Best posts made by Argothair

Hello! I’m starting this thread to show off drafts of a new map for TripleA that I’m working on. I call it the “middleweight” map because it’s meant to have a medium size and complexity – somewhat larger than Revised, but somewhat smaller than World at War. I’ll be updating this top post as I progress through the design work. Some of my design goals for this map include:

(1) Break up the “capital areas” into multiple tiles, so that central Germany, continental USA, mainland Japan, etc. are not so easy to defend.
(2) Add a few buffer tiles that are meant to be traded back and forth in the opening so that players don’t lose their capitals or their entire economies on the first turn, e.g., Belgium and Argonne between France and Germany, or Vladivostok and Buryatia between Siberia and Manchuria.
(3) Place virtually all islands between sea zones instead of inside sea zones, so that controlling islands is a useful way to improve your mobility and logistics – you don’t have to waste an entire flying into and out of each sea zone, for example.
(4) Ensure that crossing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is difficult yet possible – players should have to put some thought and advance planning into how and where to cross, but the time lag should not be so extreme that you have to buy transports on turn 1 to have a chance of retaking a victory city on turn 5.
(5) Eliminate most of the ‘extra’ tiles in Siberia, China, Africa, etc. that are meant to take up space and slow down enemy invasions…enemy invasions should be slowed by defending troops in plausible chokepoints, not by sheer distance alone.
(6) Use clear visual signals to help call attention to the strategic features of the map, e.g., all Allies in light colors and all Axis in dark colors; all victory cities are in large circles that look visually distinct from other territories.
(7) Enhance replayability by offering many different economically valuable theaters to fight in; all territories are worth at least 1 IPC, and it should not be obvious which direction(s) each nation should be trying to expand.
(8) Reduce the importance of capital looting; you can still steal some cash when you sack a capital, but it shouldn’t totally shut down a players’ ability to manufacture new units.

The screenshots below are very early drafts; I haven’t assigned territory values or put down starting units yet, but hopefully it will give you an idea of where I’m headed. Feedback on game balance, strategy, software bugs (e.g. territories are missing a connection) and user experience is extremely welcome at all times. Feedback on graphic design and historical accuracy is welcome primarily if you are volunteering to do some of the work of improving those areas of the game, e.g., if you want to contribute some images or edit the .xml file to include proper country names, great, I will be happy to send you the files; if you just want to complain that I got your favorite territory’s name wrong, that’s not as useful.

I plan to make two different scenarios for this map, one for 1939 and one for 1942. If you want to make a different scenario, I will be happy to send you the source files! As always, thanks to all of my buddies here on the forum who have contributed ideas, images, and feedback over the years – I could not have started this project without you, and, frankly, if I didn’t have buddies like you to hang out with, then I wouldn’t even want to work on this type of map.

1939:

1942:

6 tanks is a good R2/R3 buy if you think you can actually use those tanks to stop Germany from safely stacking Bryansk or Belarus or Eastern Ukraine or something like that. The most obvious reason why that might be true is if Germany attempted Sea Lion, but it could also happen if Germany got diced in Paris and lost most of their fast movers, or if Germany bought a ton of infantry and artillery on G1/G2, or if Germany bought a bunch of subs and bombers on G1/G2. Basically if you can slow Germany down by a full turn by preventing them from stacking the next territory in their lineup (or by taking that territory back from them after they’ve unsafely stacked there) then you gain almost a full additional turn of Russian income before the Russian capital and/or economy collapses, which more than pays for the inefficiency of tank purchases.

On the other hand, if you buy 6 tanks and don’t stop Germany from advancing on schedule, then, yeah, you’ve just blown money Russia can’t afford to lose, and Germany will get Moscow for cheap.

Buying 2 to 3 artillery and/or mech. infantry per turn as Russia is almost always a good idea, because it can force Germany to keep their forces together, or it can allow you to defensively stack, e.g., Leningrad for an extra turn and then safely retreat your mechanized forces (or send mechanized forces from Moscow to the rescue of a stack of infantry retreating to, e.g., Bryansk). You pull off one trick like that, and, again it pays for itself. You win a couple of battles against pairs of German units with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr that you might have lost with 3 inf, 1 ftr, and, again, it pays for itself. Even if you don’t manage to pull that off, the difference between having 9 (or 27) Russian units and 10 (or 30) Russian units is not game-changing…we’re talking about a few percent on the Moscow battle or a few extra tanks for Germany after they conquer it; we’re not talking about throwing the game way.

It’s also just more fun to have something to do with the Russians other than turtle. If it’s not clearly worse to buy a few mechs and art, why not enjoy yourself?

Against my better judgment, here are some thoughts on the “meta” or “structure” of an Allied playbook.

With respect to Germany and Japan, the Allies are like the black pieces in chess – they’re responding to Axis initiative, so a good Allied player needs a battle plan for each of the most popular German and Japanese openings.

With respect to Italy, the Allies are like the white pieces in chess – the Allies set the initiative, and Italy has to respond. Depending on what the Allies do, Italy could start the game with one transport or three transports, with a big force in East Africa or no units in East Africa with a big stack in Tobruk or no forces in Tobruk, with Vichy control guaranteed, or with Vichy nearly impossible and an Allied landing force in Greece. So a good Allied player doesn’t need different plans to use against Italy; they just need one good anti-Italian attack. (A master-class player will need different plans so they can perfectly adapt their play to the situation on the board and keep their opponent off-balance, but that’s beyond the scope of a “playbook.”)

As I see it, the most popular German openings are:

• Sea Lion (build transports and some surface ships, focus on taking London on G3),
• Barbarossa (build mechs and tanks, focus on taking Moscow G5 - G7 with enough tanks/planes left over to threaten Egypt),
• Dark Skies (build mechs and bombers, focus on holding all Allies at bay with bombers while Germany accumulates income advantages from Norway, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and maybe Egypt and/or Iraq).

The most popular Japanese openings, as far as I can tell, are:

• a J1 attack on the Philippines and Borneo with the idea of taking all of the money islands by J2-J3 and taking India J3-J6 or at least knocking the UK Pacific’s income down to near-zero very quickly
• a J1 attack on Pearl Harbor, with or without an invasion of Hawaii, with the idea of tying down US assets to help Germany win in Europe
• a conservative J2 or J3 attack that focuses on knocking out China early and making high-value trades to keep Japan’s options wide open so they can threaten Russia, India, or Australia later in the game
• a suicidal attack on Russia, often through China, with planes being sacrificed to airblitz open a path and/or strategically bomb Moscow to weaken Russia for a German win.

So a good Allied playbook needs ways to address all 7 of these Axis openings, as well as one good anti-Italian attack. Personally, I prefer scrambling no planes against the German naval attacks and then launching the Taranto raid every game, combined with moving the Pacific transport to Persia and the Mediterranean transport to either Southern France (if needed to prevent Vichy) or Greece (if Vichy will not be triggered). On turn 1, always, I like to buy a factory in Egypt and 2 inf, 1 ftr in London. I like to follow that up with a factory in Persia, build mostly land units until Italy is cleared out of Africa, Iraq, and/or Syria, and then build mostly subs to shut Italy down in Sea Zone 97. It’s not a foolproof plan and there are times when something else might be slightly better, but this plan will always work well enough, no matter what your Axis opponents are doing. The Allies have enough to think about in the opening without trying to memorize five different anti-Italian openings.

