When you’re stuck at home in quarantine and you have nothing that you need to do, sometimes the craziest ideas will cross your mind:
This is something I’ve actually been toying with for a while: a 1939 or 1937 game played on the 1914 board. It’s been a great deal of fun, but I usually find myself exploring alternate history rather than creating a game that is actually balanced with streamlined rules.

Have you ever experimented with playing a World War 2 era game on 1914 with the rules and units from 1940? Making a good setup has been difficult, and some places like Russia just aren’t ideal, but I’ve seen a lot of potential with making an early war scenario like this with many playable little nations. OH, and a well-defended France as well.

Have I just gone crazy, or is this an interesting idea?

Chaos in the Balkans:
Hungary and Romania are at war, Germany has annexed Austria, Yugoslavia suffered an unfortunate die role and has been forced to disintegrate into a Pro-Fascist Croatian state and a smaller Serbia. Italy managed to seize Albania without loss, and Czechoslovakia is reinforcing its border with the Nazis.
The UK has pledged to declare war on any power invading Greece.

Swedish Disaster:
The Swedes attempted to peacefully take over Norway to prevent any major nations from entering Scandinavia, but the plan backfired. Not only did another unfortunate die role cause the Norwegians to resist, but the German and British players were offended by the assault, and Germany turned a blind eye to a British force that liberated the Norwegians and devastated Sweden’s hopes of a powerful, neutral, United Scandinavian state.

Spain in Flames:
The civil war rages on in Spain, just as a deadly naval encounter ended in mutual annihilation for the Nationalists and Republicans. The free world does not want a Fascist Spain, and the U.S. Player has sent generous air aid to the Republicans. With Franco’s Army of Africa having headed for the mainland, I, as France, took advantage and seized their Moroccan colony. Unfortunately, I earned a -1 diplomacy points for this “aggressive” act.

Global 1939 Version 3 plus tweaks (Europe and Pacific Standalone setups are further below)

Axis and Allies Global 1939 is a 1940 variant that uses a new setup and political situation.

Global (Europe + Pacific):
Anything not specified here is the same as 1940 2nd Edition.

Political situation changes:

Russia may not declare war on Germany/Italy until turn 5 unless attacked by the Axis.

Nazi-Soviet Pact:
On turn 1 only, Russia is given the option of attacking/annexing any of these territories: Vyborg, Baltic States, Eastern Poland, and Bessarabia.  Germany may not take any of the aforementioned territories or trigger Finalnd on turn 1 without declaring war on Russia.  If Russia does not take some/all of these territories, Germany may take them without consequence starting on turn 2.  Vyborg is hostile to Russia and friendly to Germany.  Eastern Poland is an enemy to both Russia and Germany.

Germany is allowed to move through the Danish straits even though Germany does not control Denmark on turn 1.

Italy begins the game neutral and cannot leave its territories.  Other powers cannot enter neutral Italy.  Italy may declare on any Allied powers on turn 2 or later.  If Italy stays neutral, the Allies may declare war on Italy on turn 3 or later.  On the turn Italy declares war or the Allies attack Italy, transports may load units in shared sea zones shared between Italy and the Allies.

The United States may declare war on the Axis on the collect income phase of turn 4.
The minor industrial complexes on Western, Eastern, and Central U.S. don’t get upgraded automatically.  The U.S. must pay for the upgrades if it wants them.

The new pro-Allies/-Axis (same rules as for Persia, Iraq, etc.) and their standing armies are
Pro-Allies:
Poland: 6 infantry
Eastern Poland: 2 infantry
Denmark: 1 infantry
Norway: 2 infantry
Holland/Belgium: 3 infantry
Iceland: nothing
Greenland: nothing
Belgian Congo: 1 infantry
Pro-Axis:
Slovakia/Hungary: 3 infantry, 3 tanks
Romania: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter
Bessarabia: nothing
Baltic States: nothing
Vyborg: 2 infantry
Northwest Persia: nothing
Persia: 2 infantry
Eastern Persia: nothing

When collecting NOs, treat the territories as the board represents them (e.g. the original controller).
Examples:
Iceland and Belgian Congo do not start as British anymore, but they are needed for UK’s NO for holding the empire because they have a British roundel on them.
Even though Persia is pro-Axis in this setup, it does not count in Russia’s spread of Communism NO because the board represents it as being pro-Allies.

New Turn order and starting income/IPCs in hand:
Germany: 14
Soviet Union: 35
United Kingdom-
Europe: 27
Pacific: 17
Italy: 10
France: 19
ANZAC: 10
Japan: 24
China: 14
United States: 52

New Setup:
Germany:
Germany: 16 infantry, 4 artillery, 1 tactical bomber, 4 AA guns, 2 strategic bombers, major industrial complex
Greater Southern Germany: 6 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks
Western Germany: 2 infantry, 3 tanks, 4 AA guns, 4 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 mech., air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Sea Zone 112: 2 submarines, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 113: 2 submarines, 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 114: 1 submarine, 1 transport, 1 battleship

