@SEP:

I could see making various adjustments to start everyone off on an equal footing (for the most part).�  For example, you could adjust the value of some territories, particularly capitals so that everyone starts off with equal IPC’s.�  And you could do the same with changing neutral territories into territories owned by a specific nation at the start.�  For example, France could own Spain and Portugal as well as Switzerland if necessary (or give it to Italy if necessary).�  Italy could get Yugo, Bulgaria, Greece and Crete.�  You’ve also got the Middle East and Mongolia for China ANZAC as needed.�  � And then there is also South America which would be interesting if whoever owns it is against the U.S.

Only thing you’d have to do is either nix China altogether or buy units for them to use.�  Might be easier to nix them and that way you have an even eight powers.� Â

You could allow the players to make their own alliances (and also whether or not to be true to those alliances i.e. they can do some back stabbing if the opportunity presents itself) or you could draw for your partners.� Â

I am about to go off to class, but what about having all territories be like 2 IPCs, regardless of historical realism? It would make keeping track of things be easier, and with the influx of so many Territories being utilized (like neutrals) there would be plenty on the board still? It might mix it up for a G40 game. I guess–what would be the victory conditions though? Just like Risk–winner take all (or until one side is claimed the victor?)

@CWO:

On my customized G40 table, I allocated Shensi to Mao’s ChiCom forces.� It’s roughly where he ended up after the Long March, and roughly the territory he controlled during WWII.� If you go to this thread…

…and click on the image labeled “8 Pacific Left Panel.jpg” to expand the picture, you’ll see the roundel indicating their position.� I’ve never really gotten around to creating rules for the Chinese Communists, but realistically all they should get is a few infantry units and (just possibly) some light artillery.� Chiang’s Republic of China forces are underpowered compared with the other G40 nations, but Mao’s ChiCom forces should have even less at their disposal because they were basically just a guerrila force.� I don’t know if the Soviets provided them with any hardware, but they almost certainly got nothing from the Americans or the British (unlike Chiang’s forces, who received a fair bit of material support from their Anglo-American allies).� The Hundred Regiments Offensive was the biggest operation that Mao conducted against the Japanese, but for the most part it was a sabotage operation aimed at infrastructure (like railways).

Thanks for the feedback. I considered giving them say two or three proviences, just so it was something more than 1. And say that they could purchase arty so long as they had Kansu (connection with USSR). But I suppose it is really just duplicating turns. Also–when in the move Order would the Communist Chinese go?

Has anyone considered having Communist Chinese forces displayed on the G40 (or Pacific 40) board? Any house rules out there for them? Maybe like Nationalist China but have soviets control them for more play time for them? I was thinking of buying some old russian troops that are brighter red (rather than the brown) for Red China or something. (I have rewards points from HBG lol).

Hello,

Is Axis and Allies 1941 Worth Getting–just for the pieces? I am thinking of implementing Heavy Tanks (using the Tigers and Stalin tanks from 41), and using the bombers as air Transports for some homebrewed A&A with extra units (would still have to get tank destroyers, and self-propelled guns from HBG). Is it worth getting the whole game for these pieces? Or should I just order them “ala carte” from the internet? I figured that after ordering them by themselves it might be just as cheap to order the whole game ha ha.

Also, I was thinking about ordering a number of Gray/White (or specifically non faction color) bombers to use for transports. I figured it would save on cost while still be pretty intuitive of whose they are. Transports planes sitting in berlin are pretty easy to figure out who they are after all. Thoughts? I would also like to add elite infantry to the game. Say like 6 units for each faction as others have suggested on here. Those who use elite infantry/paratroopers do y’all just specify them using different plates under them or different colored figures altogether?

I have considered ordering Gray Germany infantry for SS units, Different Green for Marines, not sure for Guards (USSR), or SNLF, no idea what to use for UK/ANZAC (commandos?) or Italy. Any suggestions for a guy about to sink all my money into a soon to be wife and grad school would be handy. So cheaper is better ha ha!

@CWO:

@armyman_83:

Any ideas on how to accomplish some of this?