@trulpen I really like the way you are thinking about how to pose thorny dilemmas for your opponent, but I don’t think spending 15 IPCs to save a damaged Battleship is ever a cost-effective play against an opponent who can calmly respond to an unexpected opening.

The thing is, Germany barely has a use for a battleship. They’re not going to get into round after round of combat where they can keep repairing it and leveraging the efficiency of the free hit. They’re not going to be doing much shore bombardment. At least in the Baltic / North Sea region, they’re not brushing up against factory limits; you can drop 20 units a turn. As aequitas points out, in the long run Germany isn’t a naval power anyway; the US & UK will eventually win control of the Atlantic Ocean; it’s just a matter of time.

Would I spend 5 IPCs to save a German BB? Sure. It’s of some use; it’s a large piece. But 15 IPCs is almost the whole cost of the BB. The Axis need to expand explosively in the first few turns in order to compete; any investments you make need to pay a very high interest rate. The interest rate on rescuing your BB is low because you buy the AB turn 1, then turn 2 the BB goes back into the Baltic to lick its wounds, then on G3 you get to move the BB somewhere. Where, exactly? To hit Leningrad? I mean, OK, maybe – but that does what, exactly…reduces your chances of losing an 8 IPC destroyer? And has decent odds of bombarding one Soviet infantry? So ballpark you’re earning something like 4 IPC + 2 IPC = 6 IPC, two turns later, on your 15 IPC airbase investment.

Meanwhile, if you just leave the BB alone, and let it stay wounded in the British sea zone, it’s got a 2/3 chance of killing a British destroyer or fighter – there’s your 6 IPCs right there.

So, yes, you’re laying an interesting trap for your opponents by inviting them to hit a BB that’s defended by 3 fighters and either come in too weak or pass up on the chance to do Taranto and hit mostly air…but if they see the trap and ignore your BB and do Taranto anyway, then you’ve spent 15 IPC to save a piece that’s really only worth about 10 IPCs at most to the German side.

UPDATE: Balanced Mod is live on TripleA! Download the map from the bottom of the “Good Maps” section if you want to try it.

Third draft based on feedback from everyone and playtests with @axis_roll – thank you for commenting!

The conventional wisdom is that A&A 50th Anniversary Edition, 1941 Scenario requires a large bid for the Allies, so I thought I’d try my hand at creating an alternate set of national objectives that could balance the game not by giving the Allies a large up-front gift of units, but by giving the Allies a chance to develop a mighty economy that can turn the tides of war in the middle-game. The goal is to have some more adrenaline and some more asymmetry in the game play – the Axis will expand very rapidly in the first few turns, but they’ll need to shut down most of the Allied NOs as part of their initial expansion, or else they’re likely to get crushed around turn 7 or 8 by the Allied rebound. I’ve also slightly changed China’s starting setup (and some of the Chinese movement/income rules) to make China more relevant. Note that the Turkish Straits / Black Sea are considered open for both ships and planes for all players.

It’s not required, but I recommend adding the air interception rules from Global 1940’s Balanced Mod: fighters escort and intercept strategic bombing raids using one die per fighter that hits an enemy plane on a 2 or less, and strategic bombers roll one die per bomber that hits an enemy plane on a 1 or less if they are challenged by interceptors. Strategic bombers that make it through any interceptors and/or flak to roll damage should deal 1d6 + 1 points of damage to a factory, not 1d6: so if you roll a 3, you deal 4 points of damage to the factory. This makes bombing a little more attractive against unguarded factories, but much less attractive against a factory with a proper air force defending it.

You could also throw in Marines from Global 1940 Balanced Mod if you like; I don’t think it would make much difference either way to the game play.

Let me know what you think! All comments welcome.

GERMANY

• Scandinavian Iron – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Norway, Finland, and NW Europe
• Operation Barbarossa – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Karelia, Ukraine, Caucasus
• Secure Rumanian Oil – 3 IPCs if Axis control Romania and there are no Allied planes in the Balkans, Ukraine, Sea Zone 15, or Sea Zone 16.
• Eurasian Wheat – 3 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of East Poland, Belorussia, and East Ukraine
• Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 3 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Archangel, Moscow, and Kazakh

RUSSIA

• Northern Lend-Lease – 3 IPCs after the start of turn 2 if Allies control Archangel with no Axis ships in SZ 3 or 4
• Southern Lend-Lease – 3 IPCs after the start of turn 2 if Allies control Persia & Caucasus w/ no Axis ships in SZ 34
• Eastern Lend-Lease – 3 IPCs after the start of turn 2 if Allies control SFE & Yakutsk w/ no Axis ships in SZ 63

JAPAN

• Chinese Coastline – 3 IPCs if Axis control Manchuria, Kiangsu, Fukien, Kwantung, and French Indochina
• Chinese Hegemony – 3 IPCs if Axis control literally all Chinese territories
• Bornese Oil – 3 IPCs if Axis control Borneo and no Allied warships anywhere in SZ 49, 50, 60, 61, or 62
• Javanese Rubber – 3 IPCs if Axis control East Indies and no Allied warships anywhere in SZ 38, 49, 50, 60, 61, or 62
• Central Pacific Islands – 3 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Midway, Wake, Carolines, Hawaii
• Co-Prosperity Sphere – 3 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of India, Australia, Hawaii, Yakut SSR

UK

• North Atlantic – 3 IPCs if Allies control E. Canada, Greenland, and Iceland with no Axis ships in SZs 1 through 9.
• Mediterranean Route – 3 IPCs if Allies control Gibraltar and Egypt with no Axis warships in SZ 13, 14, 15, or 16.
• Soft Underbelly – 3 IPCs if UK or USA has at least one land unit in Italy, the Balkans, or Romania.
• Indian Empire – 5 IPCs if Allies control India, Madagascar, and South Africa with no Axis ships in SZs 28 through 35.
• ANZAC – 5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands.

ITALY

• Vichy Collaboration – 3 IPCs if Axis control France, Morocco, and Libya
• Mare Nostrum – 3 IPCs if there are no Allied ships in SZs 13, 14, 15, 16 and at least one Italian ship in SZ 13-16
• Abyssinian Adventure – 3 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of Sudan, Italian East Africa, Rhodesia
• Mideastern Oil – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Persia, Caucasus

USA

• Arsenal of Democracy – 5 IPCs after the start of turn 3 if Allies control Western US, Central US, and Eastern US
• Manifest Destiny – 5 IPCs after the start of turn 3 if Allies control Mexico, Panama, Hawaii, and Alaska
• South Atlantic – 2 IPCs if Allies control West Indies and Brazil with no Axis warships in SZ 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, or 19
• Operation Torch – 3 IPCs if America has a land unit or flag in both Morocco and Libya
• Operation Overlord – 5 IPCs if USA has land units both NW Europe and France
• Alcor Aluminum – 2 IPCs if Allies control Australia, Solomon Islands, Hawaii, and Western US
• Central Pacific Islands – 3 IPCs if Allies control 4+ of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Midway, Wake, Carolines, Hawaii
• MacArthur was a Donkey – 5 IPCs if Allies control the Philippines
• West Pacific Airstrips – 5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Formosa, Manchuria, Buryatia

CHINA

• Burma Road – +1 Chinese artillery for any Chinese-owned territory if Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan
  ** Setup Change – Sikang starts the game with 1 infantry, 1 fighter. Yunnan starts with (only) 2 infantry.
  ** Movement Change – Chinese troops may move into Burma, French Indochina, and/or Kwangtung.
  ** Income Change – China receives all reinforcements based on the map after combat, just like other nations.