Soviet Union:
Russia: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 artillery, 1 strategic bomber, air base, minor industrial complex
Samara: 1 infantry
Novosibirsk: 1 infantry
Kazakhstan: 1 infantry
Turkmenistan: 1 infantry
Caucasus: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Volgograd: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, minor industrial complex
Ukraine: 2 infantry, 1 tactical bomber
Western Ukraine: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Belarus: 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
Novgorod: 6 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 tank, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, minor industrial complex
Karelia: 2 infantry
Timguska: 1 infantry
Yenisey: 1 infantry
Yakut: 1 infantry
Buryatia: 2 infantry
Sakha: 2 infantry
Amur: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 2 AA guns, 1 tank
Siberia: 1 infantry
Soviet Far East: 1 infantry
Sea Zone 100: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 115: 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 127: 1 submarine

Italy:
Southern Italy: 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Northern Italy: 4 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 strategic bomber, 1 tactical bomber, minor industrial complex
Sardinia: 1 infantry
Sicily: 1 infantry
Albania: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Libya: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank
Tobruk: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry
Ethiopia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Italian Somaliland: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
Sea Zone 95: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 97: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 1 transport

France:
France: 6 infantry, 3 AA guns, 3 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, air base, minor industrial complex
Normandy/Bordeaux: 1 infantry, naval base, minor industrial complex
Southern France: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, naval base
Tunisia: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Algeria: 1 infantry, 1 mech.
Morocco: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
French West Africa: 1 infantry
French Central Africa: 1 infantry
Syria: 1 infantry
Sea Zone 105: 1 destroyer, 1 transport
Sea Zone 93: 1 cruiser, 1 transport
Sea Zone 94: 1 battleship
Sea Zone 82: 1 submarine
Sea Zone 72: 1 destroyer

Japan:
Japan: 6 infantry, 1 mech., 2 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 2 strategic bombers, air base, naval base, major IC
Korea: 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
Manchuria: 6 infantry, 1 mech., 1 artillery, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 AA gun, control marker
Jehol: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Shantung: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Kiangsu: 5 infantry, 2 artillery, control marker
Okinawa: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
Formosa: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
Hainan: 1 infantry
Palau: 1 infantry
Caroline Islands: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, air base, naval base
Marshall Islands: 1 infantry, air base, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber
Marianas: 1 infantry, naval base, 1 AA gun
Iwo Jima: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
Siam 2 infantry
Sea Zone 6: 1 submarine, 3 transports, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 2 carriers with 2 fighters and 2 tactical bombers
Sea Zone 19: 1 transport, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 20: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 aircraft carrier with 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber
Sea Zone 36: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 22: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 33: 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine
Sea Zone 32: 1 destroyer

United States:
Western United States: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, minor IC
Alaska: 1 infantry
Hawaii: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, 1 strategic bomber air base, naval base
Midway: air base
Wake: air base
Guam: air base
Philippines: 2 infantry, 1 fighter, air base, naval base
Eastern United States: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, minor industrial complex
Central United States: 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, minor industrial complex
Sea Zone 64: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 101: 1 destroyer
Sa Zone 10: 1 submarine, 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 29: 1 carrier with 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber
Sea Zone 26: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 35: 1 destroyer

China:
Suiyuan: 3 infantry
Chahar: 1 infantry
Anhwe: 3 infantry
Kiangsi: 2 infantry
Kwangsi: 2 infantry
Hunan: 2 infantry
Kweichow: 3 infantry, 1 artillery
Hopei: 1 infantry
Shensi: 1 infantry
Szechwan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter
Yunnan: 3 infantry

United Kingdom:
United Kingdom: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Scotland: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base
Quebec: 1 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 mechanized infantry, minor industrial complex
Nova Scotia: naval base, air base
Ontario: 1 AA gun, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Gibraltar: naval base
Malta: 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, airbase
Alexandria: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank
Egypt: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, naval base
Trans-Jordan: 1 infantry
British Somaliland: 1 infantry
Kenya: 1 infantry
Rhodesia: 1 infantry
Anglo-Egypt Sudan: 1 infantry
Union of South Africa: 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 mechanized infantry, naval base, minor industrial complex
West India: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
India: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Burma: 2 infantry
Shan State: 1 infantry
Malaya: 3 infantry, naval base
Kwangtung: 1 infantry, naval base
Samoa: naval base
Sea Zone 106: 1 transport, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 110: 1 destroyer, 1 battleship, 1 transport
Sea Zone 111: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 91: 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 tactical bomber)
Sea Zone 98: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 81: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 71: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 70: 1 transport
Sea Zone 39: 1 cruiser, 1 sub
Sea Zone 37: 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 51: 1 destroyer

ANZAC:
New South Wales: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, naval base, minor IC
Queensland: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base
Northern Territory: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
Western Australia: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
New Zealand: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun,  1 fighter, naval base, minor IC
Malaya: 1 infantry
Shan State: 1 infantry
Trans-Jordan: 1 infantry
Egypt: 1 infantry
Sea Zone 62: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 63: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 54: 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer
–---------------------------

Pacific 1939 Standalone:

Anything not specified here is the same as 1940 2nd Edition.

The United States may declare war on Japan on the collect income phase of turn 4.

