Back when all we had was Classic, I tried out a game where Germany and Russia were pals and they fought against USA, UK and Japan. The Germany/Russia combo was pretty devastating. They rather quickly over ran the rest of the Asian continent and most of Africa, although Russia had some problems with Japan because Japan kept using their transports to drop off troops all along the coast and Russia didn’t yet have enought to put garrisons in each coastal territory.
As powerful as Germany got by taking most of the Middle-East and Africa, they had a hard time trying to get at England because the Brits kept buying aircraft and sinking all the German ships. So while Germany had lots of troops and tanks, they couldn’t keep ships to take them to England. Also, Germany had put so many men along the coasts that America had to build a really huge invasion fleet to get over there. They also had to be careful about staging their ships because Germany had a lot of Luftwaffe too.
It took a while, but Germany and Russia eventually won. Russia finally got some planes over to sink the Japanese ships and Germany eventually whittled down the RAF enough that they started to keep and build a decent navy. They also used lots of subs for fodder (remember back then planes could hit subs anytime). The big American invasion took too long building and ended up being used to liberate England instead of attacking somewhere in Europe. Germany had enough guys and transports to re-take England and after a couple of large naval battles, managed to reach North America and had enough transports to keep shuttling men and tanks from Europe to England to Canada, with even a few Russian troops sent over by their puny navy to take defense hits by US counterattacks. Eventually, they even overwhelmed Eastern US. Japan couldn’t help because every time they put ships in the water, Russian planes would sink them.
If you use the same logic you should get rid of the Japanese NOs for Calcutta, Hawaii and Sydney. Not sure I like that change.
That would actually help Allies a fair bit and also keep peace between Germany and USSR for longer on the average. Would more peace make the game better? I’m not sure that it would. It would increase the number of Sea Lions though - perhaps that would be good.
Yes and no. It would be crazy if Japan can squeeze 5 more IPC out of a rocky island than the original owner can. But, if we change the words in the rule, and say that anyone who control Hawaii island and the adjacent seazone 26 with its convoy zone, will get a 5 IPC bonus, representing international trade with South America or something. Do the same with Sydney and seazone 62, and now I can endorse it, man. Now it makes sense to me.
About your other topic, the possibility of longer time of peace between Germany and its partner in crime, Russia, who knows man ? The current OOB NOs sure reward aggressive play, since Germanys choice between a 5 IPC peace NO dont catch up with the 15 + wartime NOs. But, the OOB NOs also make it a scripted game, but not a historical correct scripted game, since in the real war Germany first had to try a Sea Lion before it would attack Russia. Now, since the designer obviously want a lot of action, and not a sit and wait game, he trough in a lot of NOs to speed up the pace. And that is why we can see everything that happened from 1939 to 1941 in the first Turn of any A&A game. But if you ask me, I think its too many NOs in play, it should be max 3 to each nation, and they should represent something abstract like international trade, shipping, oil etc that is not already printed on the map. Actually there are no need for NOs, you only need Victory Cities to win. If Germany want to win the game, it should attack Russia because of the VCs there, not some derogatory NOs.
IMHO, NOs only have a meaning in this game if they are a part of some bidding system.
Increasing the peace time economy with russia (10 IPCs for both) while giving the wartime Leningrad +5 bonus NO to Russia, can give a better balance toward allies while giving more incentive to attack UK early and Leningrad later, to block the new russian income.
If two(2) Allied pieces are moved they must be of different origins(USSR, UK and US.)
Limits are … no ICs and no more than 1 Bmr per side(Axis & Ally), not country.
Met a guy the other day who plays with this rule. He said it makes the game more flexible, like bidding, but more flex for more players(2 to 5.)
His usual group plays RR, SS, and 1 hit BB(otherwise the extra pieces are too often BBs.)
I think I’ll try to talk my local opponents into trying this one.
With all the variations we keep trying Hillary will probably be
president by the time we try this one. 😛
You are indeed proving to me that changing any rule set is complex indeed and requires very thoughtful analysis.
Yes, that’s quite correct. An important point to remember is that a complex game such as Global 1940 is similar to other complex devices (such as automotive vehicles): they are systems consisting of multiple interrelated parts which are designed to work together in a particular way and which reflect many design choices and compromises. Sometimes it’s possible to make minor or even major alterations to some of those components without affecting significantly the performance the overall system, but sometimes even a minor adjustment to a single critical component can wreck the whole thing. (Take as an example the recent Galaxy Note 7 debacle. There’s been speculation that Samsung may have changed the electrolyte in the lithium-ion batteries to something less stable, or that it may have gone too far in thinning the separator which keeps the positive and negative sides apart so that the battery doesn’t short-circuit and overheat.) And design considerations have to take into account the fundamental question of what purpose the system is supposed to serve. A luxury limousine, a Formula One race-car and a semi-trailer truck are all automotive vehicles, but they’re all optimized to do specific jobs and they all place different leves of emphasis on different capabilities such as passenger comfort, baggage / cargo-holding capacity, speed, fuel consumption efficiency and so forth.