(Edited per axisroll’s comments about needing more relative weight in the Pacific)
(Thanks to Baron Munchhausen for suggesting addition of Greenland)
(Tweaked Russian and UK objectives to be somewhat harder based on playtests with Corpo24)
(Special thanks to axisroll for playtesting these with me for two full games!)
(There are minor changes to the German and British objectives based on recent feedback, which have now been copied as version 1.1 on TripleA. Please make sure you and your opponents are playing with the same version! Version 1.0 has only 3 German objectives instead of 5, and it contains an error in the Russian Southern Lend-Lease objective.)

This is basically my favorite topic.

I agree that in most A&A games, transports are too expensive, especially for tournament play (since tournaments usually have fewer rounds, which means there’s less opportunity for the transport to slowly pay for itself over many rounds).

I think it’s going too far to say that expensive transports are the reason why A&A games are unbalanced. I think the reason why A&A games are unbalanced is that most games are unbalanced by default, and it takes an enormous amount of skill and effort and testing to make a game balanced, and historically Avalon Hill etc. have not invested that level of effort into balancing their A&A games, and even if they did put more effort into balancing their games, it’s not always clear that they would be successful.

If you imagine the game designer as an archer who is shooting arrows at a paper target, then getting a “balanced” game is like the bullseye. If the average bid is 5 IPCs or less, then the game is at least roughly balanced. That’s the bullseye – it’s the width of a one-time payment of 5 IPCs. But there’s no special reason why the arrow has to hit the bullseye. Maybe the game will need a one-time payment of 10 or 20 or 80 IPCs. Maybe the game is so unbalanced that you’ve got to add extra national objectives or extra unit types for one side, or change the turn order, or something drastic like that. There are lots of ways to shoot an arrow at a balanced game and “miss.” The total design space is much, much wider than 5 IPCs – it’s hundreds and hundreds of IPCs “wide.”

At the start of an A&A game, the position is intentionally asymmetrical: the Axis will have more armies and planes, and the Allies will control more territory. That means you can’t necessarily tell whether the game is balanced just by glancing at it – it’s not obvious what the conversion factor should be between Total Unit Value (TUV) and Production (IPCs). Do the Axis need an extra 3 IPCs of TUV for every 1 IPC of Allied advantage in the production value of their starting territories? Or is the ratio closer to 2:1? 4:1? 5:1? It depends on what the best-available opening strategies are, and how effective they are, and how quickly and reliably the Axis can expect to conquer Allied territory, and, yes, on how much it will cost the Allies to build up a fleet of transports (or minor factories) with which to project their power from far-away sources of income such as New York City and London. It’s very hard to say what the exact ratio of TUV Advantage to Production Advantage should be without extensive playtesting and/or complicated, detailed analysis. It’s not something you can just eyeball.

So when you make a new Axis & Allies game, it might look balanced to the naked eye, but if you’re even slightly wrong about the proper ratio of TUV to Production, you could easily be so wrong that re-balancing your game will require a bid of 30 or 60 or 200 IPCs.

There’s a kind of horrible paradox in A&A design: if you design a great game, then people will play it to death over many years, and, in so doing, will invent all kinds of new openings that change how rapidly the Axis are able to conquer territory from the Allies. When people first started playing Global 1940 2nd Edition, even moderately-skilled players weren’t necessarily familiar with Dark Skies, or Middle Earth, or Bright Skies, or the Russian tank blitz, or the Yunnan stack – all of which are sort of core parts of the way the game is currently played. But if you’re looking at the game and trying to figure out how large of a bid the Allies need, well, that depends in part on how good the Allied opening strategies are and how good the Axis opening strategies are. So you’re trying to balance a game with literally hundreds of pieces so finely that you don’t want to need to add even two more pieces to one side – i.e., to within 1% tolerances – but you’re also hoping to build a game that’s dynamic and interesting enough that as people play it, they’ll develop new openings and new approaches to the game.

After all, if players could work out the “one best strategy” for an A&A game within a few months after it was released, and nobody could ever improve on that strategy, then it wouldn’t be a very good game, or, at least, it wouldn’t have much replay value. But if you can’t work out the “one best strategy” with 1,000 players in 6 months, then you probably also can’t work out the “one best strategy” with 10 playtesters in 2 years – so the playtesters are necessarily going to miss some of the best opening strategies, which in turn will throw off the balance in the opening.

I do fault the designers of Axis & Allies Spring 1942 2nd Edition, because the balance on that game isn’t even close – ordinary, straightforward play by the Axis should win at least 80% of the games at even a moderate skill level if the Allies don’t get a bid. You don’t have to do anything fancy to win that game as the Axis – just build 1/2 infantry, 1/6 artillery, and 1/3 tanks with both Germany and Japan, leave a couple of infantry at home to guard Berlin and Tokyo, and send the rest of the units to Moscow. Roll some dice, and then the Axis win. This is a strategy that the designers could have and should have discovered during playtesting, so they should have been aware that the game was not balanced out-of-the-box, and they should have changed the rules or the starting setup accordingly.

For the other games, I don’t necessarily fault the designers; they made a reasonable effort to hit the target, and they just happened to miss. World War I is massively biased in favor of the Allies, but it took a little while to figure that out; it wasn’t necessarily obvious that Britain needed to spend its entire budget in India, or that the USA needed to spend its entire budget on shoring up Rome via the Mediterranean. These are ahistorical strategies that haven’t really been tried in previous A&A games, so it’s fine that they came as a surprise to the designers.

Same thing with A&A Anniversary Edition 1941: it turns out that the Italians are able to can-open for the Germans in a way that devastates Russia, and that it’s too hard to stop Japan’s amphibious explosion because there’s nowhere sane for the Allies to build a Pacific factory, but those weren’t necessarily problems that were obvious in advance: these problems were the result of changes in the Italian and Chinese setup that were new to Anniversary.

I would like to see cheaper transports as an option, especially for tournament games, but I don’t think there’s any way to set a price on transports (or to scrap transports in favor of infantry-carrying cruiser groups) that would eliminate the hard problem of balance.

Now with territory values and a lighter color for the sea zone!

All right, sounds like an interesting learning game. Sometimes you do get diced in an early battle (or three of them) and then that reverberates across the game. Especially if Japan is not declaring war on the Anglo-Americans, then there’s not much wiggle room for the UK & Russia to defend Moscow; a few bad battles or a few bad choices and Moscow can fall really early, and that’s all normal. I would have discussed the overall strategic situation with the Russian player, and explained why it made sense for them to sit tight and wait for British aid to arrive from Persia/India, but it’s hard playing just one country all day, and sometimes you just want to make a frigging attack, you know? It can be a lot more fun making one big attack and losing badly because of it than literally sitting around all day biding time and then having your friends argue about whether the resulting position was slightly favoring the Axis or slightly favoring the Allies.

I almost think you have to discuss strategies like that ahead of time, and figure out what countries to give people based on what their playstyle is. Especially in a game of Global with multiple newbies – if you’ve got a reckless attacker, give 'em the Germans or the Japanese. If you’ve got a timid turtle, give 'em the Russians or give 'em UK Pac + Anzac + China. That’s hard to suss out; a lot of people aren’t self-aware about what their playstyle is and may not admit to being a turtle even if they know it, but I think as the host you at least have to try to have that conversation.