New Turn order and starting income/IPCs in hand:
United Kingdom: 16
ANZAC: 10
Japan: 24
China: 14
United States: 17

New Setup:
Japan:
Japan: 6 infantry, 1 mech., 2 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 2 strategic bombers, air base, naval base, major IC
Korea: 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
Manchuria: 6 infantry, 1 mech., 1 artillery, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 AA gun, control marker
Jehol: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Shantung: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Kiangsu: 5 infantry, 2 artillery, control marker
Okinawa: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
Formosa: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
Hainan: 1 infantry
Palau: 1 infantry
Caroline Islands: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, air base, naval base
Marshall Islands: 1 infantry, air base, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber
Marianas: 1 infantry, naval base, 1 AA gun
Iwo Jima: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
Siam 2 infantry
Sea Zone 6: 1 submarine, 3 transports, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 2 carriers with 2 fighters and 2 tactical bombers
Sea Zone 19: 1 transport, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 20: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 aircraft carrier with 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber
Sea Zone 36: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 22: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 33: 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine
Sea Zone 32: 1 destroyer

United States:
Western United States: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, major IC
Alaska: 1 infantry
Hawaii: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, 1 strategic bomber air base, naval base
Midway: air base
Wake: air base
Guam: air base
Philippines: 2 infantry, 1 fighter, air base, naval base
Sa Zone 10: 1 submarine, 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 29: 1 carrier with 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber
Sea Zone 26: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 35: 1 destroyer

China:
Suiyuan: 3 infantry
Chahar: 1 infantry
Anhwe: 3 infantry
Kiangsi: 2 infantry
Kwangsi: 2 infantry
Hunan: 2 infantry
Kweichow: 3 infantry, 1 artillery
Hopei: 1 infantry
Shensi: 1 infantry
Szechwan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter
Yunnan: 3 infantry

United Kingdom:
India: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, air base, naval base, major IC
Burma: 2 infantry
Shan State: 1 infantry
Malaya: 3 infantry, naval base
Kwangtung: 1 infantry, naval base
Samoa: naval base
Sea Zone 39: 1 cruiser, 1 sub
Sea Zone 37: 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 51: 1 destroyer

ANZAC:
New South Wales: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, naval base, minor IC
Queensland: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base
Northern Territory: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
Western Australia: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
New Zealand: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun,  1 fighter, naval base, minor IC
Malaya: 1 infantry
Shan State: 1 infantry
Sea Zone 62: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 63: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 54: 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer

Europe Standalone:
Anything not specified here is the same as 1940 2nd Edition.

Political situation changes:

Russia may not declare war on Germany/Italy until turn 5 unless attacked by the Axis.

Nazi-Soviet Pact:
On turn 1 only, Russia is given the option of attacking/annexing any of these territories: Vyborg, Baltic States, Eastern Poland, and Bessarabia.  Germany may not take any of the aforementioned territories or trigger Finalnd on turn 1 without declaring war on Russia.  If Russia does not take some/all of these territories, Germany may take them without consequence starting on turn 2.  Vyborg is hostile to Russia and friendly to Germany.  Eastern Poland is an enemy to both Russia and Germany.

Germany is allowed to move through the Danish straits even though Germany does not control Denmark on turn 1.

Italy begins the game neutral and cannot leave its territories.  Other powers cannot enter neutral Italy. Italy may declare on any Allied powers on turn 2 or later.  If Italy stays neutral, the Allies may declare war on Italy on turn 3 or later.  On the turn Italy declares war or the Allies attack Italy, transports may load units in shared sea zones shared between Italy and the Allies.

The United States may declare war on the Axis on the collect income phase of turn 4.
The minor industrial complexes on Eastern and Central U.S. don’t get upgraded automatically.  The U.S. must pay for the upgrades if it wants them.

The new pro-Allies/-Axis (same rules as for Persia, Iraq, etc.) and their standing armies are
Pro-Allies:
Poland: 6 infantry
Eastern Poland: 2 infantry
Denmark: 1 infantry
Norway: 2 infantry
Holland/Belgium: 3 infantry
Iceland: nothing
Greenland: nothing
Belgian Congo: 1 infantry
Pro-Axis:
Slovakia/Hungary: 3 infantry, 3 tanks
Romania: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter
Bessarabia: nothing
Baltic States: nothing
Vyborg: 2 infantry
Northwest Persia: nothing
Persia: 2 infantry
Eastern Persia: nothing

When collecting NOs, treat the territories as the board represents them (e.g. the original controller).
Examples:
Iceland and Belgian Congo do not start as British anymore, but they are needed for UK’s NO for holding the empire because they have a British roundel on them.
Even though Persia is pro-Axis in this setup, it does not count in Russia’s spread of Communism NO because the board represents it as being pro-Allies.

