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.
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.
Uh…hello. There is a global zombie war game called Zombie State. I’ve seen it and read some reviews. I’ve actually designed a pretty complicated Axis and Allies Zombies game using the Global 1940 maps. I use Fortress America infantry units for zombies as I don’t have any real specific Z sculpts. I’m afraid I made the rules so complicated that people might compare it to Cones of Dunshire. The Zs are pretty slow and certainly not unkillable. I combined the idea of supernatural undead springing up everywhere thanks to Hitler (he gets munched right off the bat and Admiral Donitz takes over what’s left of Germany) with some pandemic plagues. So some Zs can infect you while others just tear you limb from limb. If the players want to just beat on the Zombies they can unite and do that, or if they want to fight each other the Zs get exponentially tougher and rip into all of them. Like “nightmare” level in some computer games. I’ve been working on it for a few years on and off. Max Brooks World War Z novel and the Harry Turtledove Balance novels were a good inspiration for this kind of thing. Let me know if you’re still interested in this game concept. There is actually someone who started this a few years back with the old A and A Classic map and some fun ideas for introducing Zs into WW2, but I’ve always preferred bigger maps and lots of different unit types.
I just decided to make this account to ask these questions:
I get together with my dad, my cousins, my uncle and myself every year on vacation, and we play A&A Spring 1942. Honestly, myself and my uncle are better players than my cousins and my dad. I was thinking that it might be fun if we can get a “challenge” setup. Does anyone have any different setups that might give a large advantage to the allies? It would be more fun for myself and my uncle to team up, because we always play on opposite sides.
Also, does anyone have any extra rules we can add to limit the time games take? We added a timer, and a max time limit of 2 hours to our last game, and it worked out very well.
Also, these have to be for the Spring 1942 version. (Not sure what edition, think its second.)
Thank you for any help
Hi, Taamvan. thanks for the comments.
Sorry, the values are all 4 IPCs for National Objectives. The NOs came from Argothair, but with some tweaks by our group (I think originally came from a different A&A version). More money on the board makes the game a little more fun, but in theory it should last longer (which is not desirable), but I feel like we get to the climactic battles faster than we would with minuses…
I do feel like the board is still tilted for the Axis, but Russia having an extra 8 IPCs per turn is a bigger impact than Germany having an extra 8 IPCs. We maybe could nerf the values down for the Axis, maybe. I feel like the paratroop rules and the Russian fighter conversion support the Allies. We’re trying to steady the board without tilting it to the Allies; and meanwhile trying to make some other strategies playable.