As far as strategy, I think the British destroyers have to be built in Canada (SZ 106) when the Germans are doing an aggressive forward deployment with carrier and airbases. Building in Wales (SZ 109) is just a gift; it lets the Germans sink 'em for cheap. I’d also be very careful about moving into the Southern France sea zone when the Luftwaffe is still intact, because the risk-reward ratio is all wrong. If your fleet holds, then you deny Italy its Mare Nostrum NO for 1 turn (5 IPCs), and you get some additional boats into the Battle of the Atlantic at the cost of giving Italy a credible threat against Eastern Med targets like Egypt, Jordan, Crete, and Syria. It’s not clear that those results are better than just doing Taranto and sinking 2 Italian transports, which likely denies them the New Roman Empire NO (5 IPCs) for the rest of the game, and that’s what you get when everything goes well – as you saw, if it goes poorly against either the Italians or the Germans on a follow-up G2 attack, then you lose both your Atlantic and your Med fleets and you have very, very little to show for it. But you knew that.

Anyway, if Germany is buying an airbase and a carrier on G1, that’s the entire G1 economy, so they have no destroyers on the board. That means one interesting British purchase is submarines for the Atlantic! Hit the carrier, hit the battleship, hit the convoy zones in Norway and Normandy…just generally make life uncomfortable for the Kriegsmarine, and if you bait Germany into buying a couple of destroyers on top of the airbase and carrier, then at that point Russia should be rich enough to hold its own. Alternatively, if Germany retreats into the Baltic, the subs are useful against Italy in the Med.

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.

Update: I decided to manually trace a brand new vector map so that I can squash and enlarge continents as I see fit and then rescale when I’m done so that the smallest tiles will still be enough pixels wide to hold a few unit types each. Here’s Europe and Africa – you may notice that Africa is only half the height it ‘should’ be compared to Europe, and that the UK is about 140% of its proper size, and that the English Channel and North Sea are about triple their proper sizes. I plan to continue abusing geography for our wargaming convenience until I’ve finished the whole globe. This project is taking several years longer than I originally anticipated, but I do not plan to quit. Thanks again for all your support.

We could argue all week about what the exactly right balance is, but I imagine most of us agree in principle that you need to slightly adjust your British opening based off of the G1 attack and purchase. Like, if Germany buys 2 bombers and sinks both British home fleets and the Canadian transport without losing any planes, well, yeah, buy 8 or 9 inf for London and leave the Egypt factory for UK2; it can wait. Conversely, if Germany declares war on Russia G1 or loses half its air force, well, maybe you don’t even need the 2 inf, 1 ftr for London on UK1 and you can buy the Egypt factory plus a destroyer or whatever else you want for the Atlantic, instead. In the vast majority of games, though, you wind up with an average result that justifies an average buy to defend London: 3 inf if you’re feeling aggressive, or 2 inf, 1 ftr for a moderate position, or 6 inf if you’re feeling conservative.

Here’s an idea for lend-lease: add a new unit type called “Supply Crate.”

Crates cost 5 IPCs each, can be built at any factory, can be loaded onto and unloaded from any transport as if they were an infantry unit (so a transport could carry 2 crates, or a crate and a tank, or a crate and an infantry, or any similar combination), and do not participate in combat. They move 1 territory per turn, but only during the non-combat move.

At the start of your turn, if there is a supply crate in a territory with a factory that you control, then you may convert it into 5 IPCs for your treasury. Each factory can only convert 1 crate per turn per IPC value of the territory. For example, if the British build 4 Supply Crates in London on UK1 and ship them to Archangel on UK2 using 2 transports, then those Supply Crates could be unloaded in Archangel on UK2 and then, on UK3, walk to Leningrad. On R4, Russia would see that it had supply crates in one of its territories with a factory, and convert 2 supply crates into 10 IPCs. Then, on R5, Russia could covert the remaining 2 supply crates into another 10 IPCs, for a total of 20 IPCs of lend-lease.

Also, if after combat there is a supply crate in a territory that you have just conquered, then you must immediately “loot” them by converting them into 3 IPCs each for your treasury. The money will remain in your treasury until your next regular opportunity to purchase units. There is no limit on how many crates you can loot in a single turn.

The Supply Crate would help facilitate the creation of a Canadian power (by giving Canada something to do besides just build fighters and fly them to Moscow, and by giving them a reason to maintain a navy), would help fill the otherwise lackluster 5-IPC slot in the unit roster, and would more realistically simulate the war and sea and the ability of the Russians to field massive armies later in the war using the economic might of the Western Allies. Instead of a stack of 30 Russian infantry with 6 British fighters, you could have a stack of 30 Russian infantry, 10 Russian artillery, and 2 Russian tanks – but only if you can keep the sea lanes reasonably clear.

Supply Crates could also be used as a less disruptive form of bidding in conventional G40: because supply crates don’t unbalance any turn 1 battles, they’re a gentler way of giving the Allies some extra economic oomph.

I tried this in a face-to-face game against Karl7, who of course is very good with the German pieces, and wound up losing Moscow on G6 on a German attack that had 91% odds – but Germany lost about 80% of its stack taking Moscow, so it was likely that the Middle East would have held, and almost certain that Cairo would have held. We ultimately scooped at least as much because the Western Allies didn’t have a sufficient compensatory attack as because the German drive was unstoppable. Like, the Allies were able to barely take Rome on UK6 using a one-two punch, but trading both Moscow and Calcutta for Rome is not a good trade.

I think my main mistake was that on R2 I placed slow movers up front in Vyborg with fast movers behind the lines in Leningrad, with the idea of maximizing my threat to Finland. This might have worked fine if the Allies were swarming toward Norway, but the British Atlantic fleet was wiped out, there were German subs in the Atlantic, and the British and Americans were both focused on beating up Italy in the Mediterranean. Without Anglo-American pressure on Norway, the Russians can’t afford to invest too much against Finland. Karl7 was able to temporarily retreat all Finnish forces into Norway, and just come right back to Finland after Leningrad was dead zoned by the advancing Baltic States stack. I held Finland for one turn, and then I wound up with 10 slow movers stuck in Vyborg, unable to either kill the reinforced Finnish stack or safely stack up in Leningrad.

What I should have done was put the fast movers in Vyborg and the slow movers in Leningrad – that way I could have moved the entire stack to Archangel or Belarus to join up with the rest of my forces to form one mega-stack capable of temporarily holding out against the main German forces. Instead I was defeated in detail. All of my armies except the 10 inf/art in Vyborg and a blocking force of 4 inf + 1 AAA ultimately made it home to Moscow for the G6 battle, which is a somewhat impressive recovery rate (if I do say so myself) given that I was playing far enough forward that Germany wasn’t able to build any units in either Leningrad or Kiev until G6. Still, 15 armies is still too many to lose when you’re building mechs; the point of mechs is to get damn near everybody home.

I’ll try the strategy again with the proper configuration of fast and slow movers in another game and let you all know how it goes. Keep the faith! The Allies will find an answer to the German mech/tank rush.

@cornwallis Samoa is a clever place to build a naval base; I did not see that it connects to both New York and Queensland. That’s really interesting that you are able to redirect forces that quickly. For me, though, the question is whether the tactical surprise is really worth the investment. On the one hand you’ve got the $15 for the naval base in Samoa, which is expensive. On the other hand, by committing to travel through Samoa, you take pressure off of many of the potential Japanese targets.