New Turn order and starting income/IPCs in hand:
Germany: 14
Soviet Union: 26
United Kingdom: 28
Italy: 10
France: 17
United States: 35

New Setup:
Germany:
Germany: 16 infantry, 4 artillery, 1 tactical bomber, 4 AA guns, 2 strategic bombers, major industrial complex
Greater Southern Germany: 6 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks
Western Germany: 2 infantry, 3 tanks, 4 AA guns, 4 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 mech., air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Sea Zone 112: 2 submarines, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 113: 2 submarines, 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 114: 1 submarine, 1 transport, 1 battleship

Soviet Union:
Russia: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 artillery, 1 strategic bomber, air base, minor industrial complex
Samara: 1 infantry
Novosibirsk: 1 infantry
Kazakhstan: 1 infantry
Turkmenistan: 1 infantry
Caucasus: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Volgograd: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, minor industrial complex
Ukraine: 2 infantry, 1 tactical bomber
Western Ukraine: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Belarus: 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
Novgorod: 6 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 tank, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, minor industrial complex
Karelia: 2 infantry
Sea Zone 100: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 115: 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 127: 1 submarine

Italy:
Southern Italy: 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Northern Italy: 4 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 strategic bomber, 1 tactical bomber, minor industrial complex
Sardinia: 1 infantry
Sicily: 1 infantry
Albania: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Libya: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank
Tobruk: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry
Ethiopia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Italian Somaliland: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
Sea Zone 95: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 97: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 1 transport

France:
France: 6 infantry, 3 AA guns, 3 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, air base, minor industrial complex
Normandy/Bordeaux: 1 infantry naval base, minor industrial complex
Southern France: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, naval base
Tunisia: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Algeria: 1 infantry, 1 mech.
Morocco: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
French West Africa: 1 infantry
French Central Africa: 1 infantry
Syria: 1 infantry
Sea Zone 105: 1 destroyer, 1 transport
Sea Zone 93: 1 cruiser, 1 transport
Sea Zone 94: 1 battleship
Sea Zone 82: 1 submarine
Sea Zone 72: 1 destroyer

United States:
Eastern United States: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, minor industrial complex
Central United States: 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, minor industrial complex
Sea Zone 64: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 101: 1 destroyer

United Kingdom:
United Kingdom: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Scotland: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base
Quebec: 1 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 mechanized infantry, minor industrial complex
Nova Scotia: naval base, air base
Ontario: 1 AA gun, 1 artillery, 1 tank
Gibraltar: naval base
Malta: 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, airbase
Alexandria: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank
Egypt: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, naval base
Trans-Jordan: 1 infantry
British Somaliland: 1 infantry
Kenya: 1 infantry
Rhodesia: 1 infantry
Anglo-Egypt Sudan: 1 infantry
Union of South Africa: 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 mechanized infantry, naval base, minor industrial complex
West India: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Sea Zone 106: 1 transport, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 110: 1 destroyer, 1 battleship, 1 transport
Sea Zone 111: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 91: 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 tactical bomber)
Sea Zone 98: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 81: 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 71: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 70: 1 transport

Special thanks to all who contributed to this project.  This is the final version.  Questions and comments are appreciated.
        de Gaulle

Recently, I took part in an eighteen player game of Global 1940 with no drastic house rules aside from this: most nations were controlled by more than one player.  Each major nation was assigned a top leader, which we named according to the title of the real leader of the nation.  Under this leader were two generals, each one focusing on a certain front.  The generals selected their desired purchases for their section but had to get approval from the top leader.  Troops movements, attacks, and cooperation worked likewise.  This system not only resulted in more people playing, but it also eliminated mistakes greatly, encouraged teamwork, and bred a healthy rivalry between generals working for the same nation.  Here is how we played originally (we did have to reorganize command as the war eliminated forces or shifted focus).

Germany:
The top leader was called the Fuhrer, mostly because he liked roleplaying as a bad guy.  The two generals under him were split between the obvious: Eastern and Western Front.  These three players worked together beautifully.  The Eastern and Western troops were always ready to sacrifice for the good of the other half, and the top leader made sure his generals never made a single mistake.

Soviet Union:
The Soviets chose the title Premier for their top leader.  The two generals were split on very awkward lines: one player controlled the north (Leningrad area and the Far East) and the other controlled the southern half (Moscow to the Caucasus). The Premier was a bit too oppressive over his two generals and usually tended to make their decisions for them.  This was funny at first to the other nations, but resulted in a boring, bitter game for the two Russian general players.  The lack of unity between the two Russian players and the oppressive nature of their leader resulted in the Soviets’ collapse.

Japan:
The Japanese players chose not to have a title for their top leader and took the game very seriously.  Instead of dividing themselves between fronts, they decided to have one national leader, one naval leader, and one army leader (airforces were attached to one or the other.)  Their teamwork was excellent and their top leader kept them from being reckless, but in the end, Japan was basically a defensive force that was too huddled in its corner of the world.  I would say Japan was a success for the coop system but a failure strategically.

United States:
I played on the U.S. team as General Eisenhower controlling the Americans in the European theater (I Like roleplaying, so deal with it.)  My counterpart, of course, controlled the Pacific.  Much to his dismay, I always called him “the Nimitz with no trannies [transports].”  We also had a top leader over us representing the President.  Although our actions could not save the world from the Axis, I felt that the U.S. team did a great job of showing how coop play could work.  There was a great rivalry between me and my Pacific teammate as we always tried to convince the “Pres.” to let one of us get more IPCs to spend on our side.  Our top leader did a good job of being neutral and sharing wisdom while allowing us to go with what we thought was best.

China and France were played by one person.  With eighteen people at the table one time or another and players arguing over who is going to get a single fighter for use at their front, China and France felt like a big role for a change.

