drop-in addition to a set of rules. I’ve playtested these roughly 3-5 times each & am looking for additional feedback. I make no claims to uniqueness or creativity–these were constructed with LOTS of taking from the community & as such, I’m offering them back to the community.

Here’s one of my favorite: Slightly Scarier China:

China may place infantry on any originally Chinese territory which has no enemy land units on it. Only as many units may be placed in a territory as twice the IPC value of that territory. China never purchases Artillery, it is given by a modified Burma Road National Bonus: 3 IPCs & +1 Arty in Szechwan if Burma Road is open. Chinese units may go anywhere in China as well as:
Korea, Burma, Shan State, Siam, French Indochina, and Hong Kong. They may never collect income from these additional territories, even if they control them.

First of all, to clarify for everybody: the Chinese Coast is originally-Chinese! Japan just starts with it; read the rules.

This is just like any of the million Chinese Guerilla rules out there. Japan’s got to keep an infantry on every territory or Chinese dudes pop up behind the lines. In practice, we found that to be actually too powerful for China, and made it impossible for Japan to hold any part of the continent for more than 5 turns if they wanted to adopt a Pacific strategy.

While it was fun with an aggressive Japan, and accurately represented the way you had you throw money into China to make any minor progress (you’d be surprised how much Chinese guerilla placement slows you down after 2-3 turns, if you haven’t played with it yet), it didn’t represent well the other way the pendulum swung–it was too easy for China to seize the initiative & end the forever war.

As a result, we’ve found that forcing China to distribute its builds hampers its ability to form doomstacks. Additionally, forcing offensive units to be shipped from the south really makes it hard for it to press the advantage in the north without Soviet help. We found this feels a lot better.

One note: we typically play with a “Coiled Japan” setup that gives Kiangsi and Kwangsi to China & moves the Japanese units there further north, representing a few months earlier than the OOB setup. This also really slows Japanese progress & makes a J1/J2 closure of the Burma road impossible, ruling a classic Calcutta crush out entirely. If you don’t do this, I’d recommend removing a Japanese infantry from each of the coastal territories (not Manchuria or Korea).

This rule pairs well with:

200th Division (swap a Yunnan Inf for an irreplaceable Chinese tank) Gobi Wasteland (Kansu, Tsinghai, and Sikang have no economic value) Can’t Send Tanks Over the Desert (the border between west China & the USSR may only be traversed by aircraft and infantry)

Overall, this is a big swing in the Allies’ favor, probably about 10-15 IPCs worth of bidding. The Gobi Wasteland rule might be required if the extra rounds of Burma income prove too much for your Japan player to overcome.

These rules are part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

Some basic units from the OOB G40 rulebook have seen a cost reduction. This is due to the multiple new units & rules that are included in Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion rulebook.

6. G40 Cost of all units, page 1.pdf
6. G40 Cost of all units, page 2.pdf

Rule set we are currently playing by
.IMG_20201119_190421912.jpg

I would use these rules:

(1) if the defender sees a key battle coming and can predict that they’ll want an unusual order of loss, they can leave a note, send an e-mail, etc., informing the attacker of their preferred order of loss, and the attacker will then follow that order.

(2) if there is no note, the attacker will provisionally use a standard order of loss.

(3) after seeing the results of the battle, the defender can pay 2 IPCs to the bank per casualty that they want to switch. You didn’t want to lose your bomber after all? Fine, pay 2 IPCs, and you can have your bomber back in exchange for one of your infantry. This should be expensive enough to deter casual abuse but still cheap enough that if you would really be upset about the order of loss, you can fix it without too much drama. Don’t think it’s fair that you should have to pay to set up your order of loss exactly the way you want it? Well, then, you should have foreseen the battle and given orders in advance. Don’t feel like thinking that hard every turn? Well, then, you can always just cough up 2 IPCs. It’s a way of speeding up the game while making sure that nothing unacceptably bad will happen because of order of loss issues.

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.

Sorry for the late reply. I told Seancb I would post his PDF for him. It got lost in my dice mailbox :)

A&A Global realism rules.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w

OK, got it.