As you move boats from San Francisco to Hawaii to Queensland, you are incidentally threatening Tokyo, Korea, Iwo Jima, Wake, Midway, and the Caroline Islands.

As you move boats from New York to Samoa to Queensland, you do not threaten any of those targets – so unless you want to slow down your attack on Japanese hot spots by a full turn, you are kind of broadcasting to Japan exactly where you are going to attack.

Meanwhile, unless Japan panics and commits an unforced error, it’s usually not that hard for Japan to reorient from a land-based strategy to a naval strategy. They start with a massive air force that can be used on land in China, Burma, Siberia, etc., and then that same air force can be flown away and placed on newly built carriers to defend the Pacific islands. Even in a worst-case scenario, where Japan built 3 minor factories on the mainland, they can still pivot to building something like like 3 carriers, 1 destroyer, 5 infantry, and 1 artillery for $75. The carriers accommodate the existing Japanese air force, and the infantry/artillery continue the fight in mainland Asia. The US has to build its own planes, and defender has the advantage anyway, so matching that defending Japanese force would require something like 3 carriers, 2 subs, 3 fighters, 3 tacs for $123. Throw in a couple of loaded transports for $30 so that you can actually retake some of the money islands, and the total bill is $153…basically two full turns of American income just to match one turn of Japanese spending, even when Japan is caught totally by surprise.

Similarly, the European Axis might think that they have to do a lot of defense against an incoming American invasion of Italy or whatever, but as long as they planned that defense intelligently, without panicking, they can still take Moscow on schedule. Right, like so you have a couple extra Italian infantry in Rome instead of a tank, or you have a couple of German subs in the Baltic and it turns out you don’t need them because the whole Allied fleet sailed through the Panama Canal. OK, no big deal. The infantry in Italy can eventually go by transport to Morocco or Syria or wherever they can be useful for harassing the British; the extra subs can go to the Irish Sea for convoy damage. Meanwhile, hopefully the Germans mostly did their defense by buying air power, which can both threaten to shoot down Allied ships, or, if those ships never show up, can fly to the eastern front and support an attack on Moscow.

So while I do like the Samoa naval base for the sheer amusement value and for the chance to break a psychologically weak opponent, I think it’s probably not a valid element of top-tier competitive play. I’m stumped to see how you could recover enough value from the naval base to justify the cost.

One idea I have been playing around with recently is a naval base in Wake Island. It probably only works in Balanced Mod or Path to Victory, because without the extra national objectives for the smaller islands the extra range just isn’t very important, but it’s always bothered me that ships are only moving 2 spaces from San Francisco to Hawaii – it seems inefficient. If you move them 3 spaces from San Francisco to Wake, then another 3 spaces can threaten the widest possible range of Japanese targets, as well as making it harder for Japan to protect Tokyo by interposing a single blocking destroyer.

Returning for a moment to the transport-pricing question, I think one good way of analyzing that is to compare the cost of sending loaded transports vs. the cost of sending planes.

Suppose for the sake of argument that you have unchallenged control of the seas, so the only extra expense you have to incur for amphibious assaults is the cost of the transports themselves. Also for the sake of simplicity, suppose you have a token beachhead of 3 infantry that is already on the mainland, so that if you support that infantry with enough planes, it can theoretically conquer as many territories as necessary. These two assumptions cut in opposite directions (control of the seas makes transports better; having a beachhead makes planes better), so hopefully they at least roughly balance each other out.

If transports cost 7 IPCs and you are able to use the same transport twice over the course of a tournament game, then the cost of buying and delivering a supporting force of 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk is 6 + 4 + 5 + 7 = 22 IPCs. This results in a total force of 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, which has 7 HP, 11 punch, and 15 defense.

Alternatively, if fighters cost 10 IPCs, and bombers cost 12 IPCs, then the cost of buying and delivering a supporting force of 1 inf, 1 bmr is 10 + 12 = 22 IPCs. This results in a total force of 3 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bmr, which has 5 HP, 10 punch, and 11 defense.

Under the (admittedly artificial) assumptions of the experiment, the transports are strictly better – you get more HP, more punch, and more defense for the same amount of money.

On the other hand, suppose each transport can only make one delivery during the length of the tournament game. Buying and delivering a supporting force of 2 inf, 2 tnk will now cost 6 + 10 + 7 + 7 = 30 IPCs. You could instead deliver 3 fighters for those 30 IPCs. The total amphibious forces (including the beachhead) would be 5 inf, 2 tnk = 7 HP, 11 punch, 16 defense. The total airborne forces (including the beachhead) would be 3 inf, 3 ftr = 6 HP, 12 punch, 18 defense. Those forces appear roughly equivalent to me – the airborne force has one fewer hit point, but it has slightly more punch and defense.

Finally, suppose the transports can only make one trip, and they also need to be escorted by a pair of destroyers in order to survive even that one trip. Buying and delivering a supporting force of 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk + 3 transports + 2 destroyers now costs 12 + 4 + 5 + 21 + 16 = 56 IPCs. For less money than that, you could afford 4 ftr, 1 bmr. The total amphibious forces (including the beachhead) would be 7 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk = 9 HP, 13 punch, 19 defense. The total airborne forces (including the beachhead) would be 3 inf, 4 ftr, 1 bmr = 8 HP, 19 punch, 23 defense. The airborne force appears superior to me – it would be able to reliably trash the amphibious force if they fought in direct combat.

Part of why I think transports are overpriced in tournament play is that you often do need something like destroyers to protect your transports. You might not be able to finish a second round-trip before the tournament game ends, especially for transports built after turn 3 or so, and you might need two or even three fleets of transports to efficiently ferry infantry from, e.g., New York to Rome/Berlin. If you have to set up a shuck-shuck where transports are constantly swapping places with each other (i.e., if you want to cross an ocean rather than just bridge a single sea zone) then that seriously increases your transportation costs.

Interesting ideas about making the map safe for color-blind players, @Black_Elk. I’ll see about adding in some saturation contrast among the colors inside a faction, so that everyone can tell them apart. And yes, my goal is to keep the mechanics quite simple – I don’t know if you saw my other post about simplified subs, bombers, and interceptors, but I’m trying to minimize the number of exceptions and special rules: the territory values are what you see printed on the map, not what’s on the map plus a national objective. The combat values are what you see printed on the purchasing chart, not what’s on the chart plus special situational bonuses. I’ve got free rein as a designer to at least try to create a map that works out of the box, so hopefully that will help me push toward simplicity.

Along those lines, @SS-GEN, thank you very much for the suggestions, but, yes, my goal is to have japanese tanks blitz just like any other tank, and to have planes move 4 spaces from islands just like they move 4 spaces from any other territory. If I design the map tiles correctly, then adding in extra movement won’t be necessary, because islands will be naturally on the way from somewhere to somewhere else. If I design the Russian economy correctly, then nerfing Japanese units won’t be necessary, because Japan will be naturally checked and balanced by Russian armies.

I plan to put a starting minor factory in the Urals for the 1942 setup that can deadzone Siberia, which acts as a natural chokepoint, and in the 1939 setup (Khalkin Gol!) Russia will have tanks in eastern Siberia that outnumber and outpunch the starting Japanese forces. Note that even Manchuria is 4 spaces from Moscow. Buryatia and Kamchatka will not support a factory, I think, and Vladivostok & Korea are 5 spaces from Moscow. That’s enough room to have an interesting battle – the key will be making sure Russia has the factory locations, dollars, and starting troops to effectively oppose Japan without automatically losing against Germany. I think I can do that. I’ll keep you posted!