United Kingdom:
The UK chose the title Prime Minister for their top leader. The two generals under him were constantly getting their zones of control reorganized, but they started with one controlling Malta to India, and the other getting Gibraltar to Iceland.  The UK had the opposite problem of Russia.  Their leader was too weak and only ended up compromising disputes.  Perhaps the main reason for this was that India gets its own economy and is virtually separate from the rest of the UK’s responsibilities.

Italy and ANZAC were played by two different players.  Like the person playing China and France, the Italian and ANZAC players were satisfied with the small roles because everbody around the table also had small roles.

Overall, I loved this system.  It encouraged teamwork greatly, added a nice feel of reality, eliminated many stupid mistakes, and made the whole A&A experience much more social.  Of course, having so many people did make it crowded at times, but at no one time were there eighteen people seated at the table.  In between turns, only one person stayed to represent their nation while the others left to plan, eat snacks, or take some shots on the pool table on the other side of the room.

I had a fantastic experience playing like this, and I wonder if any of you have ever tried this before.  Sometimes even just having two people work together for a nation (without splitting up zones of control) can be very fun.  If you do ever try this regional generals system, I highly recommend that you have a top leader as well.  He is the one that makes a split army capable of working together to achieve victory.

@General-Veers I like the idea of reducing the facilities cost as well. But I have been wondering if perhaps airbases should cost more than naval bases. I feel like the scramble potential of airbases is more powerful than the repairing abilities of naval bases (while the move extension seems obviously on equal terms). I think a 12 or 13 IPC naval base sounds good, but I’d personally want air bases to be more, maybe about 14 IPCs. One of the reasons why I think airbases need a higher cost is their relevance to aircraft carriers. Why build a carrier for 16 when you can scramble 3 fighters for 15 (or as you and I propose 12/13).

I’d love to see more facility building, as this is something that’s very rare in my group’s games. It would be hard to find the perfect cost, but I think your 12 IPCs is a good place to begin testing, perhaps going as low as 11 for sea bases and as high as 14 for air bases. I’d like to try it.

Have you ever seen a game where France actually builds units in Indo-China? I’ve never seen this happen and was wondering if it ever occurred in a real game.

Japan typically builds an industrial complex after capturing French Indo-China, so it would only take the UK or another ally to liberate it and give France a free factory to use. Supposing Paris has also been liberated, France could very well start building in Indo-China.

Now of course this scenario would imply that Germany has lost France, and Japan has done very poorly in Southeast Asia —making a grim scene for the Axis. Typically in my games, they would surrender after losing two very crucial areas. The only scenario I could think of is perhaps Germany and Japan are trying to destroy Russia and didn’t fare well on other fronts. Maybe France would have a reason to build in Indo-China because of this? Although Paris would likely be the better option, but games can be crazy.

Have you ever seen this happen?

While hosting small tournaments, I’ve come across an issue in creating the actual match-ups. Here are the stats and requirements that I’m working with:

1. It’s a five player game in which turn order matters!!!

2. Every person plays five games, one as player 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (you can think of this as playing 5 Pacific 1940 games, one as China, one as Japan, USA, UK, and ANZAC…)

3. It’s supposed to be a round robin tournament, so each person plays against every other player; however, as an extra stipulation, each player will only see every other player once.

Now according to what I just mentioned, there will have to be 21 people total (because if every player plays five games and there are four opponents in each game and every opponent will only be seen once, there will have to be 20 other people to fill those spots; this also means 21 games total will be played).

If you’re not confused already, also remember, one of the other stipulations is that of the 5 games that everybody plays, each one has to be a different position in the turn order (in A&A terms, think of it as a different country). So there cannot be someone who plays as player #2 in more than one game, because he has to have a game as each different player position.

-*-
To make this a little clearer, here’s a much simpler breakdown I created for hosting a 3 player game with the same rules:

There are 7 players and 7 games being played. The players are listed as “1,” “2,” “3,” etc. The player listed at the top of the list goes first (he is the nation that moves first) the player at the bottom of the list goes last (he is the nation that moves last).

Game 1. Game 2. Game 3. Game 4. Game 5. Game 6 Game 7.
----1---------4---------6---------2----------7----------3---------5
----2---------1---------7---------5----------4----------6---------3
----3---------5---------1---------6----------2----------4---------7

At first glance, this just looks like a bunch of numbers. But it’s actually a carefully constructed round robin tournament. Notice how it meets all the requirements I mentioned earlier:

1. Each player only sees every other player only once.
2. Each player gets to play only once in first, second, and last positions in the turn order.
3. There are only three people in each game.

Now, if you are making any sense of what I’m saying, perhaps you can help me. I have successfully created a tourney bracket like this for 4 player games, and there is actually more than one way to “solve” the match-ups so that everything is just as I said. But I’m making these through trial and error, and I’ll spare you from the headache of seeing the actual 4-player-games bracket.

But what I really need right now is a bracket for 5 player games (the twenty-one-participant model I spoke of earlier). But with 21 different games to set up and all the stipulations I mentioned about turn order and only seeing every opponent once, I haven’t been able to manually figure out the bracket.

Is there some sort of algorithm, formula, or something I can use other than the excruciating task off trial and error to create a list like the one I showed for the 3 player game? And yes, I am aware that many round-robin generators exist, but I’ve never found one that has support for games that have multiple players and takes into account the importance of turn order (in a game like Axis and Allies where you’re not just “white” or “the player who moves first,” where you are in the turn order makes a huge difference, as that is the nation you are playing.)

