AAE Scenario: Europe 1939 (France, USA, Germany, Britain, USSR, Italy)

Hello everyone! I’m back after a long absence (forgot my password, forgot to reset my password, and had a bunch of other commitments) However, now with summer quickly approaching, I will be dedicating a lot more time to 2 of my biggest projects.

The first of these is the Axis and Allies Expanded Global scenario. Essentially, it is a sandbox, Game of Thrones scenario where there are no set alliances and nations may do as they please.

Additional nations I have included are Indonesia, Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), Eastern Commonwealth of Europe (ECE), Canada, and India. I have also strengthened the Chinese.

Nations will have the ability to sway neutral to their side, engage other nations in proxy wars, and form alliances with any power they wish.

Turn order is not permanent, for it is the nation with the lowest income that starts the round. Especially during wartime, incomes will always change as will the turn order.

With Neutral Nation, players may attempt to spend Influence to gather neutral parties to their cause. When a nation succeeds in placing 4 Influence chips, they will control that Neutral Nation as their own territory.

All new technology will also be present. I will be posting updates in the form of a storyboard, making this a massive creative endeavour.

The second project is the continuance and modifications to my Alternate History stories and rules, for which game updates will also be posted.

As the Expanded Global scenario is more complex (despite play testing being achieved) I will focus my attention first to a round of Alternate History.

These look good, I’ll definitely give them a try. I love the simplified rules but the feel of A&A is still there. I have a few people in mind who might like these because they are overwhelmed on the full board.

Some good ideas here.  This got me to thinking… if someone really wanted to play France as a country, buy units, etc.; then you could play it this way:

French player starts out with the Allies, but once Germany takes the capital, they play with the Axis.  The capital and all territories remain in French hands and they still retain their income and build on their factories.  When/if the Allies liberate Paris, the French player then joins the Allies.  Each time Paris in taken, any French units in territories occupied by other nations remain Allied and usable by that nation (like the French fighter and soldiers in England and boats in the same territory as the British).  If the Allies take Paris, any French units with German/Italian/Japanese combat units in Russia/Germany/the water/wherever are usable by that nation.  The rules are mirrored for if the Allies take Paris: France retains control of their income and all their territories that they control and simply fights with the Allies.

Aspects of this would actually be similar to how it was in the war.  Although you didn’t have stacks of French soldiers defending Normandy from Allied invasion (though some French soldiers fought for the Axis), you also didn’t have the French Mediterranean fleet, Morocco, and southern France fighting against the Axis after France capitulated.

I’m not sure if this might even be balanced or whether it might swing to Allies or Axis.  The push towards Russia would be hampered as some units would need to come all the way from France and those units would attack out of turn from Germany, but on the other hand the Axis would have more total income and a D-Day invasion would be much harder.

We always play with all the Axis playing at once and all the Allies playing at once, so that would likely give the Axis an advantage, but you could compensate by giving the Allies more money.

As an optional rule, you could allow the Japanese player to conquer French Indo-China (just as in the war and just to spice things up) or leave for the French player (maybe France could build a factory there?).  This decision could be strategic by the Japanese player: allowing money to flow where it’s most needed, or it could be cordial: gentlemanly to leave it to your new co-belligerant, or it could be playfully poking fun: haha, it’s mine and you can’t do anything about it.  It might make the Japanese player less ‘lonely’ to have some interaction with their co-belligerants.

The French player might have some disconnection with who wins (or might slightly favor Axis since that’s where their reputation as a skilled player is on the line), but on the other hand, it might be a happy ending to be on the winning side no matter which side won the game.  Another plus is that for a Europe only game, the sides would be an even 3 on 3 for the nations for most of the game and it might allow you to have a 6th player on the Europe only board.

Just to say again, that I like this solution for G40.

In the tripleA edit mode it only take a few moments.

Just enable edit mode
edit the “territory ownership” of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Chile to USA
click the neutral infantry and remove them, then “add units.” The default is American, since you already changed ownership.
then “Change PUs” of America from 52 to 60 ipcs.

Easy. It’s also fun to watch how the AI tries to make use of the new loot and the new units haha
:-D

@MacNaughton:

But for the sake of game mechanics, it is important that we say that Germany “liberates” Rome. Also, for the sake of game mechanics, we can only take historical accuracy so far. Which means that if Rome is liberated by Germany, then we pretend that all the Italian territories all over the board will be perfectly happy to come back under the rule of Italy no matter the actual feeling of those people in actual history.

Exactly. Thank you, sir.

@Imperious:

All those dice rolls thing would imbalance the game, only a fixed result can be balanced and must be.

Hmm… We are both talking about Axis and Allies, right?

Alright when I have time. Right now I’m to busy with CoD 2 mods, Supremacy 1914 and RL.

Global 1939 is really based on AA50 on sea, and on land entirely new concept ( though for some reason the AAE40 map has some bearing to mine)

And yes this goes to house rules

I remember right after AAR came out, almost five years ago, playing a game of AAE with tanks that defend on 3. It was horrible, horrible idea. Germany just got too much out of that one. But reduced prices on fighters and carriers didn’t seem to break the game as much. Germany builds lots of fighters, but so do the UK and US. Nobody builds carriers in AAE unless something unusual has happened anyway.

At any rate for both AAE and AAP besides the reduced price on fighters and carriers to match AAR (and 24 VPs for AAP) my group plays with the rules as is. Transports are any land or one tank, tanks defend on 2, etc.
But now with AA50 there’s a lot of change. The problem with wholesale just changing the unit stats is that setups were designed for the original stats.

So I have a few questions:
Do you think fighters that cost 10 and carriers at 16 ruins or damages gameplay in either AAE or AAP? Especially considering escorts for SBRs it might be a concern.

Any consider going through and tweaking the setups for E and P to make them fair for the new unit stats? It might do good to freshen them up a bit. I think if well done it could further enhance the Pacfic especially. Convoy values, of course, are a concern.

What about tweaking setups to Europe to add Italy? Without Sub-Saharan Africa this might be pointless, but maybe the oil money alone would be enough.