It depends on whether or not historical credibility matters to you.  If it doesn’t matter to you at all, then the answer is very simple: you simply operate each player nation as a separate entity which is free to ally itself with whomever it wants and to make war against whomever it wants.  I think this concept was once described by somebody as a “free-for-all” game.  It gives you maximum flexibility (something which your group seems to be interested in), at the expense of having little or no “narrative” driving the game (meaning that there’s little or no background story – at least no credible one – explaining why the nations of the world are behaving this way).  I don’t have any personal interest in this approach, so I’m not in a good position to describe its advantages, merits, or operational details.

If, however, it does matter to you for your game to have some sort of plausible background scenario, here are a few ideas.  I’ll limit them to the WWII era, since that’s the historical period in which I have the most interest.Â

One thing you could do is to make the complications of WWII work to your advantage.  As Richard Overy explains concisely in the opening note to his book Why The Allies Won, the terms “Axis” and “Allies” are actually imperfect labels for two broad coalitions whose composition changed at many points during the war, and many of whose members were, at various times, not even actually at war.  This resulted in all kinds of situations that look odd, when you view them from the perspective of the US, the UK, the USSR, France, ANZAC and China  being on the Allied side and Germany, Japan and Italy being on the Axis side.  Just as three examples: France and Britain considered war against the USSR in support of Finland in 1939; the British attacked the French fleet in 1940; and Germany attacked the Italian fleet in 1943.  So you could play on elements like that to generate some alternate game scenarios.  What if, for example, Germany and the USSR had remained allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?  (A scenario like that is discussed in the book “What If?: Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been”, under the title – if I remember correctly-  of “Triumph of the Dictators”).  In other words, play around with different alliances between the major powers, while trying to keep then plausible.  Then, once you’ve set up these alternate power blocks with the main nations, throw in some more variation by taking the various neutrals/minor powers and attaching them to these new power blocks, in ways that were perhaps different than was the case historically.Â

Thank you for the ideas! It doesn’t matter to me so much the historical side (though I love history) but I am open to your second idea with mixing and matching alliances. My biggest issue is resolving the IPC balance. In a G40 game would you have Germany, Italy, and Russia vs. Everyone else? etc.

I was wondering if anyone had seen map that had a more balanced money situation more suitable for “home made” teams or even free for all types (though I like team games over the highlander “THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!” type).

@toblerone77:

There is a game called the “Superpowers” board game. Not sure if you can still buy it though.Â

Ah that’s the game! Couldn’t for the life of me remember! Thank you! Though I do wonder if it is possible to even buy ha ha.

@ CWO Marc: I meant Risk style “diplomacy” in the sense of non-fixed teams (it was a very broad and poor comparison). Of course in Risk there are no Team victories, but I meant mostly the idea of allowing people to make alliances if they desired. Basically I feel that some people in my gaming group are getting tired of the same old same old Axis vs. Allies setting. (I can play it all the time, but I love it more than them perhaps). We love the mechanics and just want a game that allows us to use the A&A mechanics but have an option to have diplomacy or have alternative starting positions, teams, etc. I saw one idea of having Japan be an Allied Power, and USA be an Axis Power. But I am mostly looking for an overhaul of a map and some game mechanics surrounding diplomacy in order to keep replay ability very high, plus add the element of intrigue. The only thing I would suggest is that at a certain point alliances are locked in place, or else no one would trust his neighbor.

Any ideas on how to accomplish some of this?

Hello everyone!
This is my first post on here, though I must admit I have been a lurker for quite a few years. I love Axis and Allies and my gaming group generally enjoy it as well. I have G40, 1914, and 1942 (2nd edition) and we play quite often (mostly G40). However, I am hoping to help keep everyone entertained by having a bit of a twist with the games. I love the mechanics of G40 and am looking to either find or make a game that uses such mechanics but is closer to the (for lack of a better word)–-RISK style. Basically using Axis and Allies game pieces and mechanics but with the whole diplomacy issue between the players.

I once saw a board game just like this (set in like alternative 1980ish world) with 8 powers to choose from and a few extra pieces (I believe Generals, Nukes, etc). I canâ€t for the life of me recall it. So my questions are this:

1. Does anyone know of this game?
2. Does anyone know of a map that I might use for such a game, if there isnâ€t a whole game like this I could purchase?
3. Iâ€d like anyoneâ€s input  on who desires to use A&A mechanics but with a diplomatic/different map, start up, alliances, etc.