If any of you intellectuals understand what I’m talking about, please let me know if you have a solution. My simple model for the 3 player game version is a good start, but I’m wondering if it’s even possible for the 5 player version I’m talking about? Maybe the math just doesn’t cooperate.

PLEASE HELP!

I TOTALLY Love this! GREAT WORK OZ!

Anywhere in France will do.

Really!  I’m being serious!

@aardvarkpepper Dang. To be frank, your story is a lot more philosophical in nature than I actually feel is necessary to worry about. But that’s because I should have explained something:

—This whole tournament idea is actually for a playtest. Aside from having a fun, quick-moving tournament, I’m trying to gather statistics from a large pool of players to see if there is any bias involved. The “bias” I’m talking about relates to my earlier vague reference that “turn order is important.”

In each five player game, there are five “colors,” each with their own situation on the board. My hope is that any innate advantages or disadvantages of being one color vs another color are outweighed by the much larger influence of the players themselves. After the tournament is over, my idea is to scramble the players and start over, as many times as possible to weed out any issues with the game’s balance. If there is any position in the turn order which is noticeably doing worse or better, it should eventually become evident.

The reason I’ve been putting “fair” in quotes is largely due to how ambiguous being “fair” is, given so many variables and human choices, strategies, and real-life motives. However, my objective is to make a balanced game rather than an objectively “fair” tourney. In order to gather at least somewhat accurate data, I am trying to lesson individual player influence to help make the bracket “fair,” at least on paper.

This whole “21 participant, 5-player” model that I’m so stubbornly adhering to was created by asking myself, “What’s the smallest number of games a participant could play and still get a chance at being each color (position in the turn order) and also facing every other participant?” Well, the answer is that each participant would have to play at least 5 games obviously, and since there would have to be 4 opponents in each of those games, there would be 20 opponents total plus the first guy (= 21).

So 21 is the smallest magic number for 5 player games. And it offers the unique distinction of only requiring opponents to see each other once (which, in my opinion, helps to lesson individual player influence over the data I desire). The next magic number for 5 player games is 42. Likewise, 7 is the first magic number for 3 player games, and 14, 21, etc. are the next ones.

The only reason to use larger “magic numbers” is to compensate for what @CWO-Marc has noted: even with all these stipulations, there are still many inconsistencies, as a 3 or 4 or 5 player game has groups of players than could potentially be switched around and manipulated to change results. But…as we’ve all come to conclude, it is also easy to just swap one player with another to get another valid matchup. So if I scramble the players after each tourney, I’ll get closer and closer to an accurate answer.

My hope is that the game is already “fair enough” to the point that skill level, luck, and matchups play a much larger role than the color (or rather, the place in the turn order) that each participant plays. As I’m sure some of you are probably thinking, there are easier ways to playtest with acceptable accuracy than to go to all this trouble building something around a “magic” number that was created through preset rules. But being the curious, stubborn person that I am, I want to solve it this way; it’s fascinating; it’s unique; and although it’s imperfect, it will work for me if it’s indeed possible.

The 3 player variant that you did some awesome number crunching with @aardvarkpepper is a very good frame with which to build an intense 7 player tournament with perhaps 21, or even 105 games if desired. The 4 player variant, which I’ve found several solutions for, was so enjoyable in playtesting, that we’ve already reused it several times. I must take the time to examine more in detail, aardvark, the way you solved the 3P version, as it might work better than everything I’ve tried so far.

@aardvarkpepper Now that you and Marc have talked through so many different aspects that I wasn’t even considering, I must admit, doing the tournament this way wasn’t necessary, and it’s far from being fool-proof. It’ll work, but as you guys pointed out, it doesn’t account for some variables or human choice.

But, my motivation (aside from having fun with everybody that’ll play) is definitely to research how biased the game might be. I’m concerned that there might be significant advantages or disadvantages to certain colors, and if there are, I hope to spot them and make adjustments. I’m thinking that the setup is already pretty well balanced, but I want to put everything to the test, because we’re not sure yet.

I really haven’t given much thought to any of the legal or marketing aspects of actually selling a game, so I’m glad you brought that up as well for me to seriously think about. And make no mistake, I appreciate every argument you’ve given. The mathematical relationships you discussed are part of what made solving this so easy. Your advice is always welcome and helpful.

If I ever think about hosting another tournament or convincing someone to accept the wacky house rules and games we come up with, I’ll be sure to read this thread again. But right now it looks like I’m ready to organize a tournament! So until we meet again, take care gentleman.

@cwo-marc I think I’ve been unintentionally making confusion by mumbling several things together —
playtesting the game itself
hosting a tournament
and figuring out the mathematical relationship I wanted

For the tournament, players would not get to determine their color or position in the turn order because I’m going to base it off of the chart I showed earlier. However, after playtesting, the final game should be just like Axis and Allies and most other games, in which players pick or agree on who plays what. So the game isn’t going to decide that for the players. I’m just arbitrarily choosing to do so to try to make a tournament for playtesting. My goal is to eventually have a game where all colors and places in the turn order are equally appealing.