I recently got back from a Global 1940 tournament in Orange County hosted by SiredBlood, where we got to play three games each with SiredBlood’s fascinating house rules. SiredBlood has a full set of cards and videos that will walk you through his new rules step-by-step, but they can take a long time to read and/or watch, especially if you’re already familiar with the rules for OOB Global 1940 play. So, to help spread awareness of these fun new rules, I am writing up what I see as his key additions to the OOB ruleset. Note that all of these rules were invented by SiredBlood, and he has not asked or authorized me to write this post – I’m just writing this up as an unofficial fan. I don’t claim that this is a 100% complete list of his rules, only that it’s enough to get you up and running to try out his ideas.

STRATEGIC BOMBERS

Strategic bombers can only roll dice or be claimed as casualties on the first round of combat. After the first round of combat, if your strategic bombers survive, set them off to the side as if they had retreated. Note that this means that strategic bombers no longer auto-kill undefended transports. Instead, you roll one die per bomber, and kill one transport per roll of 4 or less.

Each strategic bomber may be used to deliver up to 2 infantry as paratroopers, even without any technology. Both the strategic bombers and the infantry must begin their movement in the same territory. If delivering paratroopers during the combat move, you must invade the same territory with at least 1 land unit for each infantry you want to deliver as a paratrooper. For example, if you are attacking Egypt with 3 tanks and 1 fighter, you could deliver up to 3 infantry as paratroopers to join in the attack. Bombers do not roll any combat dice during turns when they are delivering paratroopers. Bombers on delivery runs trigger AAA rolls and may be chosen as AAA casualties, and if they are hit by AAA, then their cargo is also automatically killed.

Any strategic bomber that did not participate in combat may deliver paratroopers during your non-combat move. Both the strategic bombers and the infantry must begin their movement in the same territory. The destination territory must already have at least 1 land unit from your faction (Axis or Allied) per infantry that you want to deliver during non-combat. When delivering troops during non-combat, your bomber may land in the destination territory (if you owned it at the start of your turn) or may continue flying using any remaining fuel.

CRUISERS

Cruisers now defend at 4 instead of 3 when paired 1:1 with friendly battleships.

NAVAL BLOCKADES

It is no longer possible to blockade an entire enemy fleet with only 1 destroyer. Instead, each defending surface warship can block the movement of up to 3 enemy warships. When attempting to pass through a blockade, you must leave at least three warships behind in the blockaded sea zone for each blockading surface vessel. As the attacker, you cannot include submarines in your screening force unless the defending blockade includes at least one destroyer. (If the blockading force includes no destroyers, then your submarines can slip through the blockade anyway.) You may declare attacks and amphibious assaults on the far side of the blockade, but none of these attacks occur unless and until your screening force defeats and wipes out the blockading force. (This is similar to how an amphibious assault will not occur if you fail to win the naval battle in the sea zone immediately outside the coastline you are invading.)

In order to send transports past the blockade, you must have at least one surface warship remaining to escort the transport. For example, to get a transport past one blockading enemy cruiser, you would need 4 surface warships – 3 to screen the cruiser, and 1 to escort the transport.

RAILROADS

All industrial complexes generate a “rail allowance” that enhances your non-combat movements. Any land unit may move by rail. Units moving by rail may move up to 3 spaces, but may only move through/into territories that you have owned since the start of your turn. The unit moving by rail must have started its turn in the territory with a factory. Each factory can provide a railway for a number of units equal to the territory value of the territory where the factory sits. For example, a factory in Novgorod (value = 2 IPCs) could move up to 2 land units each turn up to 3 spaces each.

RETREATING RUSSIAN FACTORIES

Any Russian-controlled minor industrial complexes may make a non-combat move of 1 space to an original Russian territory that is currently in Russian control and that is worth at least 1 IPC. A complex that moves has its production capacity lowered by 1 unit on the turn that it moves. For example, if you retreat your factory from Novgorod to Archangel, it would only be able to produce two units that turn (not the usual three units). For each factory that you move, you lose 1 IPC from that turn’s collect income phase, as if you had been convoyed by a submarine. In addition, a factory that moves loses its entire rail allowance for that turn (the railroad is assumed to be busy moving heavy machinery and engineers).
CHINESE CAVALRY

China starts with a bid of 3 cavalry units, which attack at 2, defend at 1, move up to 2 spaces, cost 4 IPCs, and blitz like tanks. In addition, China may buy more cavalry units at any time, even if the Burma road is closed. In addition, if the Burma Road is open, China may buy up to 2 tanks over the course of the game for 6 IPCs each. The neutral Mongolian units that would normally be infantry are instead replaced by neutral cavalry.

UNIFIED BRITISH ECONOMY

The UK Europe and UK Pacific economies are unified and treated as a single integrated economy. The British player may not spend more than 20 IPCs per turn on the Pacific side of the map. If India is conquered, the conqueror loots up to 10 IPCs from the British economy, regardless of how many territories Britain owns on the Pacific side of the board. If London is conquered, the conqueror loots up to 20 IPCs from the British economy, regardless of how many territories Britain owns on the Europe side of the board. In addition, if London is conquered, the British economy is fractured into a Canadian economy and an Indian (UK Pacific) economy. The Canadian treasury starts at 7 IPCs and starts with control of units located in or off the coast of Canada. Canada does not start with control of formerly British territories in Scotland, Africa or the Middle East, and may not build new factories outside of Canada. Canada may capture and then use enemy-held factories in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East.

ITALIAN LIBERATION CORPS

If the Allies ever conquer Rome, Italy immediately switches its loyalty to the Allied faction, and becomes controlled by the Allied player for the rest of the game, even if the Axis later re-occupy Rome. However, at the moment that the Allies conquer Rome, any and all Italian territories that are occupied by at least 1 German land unit are immediately converted to German control. In addition, any Italian land units that are stacked up with at least 1 German land unit are immediately converted to their German equivalents. For example, suppose Northern Italy has 2 German tanks and 6 Italian infantry, and Yugoslavia has 1 German fighter and 3 Italian tanks. If the Allies conquer Rome, Northern Italy would become a German territory with 2 German tanks and 6 German infantry, whereas Yugoslavia would remain an Italian territory and would contain 3 Italian (Allied) tanks. The German fighter would be forced to retreat to the nearest German-controlled territory.

ADDITIONAL NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

Germany: 5 IPCs for having at least 5 submarines on the map during your collect income phase (after deploying reinforcements)
Russia: 3 IPCs for owning all of Ukraine, Urals, and Siberia.
Japan: 3 IPCs for owning each otherwise 0 IPC US or UK Pacific island (e.g. Guam, Midway, Fiji, etc.)
Japan: 5 IPCs for owning Burma
Japan: 10 IPCs for owning all of China
Italy: 1 IPC each for owning any of Ethiopia, British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, Sudan, and Kenya

TECHNOLOGIES

Any country may research one technology at a time by making one payment during its “purchase reinforcements” phase. Germany, Russia, Japan, Britain, and the USA start with “Phase 1” progress toward a technology of their choice. All other countries start at Phase 0.

