Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale. In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality. It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.
The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game. It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own. China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.
Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers. Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land. There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers. So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.
If you just using A&A Pacific, 1940 (2nd Edit.) as a “Stand Alone” game only, and using this as a “Special House Rule” scenario it wouldn’t be problematic and would make this interesting for the folllowing reasons - By the rulebook, the U.S. and Japan are not a war yet until Japan attacks first (which would be stupid to do outright) and if this is played in the “House Rules”, Japan may place their all of their units in the Sea and Land zone of Kiangsu Province. HOWEVER, they DO NOT recieve the IPC for it until either ALL American Forces in China (the 4th Marine Regiment and the Yangtze River Patrol at Shanghai) are either evacuated out of China and headed towards either the Philippine Islands (which both actually did do in 1941) or eastward towards Hawaii or one of the outlaying Island outposts before war is declared or Japan decides to “sneak attack” and goes after the American Forces in China and wins, that is when they finally recieve the IPC for the Province. Until then NOTHING, it would be a “Eyeball to Eyeball” scenario in the “Special House Rules” to see who blinks first. And thanks for reminding me about the AVG (the Flying Tigers") in China, i will definitely add them in the “House Rules” as well.
Welcome to the A&A.org forums. You are in luck, I’ve already done the work to figure out how to add Arty to 1941. Allow me to regale you:
While I’m no expert, if I were going to add artillery units from 40 or 42 to my copy of 41, this is how I would do it.
First, use the pieces and rules from 42. Here are the stats for artillery:
Supports Infantry: When an infantry attacks along with an artillery, the infantry’s attack increases to 2. Each infantry must be matched one-for-one with a supporting artillery unit. Artillery does not support infantry on defense.
Also, note in the rules section for infantry:
Attack 1 (2 when supported by artillery)*
Supported by Artillery: When an infantry attacks along with an artillery, the infantry’s attack increases to 2. Each infantry must be matched one-for-one with a supporting artillery unit. If your infantry outnumber your artillery, the excess infantry units still have an attack of 1. For example, if you attack with two artillery and five infantry, two of your infantry have an attack of 2 and the rest have an attack of 1. Infantry are not supported by artillery on defense.
Finally, I would change the initial setup for 1941 to reflect the presence of artillery in armies already on the board. I would think that changing every 3rd infantry in a territory to artillery would be a decent start. If I did that, I would change the setup in some territories and leave the rest alone. The changed territories would reflect the following setup:
Russia: 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter*
Archangel: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Karelia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Caucasus: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Siberia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Germany: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 bomber
Eastern Europe: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 tanks
Ukraine: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 tanks
West Russia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Japan: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber
*Note that according to the FAQ put out after the game released, the territory labeled Russia should start with six infantry. If you haven’t read this FAQ, you should, as it made other changes to the setup of the board. If you swap every third infantry for an artillery, you would get four infantry and two artillery, as shown above.
The FAQ for Axis & Allies 1941 can be found here: www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA_1941_FAQ.pdf
Also, this would mean that neither the UK nor the US would start with any artillery as their regular setup have no territories with three or more infantry. Either shrug your shoulders or change their setup as you feel appropriate, perhaps as follows:
India: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter
Eastern U.S.: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber
The above changes should integrate artillery into a game of 1941 fairly well. The Axis would swap 5 infantry for 5 artillery and the Allies would swap 6 or 8 (with optional UK and US artillery swapping) infantry for 6 or 8 (with optional UK and US artillery swapping) artillery for the setup of the game.
My 2 IPC
Source: (https://boardgamegeek.com/article/22682014#22682014) Still me, just the BGG me.
The new map is an uneasy compromise, with some tts values reflecting oil wealth, others not.
Personally I prefer adding industrial base and mineral resources together to create a single economic index, but the separate oil values have been tried:
The big problem is that the Allies always have more than enough oil, the Axis hardly ever enough. Forcing the Axis to take oil centres to keep going makes their moves very predictable.
I would rather prefer to limit them to their role of AA gun but, specialy for Germany, it seems they used a lot their 88mm AAA as antitank gun (El Alamein battle, i.e.).
I like that because you are correct, in Real Live, AA was just high-velocity ammo pointed at the sky, point it at a tank like the Germans did, it became an effective anti-tank.
I like the idea of taking out tank and/or armor for the pre-combat AA roll.
I don’t know if it would be unbalanced but I think I will try this next game
I just learned that Germans put their Flak 88 on tracks and plates so it becomes the Tiger (Mark VI) and deliver them for the Battle of Kursk in 1943.
This gun seems quite an invention.
You have some thoughts about new rules and new units for the Milton Bradley-era A&A? I am right there with you. I posted some thoughts late last year / early this year. I will link them below so that you can find them. If you want to discuss these rules, I recommend commenting on the relevant post rather than right here. But you do you.
One thing I will mention. I like paratroopers and paratrooper rules. But using bombers to cart around paratroopers is both silly and not historically accurate. So, I wrote rules for another new unit, the Air Transport or Cargo Plane unit. Think of them as Transports in the sky - with less cargo capacity and more movement points. See, when you fold in both the Paratrooper and their trusty steeds, the cargo plane / air transport, then I think you’ve got something…
Midnight_Reaper’s New A&A Classic Rules:
1(Classic) Simple Cruiser Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
1a(Classic) Cruisers or Destroyers for Classic?: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41552.0
2(Classic) Paratrooper and Air Transport Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
3(Classic) Armored Cavalry and Troopers - Rules for two ground units for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
4(Classic) Heavy Artillery - Rules for a new ground unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0
5(Classic) New Research Rules - Outsmart your Enemies: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41479.0
6(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41480.0
6a(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic, at a Lower Dose: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41481.0
7(Classic) National Advantages - A new way to help balance Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41482.0
8(Classic) New Unit Surcharge - New Economics for Classic : https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41483.0
9(Classic) Special Forces - New Optional Unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41484.0
9a(Classic) More Special Forces Options for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41485.0
10(Classic) Incendiary Thoughts - Strategic Bombing and Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41486.0
11(Classic) Unit Prices & Balance - New Economics for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41487.0
12(Classic) New Initial Setup - New Setup for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41551.0
Like I said, I have some thoughts on the subject… And I’m not even done with this series, just mostly done…
While discussing on Global development, Larry said:
Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
After all, maybe a Cruiser can be balance this way while adding some historical features (M3, AA):
CL A3D3M3C11, 1 AA@1 on def. vs 1 plane
Because, of course at 10 IPCs with 2 others additions, cruiser will be overboosted.
I just realized that Tank A3 D3 were 5 IPCs at that time, so doubling the cost would have put Cruiser A3 D3 at 10 IPCs.
And what is strange is that Larry back off because he felt that it would make 2 hits, 20 IPCs Battleship obsolete.
I understand that 11 IPCs is a too odd number, but 10 was not.
However, all the A&A combat structure is based on this fact that cheaper ground units are always better cost effective than costlier. Subs, DDs, Cruiser were following the rule, why bend it for Battleship?
It would have follow the rule, in addition, the 2 hits repairable units is something still valuable.