Anyway, I don’t want to take any more of your time, but before you leave, I want to thank you for all the helpful questions and information you’ve shared! I knew I’d get some excellent advice from this forum.

@cwo-marc For the turn order, I would like to go back to the Axis and Allies analogy. In A&A depending on your place in the turn order, the nation that you’re playing changes. And that’s a big deal. Not because you’re going first, third, or last, but because of drastic differences between nations. With our game, it’s a similar scenario. Red is the last player that moves. But the fact that red goes last isn’t so much the issue. It’s the fact that being red gives the player a certain predetermined setup that no other color has. And if necessary, we could change that setup. Turn order, in and of itself, doesn’t play much role. Rather it’s who you’re playing with and what color you are. But indirectly, turn order does determine your color AND who moves before and after you, so it actually does play a big role in this setting.

Think of it like this. In Pacific 1940 the are five people. Let’s say I’m third in the turn order, so I’m China. If every game we play, China gets totally destroyed, even when Japan loses. We might want to consider giving China some more forces to help counter that. Now Axis and Allies is WAY more complicated and team-based, so that would indeed be a very simplistic way of doing this. But I hope that gives a better idea why turn order is important, because it isn’t just about when you get to play; it also determines what nation/color/or whatever that you get.

Now, to put another idea in A&A terms, let’s talk about “Bob” again. Let’s say that he was playing as China. And he complains that another guy, “Joe,” the UK player, never sent him any help through Burma, because maybe Joe is an adventurous guy trying to fight Japan in Java. So if Bob keeps getting Joe on his team, he might feel like he’s at a disadvantage, and more importantly, it might skew my data to make it look Bob is always losing and obscure the real problems, such as maybe China is too weak.

These are imperfect correlations, but I think it might explain a little better what I’m trying to say.

Success!

I hope I’m not crying wolf (I will double check later), but I believe I found a solve!

Thanks so much for your help gentlemen! Your ideas gave me an idea for a fun way to do this:

A more generic table can be created by making the top row “player 1 through player 21” and substituting likewise wherever the roundel or chip repeats. Each column represents a game, with position in the column determining turn order.

@cwo-marc You hit the nail right on the head. Fairness is definitely a quality that is largely based on opinion and perspective. Luckily, I don’t have anyone actually complaining to me that the game is unfair—I think most of the players are much more focused on tricking and influencing each other enough to claim a win—which is exactly what I’d expect (and maybe even encourage) in a free-for-all with 3, 4, or 5 people.

The main complaints I’ve gotten are more like, “Bob kept screwing me up because he moves right before I do.” That’s where the idea of only having to play against every opponent once came to mind, in an attempt to lessen some of the luck of the draw that’s involved.

As you may have noticed, I’ve been almost maintaining a bit of secrecy about what this game is, and that’s because it’s actually something unique we came up with. This is just me being hopeful and daydreaming, but I think the game may have market value, even if only in a digital format. There have been flaws, and we’ve been tweaking the setup try to fix that. I think the setup is at a decent standard now, but hosting these tournaments will give me a good idea of whether or not it needs more work.

I must say, I’m amazed at the depth of thought you and aardvark have explained in relation to what actually goes on in the minds of players in large competitions. I have been focusing so much on the math and given little thought to the amount of psychology involved in tactics and motivations. It’s something I’ll definitely try to consider more in any future tournaments where outside factors and real-life pressure can play a heavy role.

@aardvarkpepper Dang. To be frank, your story is a lot more philosophical in nature than I actually feel is necessary to worry about. But that’s because I should have explained something:

—This whole tournament idea is actually for a playtest. Aside from having a fun, quick-moving tournament, I’m trying to gather statistics from a large pool of players to see if there is any bias involved. The “bias” I’m talking about relates to my earlier vague reference that “turn order is important.”

In each five player game, there are five “colors,” each with their own situation on the board. My hope is that any innate advantages or disadvantages of being one color vs another color are outweighed by the much larger influence of the players themselves. After the tournament is over, my idea is to scramble the players and start over, as many times as possible to weed out any issues with the game’s balance. If there is any position in the turn order which is noticeably doing worse or better, it should eventually become evident.

The reason I’ve been putting “fair” in quotes is largely due to how ambiguous being “fair” is, given so many variables and human choices, strategies, and real-life motives. However, my objective is to make a balanced game rather than an objectively “fair” tourney. In order to gather at least somewhat accurate data, I am trying to lesson individual player influence to help make the bracket “fair,” at least on paper.

This whole “21 participant, 5-player” model that I’m so stubbornly adhering to was created by asking myself, “What’s the smallest number of games a participant could play and still get a chance at being each color (position in the turn order) and also facing every other participant?” Well, the answer is that each participant would have to play at least 5 games obviously, and since there would have to be 4 opponents in each of those games, there would be 20 opponents total plus the first guy (= 21).

So 21 is the smallest magic number for 5 player games. And it offers the unique distinction of only requiring opponents to see each other once (which, in my opinion, helps to lesson individual player influence over the data I desire). The next magic number for 5 player games is 42. Likewise, 7 is the first magic number for 3 player games, and 14, 21, etc. are the next ones.