To advance from Phase 0 to Phase 1 costs 4 IPCs.
To advance from Phase 1 to Phase 2 costs 4 IPCs.
To advance from Phase 2 to Phase 3 costs 4 IPCs.

To advance from Phase 3 to Phase 4, you must roll one six-sided die, and pay the number of IPCs shown. For example, if you roll a 3, you would pay 3 IPCs. If you roll a 6, after you pay 6 IPCs, you immediately discover the technology.

Once you are at Phase 4, you may buy any number of six-sided dice for 1 IPC each. Roll all of the dice together. If any of the dice show a 5 or a 6, you immediately discover the technology. If none of the dice show a 5 or a 6, those dice are wasted, you remain at Phase 4, and you may purchase more dice on your next turn to try again.

You secretly choose which technology to research when you reach Phase 1. You do not have to reveal which technology you have acquired until the first time you use the technology. For example, if you develop Long-Range Aircraft, you can continue to move your fighters 4 spaces per turn and keep your technology a secret. This can help you maintain the element of surprise.

Once you have discovered a technology, you may immediately begin researching Phase 1 of a second technology, but this is rarely a worthwhile investment.

VICTORY CONDITIONS

The game ends at the end of France’s eighth turn. At that point, check to see if the Axis currently hold at least 12 out of the 26 available victory points (VPs). If so, the Axis win. If not, the Allies win. It does not matter who controls which victory points until the end of the game – all that counts is who controls the victory points at the end of turn 8.

(1-8) Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Manila (1 VP each)
(9-16) Calcutta, Sydney, Honolulu, London, Cairo, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad (1 VP each)
(17) Control all of Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Italian Somaliland, British Somaliland (1 VP total)
(18) Control all of Persia, Northwest Persia, Iraq, Caucasus (1 VP total)
(19) Control all of Java, Sumatra, Celebes, Dutch New Guinea (1 VP total)
(20) Control all of Ukraine, Urals, Siberia (1 VP total)
(21) Control all of North Africa (Morocco through Egypt) plus Crete and Greece (1 VP total)
(22) Control all of China (1 VP total)
(23) Control all of Burma, Shan State, Siam, Malaya, and French Indochina (1 VP total)
(24) Control at least 4 Pacific islands, including Hawaii and Borneo but not Ceylon, originally owned by UK or US (1 VP total)
(25) Allies do not control Sicily, Sardinia, Cyprus, Crete, or Malta (1 VP total)
(26) Axis have at least 4 land units in each of Normandy, Holland, Denmark, and Norway (1 VP total)

Karl7 (Axis +0) defeats Argothair (Allies) at BM3 with an effective Sea Lion after American reinforcements charge to Iceland to prepare to liberate London…and then realize they don’t have quite enough to get the job done and go back to Canada. London was finally liberated on round 11, but by then it was too late for the Allies, and Argothair surrendered. Rumors that the Allied High Command was bribed by an offer of a rematch at Axis +6 are merely enemy propaganda and should be entirely discounted.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33561/g40bml-argothair-allies-vs-karl7/141

All right, here’s a stab at a short, basic overview of Allied opening strategy. No doubt others will have more detailed or more advanced ideas to share, but hopefully this will be a helpful overview for people who are just starting to get serious about Global 1940. I’ll start with Russia and then add other nations in later posts.

USSR:

Your position at the center of the board, sandwiched between Germany, Italy, and Japan, means that you are usually a prime target for Axis bullying and that you will usually need to build mostly infantry and play a mostly defensive game where you retreat steadily toward Moscow and attempt to hold out in Moscow as long as possible to give the rest of the Allies a chance to win the game on other fronts.

However, usually is not the same thing as always, and being able to correctly identify the exceptions to the rule can be the key to victory. If Germany builds more than four transports or otherwise telegraphs its intention to launch a serious amphibious assault on London, Russia will need to rapidly go on the offense, building tanks in Leningrad and Kiev so as to seize as much German territory as possible as quickly as possible while Germany is busy with the British. Conversely, if Germany loses less than three planes against the British navy, or builds a ton of early land units, or declares war on Russia turn 1, then even retreating to Moscow may not be enough – Russia may be forced to retreat even further, to the Caucasus or Persia, so that German tanks can’t punch through Russia’s southern flank to Egypt or India. Although losing Moscow is very serious, it’s not the end of the game for the Allies; if the Allies hold the line in London, Egypt, Persia, India, Java, New Guinea, Hawaii, and Alaska, then the Allies have a large economic advantage even after losing Moscow and central Russia. Try to keep an eye on when reinforcing Moscow will drain Axis resources and delay further Axis expansion, vs. when you’re just throwing good money after bad.

A key consideration in defending Moscow is whether you will be able to get your armies home in time. Try to anticipate what turn Germany will attack Moscow based on what Germany is building. If Germany is building 10 infantry in Berlin, then the attack is probably still five turns away, because the infantry take a long time to march across eastern Europe. If Germany is building 4 strategic bombers in Berlin, then the attack is probably happening next turn. If you have a stack of, e.g., 10 infantry and 4 artillery in Belarus and you see that you’re able to use it to kill a stack of 4 German tanks in eastern Poland, that’s fine…but only if you can make it back to Moscow from eastern Poland before Moscow gets attacked. Otherwise you’re throwing away 14 Russian defenders to take out 4 German attackers, which is a terrible trade.

When you calculate what can make it back to Moscow in time, keep an eye on Germany’s mobile forces and on Italy’s can openers. A medium-sized Russian army that has enough turns to march back to Moscow still might not arrive safely in Moscow if it can be creamed by 20 German mechs and 10 German tanks and 10 German planes without throwing those forces seriously out of position. It’s easy to get trapped. Along similar lines, if the Italians have more than 2 or 3 units in eastern Europe, you will need to arrive in Moscow in time to guard it against Germany’s fast-moving tanks and mechs, because Germany might be able to capture Moscow even without its slower infantry, and when the Italians are present with a significant force, it can turn out to be so expensive to stop Italian can-openers that you don’t actually gain any ground. To reliably stop a force of, e.g., 2 Italian mechs, 2 Italian tanks, and 1 Italian bomber, you probably need 7 Russian infantry – but if you put 7 Russian infantry on each of the 3 territories in range of the Italians, now you’ve pulled 21 infantry out of your main army, and you can be defeated in detail with unacceptable losses.

One positive opportunity to stay alert for is the chance to permanently take and hold Scandinavia with a medium-sized force. Anything you send into Finland is very unlikely to make it back to Moscow in time for the big battle…but if you take both Norway and Finland, that’s a 21-IPC swing each turn: 5 IPCs of territory denied to Germany, 5 IPCs of territory in your pocket, 6 IPCs for the spread of communism, and 5 IPCs for Germany’s iron ore shortage. It also means that whatever German units you kill in Finland won’t be able to join the attack on Moscow, and it provides a critical landing area for Allied planes that can help them first sink the Baltic German fleet (reducing the number of land units that can arrive in Leningrad to march to Moscow) and then take Denmark to threaten Berlin. The overall effect on German offensive chances can be devastating. You can’t afford to spend the entire Russian army and air force just on taking this one region, but if you can take it on the cheap (18 units or so) then it’s probably worthwhile.

Another favorite trick is to send one Russian mech south to pick up some combination of Tobruk, Libya, Iraq, Italian Somaliland, and Ethiopia. The British wind up doing the heavy lifting to roll back the Italian armies, and then the lone Russian mech scoops up the rewards, getting that sweet, sweet 3-IPC Spread of Communism objective for each territory you take, each turn, until Moscow falls. If the game goes long, picking up any two of these territories can be a tiebreaker in your favor.

Finally, you’ve got your Siberian armies, with 18 infantry and 3 AAA guns. If you stack them all on the border with Japan, they can be wiped out, and then you will lose Siberia pretty rapidly, but this does force Japan to spend a significant amount of resources going north, which is not especially lucrative for Japan, so it’s one way to slow Japan down if you like. This fits well with aggressive “Kill Japan first” openings where most of your resources are going into the Pacific early on. I usually prefer to wait until turn 2 to stack the Russian armies on the Japanese border, because until turn 2 I don’t really know what Japan is planning. A huge Russian army on Japan’s doorstep is a great response to a turn 1 Japanese declaration of war – but if you open with that move, it’s easy enough for Japan to just keep the peace and expand into China and Siberia for a couple of turns. The only time I would bother with a turn 1 deployment to Amur is if Germany totally broadcasts its intention to go for a Sea Lion, e.g., builds 2+ transports on turn 1. Normally, I prefer to retreat the westmost Russian stack toward the west on turn 1. If Germany goes for an aggressive/early attack on Moscow, that way at least one stack can usually still make it to the capital. If Germany is giving Russia more time, the western most stack can pivot south to Kansu to reinforce China (also usually in the nick of time), while the eastern stack can return to Amur and give Japan plenty of headaches.

The ideal Russian opening build is situational – you want mostly tanks in response to a Sea Lion, and mostly infantry in response to a turn 1 declaration of war on Russia – but in general you need a balance of offensive punch, mobility, and sheer unit count. You’ll need either some tanks or some artillery so that you can counter-attack weak German stacks…you may not find any, but if you can’t even credibly threaten to attack lone German planes/tanks, it gives Germany too many options. You’ll need either some mechs or some tanks so that you can shift forces rapidly between theaters; you can’t afford to give away both Leningrad and Kiev too early (giving away one is probably fine), so you need to be able to rapidly reinforce whichever factory you’re planning to defend. Mostly, though, you need units – Germany can bring an alarmingly high number of units to Moscow alarmingly early, and you will lose your minor factories to conquest and/or bombing as the game goes on, so make sure to build a reasonable number of infantry in your extra factories while you still have the production capacity. It’s easier to correct for having built too many infantry than it is to correct for having built too many fighters. Over the course of two turns (roughly 80 IPCs) I might build 1 tac, 1 tank, 2 mechs, 4 artillery, and 13 infantry. Your mileage will and should vary!

If you have no beachhead at all, and you still want to fight in a region, then you need to send at least one transport full of actual land units. A single transport could cost 60 IPCs, and you’d still have little choice but to pay that price if you wanted to occupy a region that’s cut off from your forces by sea – although there are plenty of weird exceptions. Items like paratrooper technology, sub convoys, and strategic bombing become more important as the relative cost of transports rises.

As soon as you’re able to deliver one transport to your target, though, then the usual cost-benefit equation goes back into effect. Do you want one loaded transport plus 10 planes? Or five loaded transports? Or something in between?

@SS-GEN Yup, I’m just really busy. I’ll come back eventually!

Update: second draft posted at the top of the thread based on everyone’s comments. Thank you for commenting!

@Guam-Solo Good question, Guam Solo. In most games, the USA can push for one objective on each side of the map, but not literally at the same time – the push for one objective should start two or three turns earlier than the push for the second objective. The reasoning here is that during the first stage of your campaign, you will need transports and men and warships and some air support in order to safely occupy a sea zone and then gain control of your targeted land territories. This is very expensive and consumes 85%+ of the US’s resources. At best, your remaining resources can be used to garrison a region that is already Allied-controlled (e.g., stack Honolulu with infantry, or stack Gibraltar with fighters). However, during the second stage of your campaign, when you have already achieved regional naval supremacy, you generally do not need to build new warships, and you may even be able to recycle some of your transports by sending them on a loop back and forth between safe sea zones. You can re-fill four transports much, much more cheaply than you can build four new transports, fill those transports, build an escorting navy, and build an escorting air force – and the resulting savings can be used to open a new offensive campaign.

The exception to this rule is when all of the Axis powers press inward toward Moscow, without paying serious attention to contesting the USA’s attacks. If Germany sends its entire air force east and builds nothing but mechs and tanks while Japan sends its entire air force west while building nothing but minor factories, then you can probably get away with an all-out simultaneous two-front war, because your landing parties just won’t be facing much opposition, so you won’t need to build as many escort ships / planes to support each loaded transport.

Progress continues. The circles (victory cities) are 180 pixels wide, which means that every territory should have plenty of room to host a reasonable number of units.

Some of the fussiest rules in the A&A handbook are the rules for bombing runs, interceptors, AAA gunfire, and submarines.

Many people enjoy fussiness; they like learning all of the intricate details of a complicated ruleset and then finding ways to exploit them. That’s fine. If you enjoy complex rules for their own sake, this House Rule is not for you. This House Rule is for people who enjoy complicated gameplay but who want the rules to be as simple as possible. The idea is to get a lot of theme and a lot of strategy without needing too many different rules.

So, here’s my proposal:

Bombers – bombers can make bombing runs against any territory, even if the territory has no factory in it. If you wish, you may escort your bombers with fighters by moving the fighters into the territory. When you make a bombing run, the defender does not get any automatic AAA shots. Instead, the defender rolls one die per flak gun in the territory (flak guns hit on rolls of 1), and one die per fighter in the territory (fighters hit on rolls of 2 or less). For each hit scored by the defender, eliminate one attacking bomber or one attacking escort fighter (attacker’s choice). Any surviving bombers then roll 1d6 and destroy IPCs from the defender’s treasury equal to the value shown on the dice. The defender cannot lose more IPCs from a territory than the territory is worth (e.g. bombing India can lose you at most 3 IPCs), and the defender cannot lose more IPCs than their entire treasury.

Flak Guns – attack at 1, defend at 1, move 1 space, and behave exactly like a regular land unit. They can make a combat move, they can be taken as a casualty, they can conquer territories, and they don’t get a preemptive shot. The only two things that make a flak gun special are that (a) if they score a hit in a battle against you, and you have any planes in that battle, then you have to select one of your planes as the casualty, and (b) flak guns help defend against bombing runs.

Submarines – attack at 2, defend at 1, move 2 spaces, and behave exactly like a regular sea unit. They are blocked by enemy warships, do not submerge, can be hit by planes, can hit planes, and do not make sneak attacks. Instead, each submarine adjacent to an enemy territory during that enemy’s collect income reduces the enemy’s income by 1 IPC. The income from a territory cannot be reduced below zero by submarines. It is recommended (but not required) to raise the defensive value of destroyers from 2 to 3 to help keep submarines balanced.

All of this may sound like a lot to keep straight, but it’s mostly a matter of unlearning some of the fiddly rules that we’re used to playing with. These rules should be easier for new players to learn because they treat all units as essentially the same except for one or two special abilities: instead of submarines behaving totally differently from any other ship and requiring separate rolls and a separate phase of combat, submarines are just ships that are able to deal 1 IPC of industrial damage. Instead of AAA guns behaving totally differently from any other land unit and requiring separate rolls and unique rules for movement and capture, AAA guns are just land units that are able to preferentially target planes when they score a hit.