The only reason to use larger “magic numbers” is to compensate for what @CWO-Marc has noted: even with all these stipulations, there are still many inconsistencies, as a 3 or 4 or 5 player game has groups of players than could potentially be switched around and manipulated to change results. But…as we’ve all come to conclude, it is also easy to just swap one player with another to get another valid matchup. So if I scramble the players after each tourney, I’ll get closer and closer to an accurate answer.

My hope is that the game is already “fair enough” to the point that skill level, luck, and matchups play a much larger role than the color (or rather, the place in the turn order) that each participant plays. As I’m sure some of you are probably thinking, there are easier ways to playtest with acceptable accuracy than to go to all this trouble building something around a “magic” number that was created through preset rules. But being the curious, stubborn person that I am, I want to solve it this way; it’s fascinating; it’s unique; and although it’s imperfect, it will work for me if it’s indeed possible.

The 3 player variant that you did some awesome number crunching with @aardvarkpepper is a very good frame with which to build an intense 7 player tournament with perhaps 21, or even 105 games if desired. The 4 player variant, which I’ve found several solutions for, was so enjoyable in playtesting, that we’ve already reused it several times. I must take the time to examine more in detail, aardvark, the way you solved the 3P version, as it might work better than everything I’ve tried so far.

@cwo-marc Now then, to address this beautiful system you’ve written, this is indeed the correct way to go about making the bracket. I would have never been able to explain it so informatively as you just did, but yes, this is what I’ve tried to do to create the 5-player, 21-participant version.

As you found, there are actually several ways to solve the 3-player, 7-participant version. I can attest that there are also at least 3 ways to solve the 4-player, 13 participant version as well.

I’ve tried methods very similar to what you just wrote out, and it does work. But as redrum pointed out, it becomes increasingly hard for a simple human like me to work out, because the possibilities explode greatly at 5 players and above to the point of madness.

I’ll continue diligently working on at least finding ways that DON’T work for the 5-player, 21-participant bracket. So far, by process of elimination, just like the beautiful model you wrote out here, I’ve tried many,many matchups, but they all have thus far failed. Your supposition that there probably IS at least one “solve” does give me hope, as I believe all these failures I’ve faced are purely a result of the enormous possibilities 21 players give.

Again, I’d like to thank you Marc and everyone else for giving me these ideas to consider, as I now have many good tools for working on this further.

…I just hope many crazy comrades don’t ever think of a 6-player version of our game, because I’ll probably end up losing my wits trying to solve it.

@cwo-marc I believe you’ve already solved your questions, but just to be sure, I’ll briefly answer them for clarity to everyone.

1. The answer is yes. Player A is only allowed to see Player B once. “Once” refers to certain individuals rather than combinations of individuals.
2. A different opponent is defined by who is playing. Player B is still Player B regardless of his position in the turn order.
3. Yes. Turn order is similar to Axis & Allies in which it defines a person’s place and affiliation on the board.
4. For this answer, I’d first like to say that it does NOT affect anything else. So don’t consider these numbers in calculations. However, to answer the question, there are typically 11 rounds (it can change because players can get skipped if they have no valid moves). There are almost always 54 moves (turns) total (unless the last move is an invalid one for everybody). By nature of the game, the fifth player typically only gets 10 moves while everyone else gets 11. (11*4 + 10 = 54)
5. This concept was created for overall fun (in a relatively small group of 21 people, it’s fun to get to “fight” against everybody) but more importantly, to ensure overall fairness. Since it’s a 5 player game rather than a 1vs1, luck plays a huge factor, as there is much that goes on out of your control while the 4 other players take their turns. Also, this isn’t just about winners and losers. Players will strive to “win second place” or do their best regardless, because after the 21 games are played, each participant receives points for where they placed in each game (4 points for a win, 3 for 2nd, 2 for 3rd, 1 for 4th, and 0 for fifth).

@redrum Now that I think about it, that’s actually very close to what I’ve tried doing in MS Excel. The 3 and 4 player versions were easy enough, but 5 is giving me a hard time.

Just for some interest, here’s a snapshot of part of the “solved” bracket for the 4 player, 13 participant version.

@cwo-marc Thanks for the excellent thoughts. You always give good insight.

Something I should have mentioned that might make this sound a bit more reasonable is that this tournament bracket isn’t being made for Axis and Allies. It’s just a five player game in which turn order plays a big role (going first vs going last is drastically different, almost like playing a different nation in A&A). Also, the game is “free-for-all,” meaning players can legitimately team up and matches can be easily lost because an amateur “threw” the game—this is why it’s so important that participants only face each other once.

The “21” model was created simply because it’s the smallest possible bracket for a five-player game that could offer a player a chance to go first, second, third, fourth, and last–AND only see each opponent once.

You might be wondering why “only seeing an opponent once” is so important to me. In this game, there are five competing players that strive to eliminate opponent’s pieces. It is very well possible for someone to be eliminated entirely in the first few rounds of the game. As you gentleman might remember, I entertain a bunch of goofy kids and am practically still one myself. It’s not uncommon for an experienced veteran to get “bullied” by even just 1 silly opponent who goes out of his way to destroy the threat of a skilled player early on by focusing only on him (much to the harm of both players).

The “21” model is the smallest logical number (for a 5-player game) that is “fair” in my group. The extra stipulations are there to give everyone an even chance without too much luck being involved.