Hey all!

Been away from the forums for a little while, life seems to get in the way :)

I’m getting that itch to finally paint my units, and am hoping for a bit of help here.

Does anyone have any good painting tutorials/tips/etc.? I’m asking anything from the specific brand and colors of paint to use for each army/unit, to different techniques to getting this done!

I’m hoping to get a lot painted. I’m talking all major powers, with some minor/neutral powers done too. Would love to have Canadian, South African, Greek, Finnish, etc. all looking awesome on the board. As well as desert, jungle, European, winter, etc. schemes for armies.

I suppose of biggest concern would be getting the right colors! If anyone has any tips on any of this, all would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Chris

@mrgoatcheese

Interesting though. I’ve long thought about similar rules for minor nations. Have a sliding scale of who would join what alliance. It’s not unlike HBG’s expansion rule for diplomacy, I’ve just thought about this for a couple years haha.

Yeah, have a scale, say 1-20. Strict neutrals start in the middle, others who may favor one side or the other start closer to who they favor (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary closer to the Axis at 20; Netherlands, Greece, etc. closer to the Allies at 0). Different factors cause nations to slide one way or the other. Money lent, other neutrals being attacked, etc.

What I thought would be fun was to do similar to what you’re discussing. Have one of the ways they slide be major battles. Let’s say Romania has joined the Axis. They can still slide back to neutral status if things go wrong. If the Romanian’s lose more than 8 units in a single battle, for example, that might be bad for morale on the home front, so they slide down one towards the neutral scale. Maybe the USSR gets closer to their border, it would slide down again, etc.

Interesting, you say all units will cost the same in V3? I kind of liked that some countries had advantages over others in different costs.

Hey all,

I’ve played AA for a long time and, as many others on here, find 1940 to be awesome. Most of our games almost always have consisted of my dad, brother, and myself over the years. The play is something that, I wouldn’t call predictable, but you of course don’t see as many different things happen with different/experienced players. While I usually win regardless of which side I am, that’s certainly more of a reason for a lack of diversity in players I am sure.

Point being, we haven’t ever done a whole ton of HR’s, though they are something I’ve always wanted to do, though my dad is a bit hesitant on change in these games. As I’ve read posts here over time and see that the general consensus is that the Axis is too strong. While I would love to add HR’s to add Canada (and South Africa), Axis minors, paratroopers, etc., there is certainly a lot of balancing to take into consideration. While it may work for my own HR’s (because of that lack of difference in playing styles I pointed out), I’m trying to think of ways to try and evenly balance everyone’s games in this community at large. One thought I have on that is adding Vichy France rules.

• When the France and Normandy/Bordeaux territories are overrun, the Vichy regime is set up. The territories of Southern France, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, and French Indo China become Vichy controlled, as well as the units on them and the naval forces in sea zone 93. The remaining French territories and units are considered Free French.

• Vichy France gets it’s small income of 9 IPC’s to produce units in Southern France, while a Free French government is set up in London, using the remaining 4 IPC’s of French territory. Germany is still allowed to build units in Southern France, but the combined German/Vichy French forces can still not exceed the production amount (this is to allow Germany to build a navy in the Mediterranean still if they chose without having to build a minor in Yugoslavia if they don’t want to).

• European Axis units are not allowed to enter Vichy French territories. They are only allowed to do so once an Allied invasion of North Africa happens (or we can just say once Allied units enter a Vichy French territory). Historically, the Vichy French government/cooperation with the Axis was very shaky, and Hitler did everything he could to make sure this wasn’t disrupted, for fear of the Vichy government turning on him. Mussolini wanted to take control of French North Africa, but Hitler would not allow it for fear of angering Vichy into war. It took a lot of diplomacy to get Vichy to agree to stage the Luftwaffe in Syria, which was only thwarted by a small, but difficult invasion by the Middle East Command.

• The Japanese are still allowed to invade French Indo China as they normally are without any political repercussions. Historically, Japan was feeling pretty big about their Axis partners defeating France and wanted to get their share of the pie. They waltzed right into French Indo China and staged units there, essentially saying they had no choice as a defeated power to Japan’s ally Germany. This ended up a huge and important staging ground for Japanese units in the invasion of Malaya and Burma later on.

• When the Allies attack, they roll a dice to see what the Vichy forces in that territory will do. On a role of 1-2 the Vichy forces will fight the Allied landing. On a 3-6 they refuse to fight and join the Allied side (this can be change to 1-3, and 4-6 if the odds don’t seem fair). Historically, neither side had much of an idea how Vichy units would react when Operation Torch (the American invasion of North Africa) commenced. Some were certain the French army would refuse to fight, but the French Navy was seen as more sympathetic to the Axis cause. Each time the Allies move into a Vichy territory this same sequence is done.

• After the Allied landings the Axis are free to move in as they please, though it will be an act of war against the Vichy government and would have to fight as they normally would against them. So the Axis has the choice of hoping the Vichy units will stay on their side and fight the Allies, or chose to not risk it and attack to keep the ground.

I feel that this generally will not help the Axis, and potentially balances out a bit. Germany and Italy loose out on the potential money of the Vichy French territories. Even though they don’t need to risk the units to kill the French, thus preserving some forces, they also don’t get that money and also don’t know for certain what the Vichy units will do once the Allies invade. They also won’t have the same kind of defenses set up to stop a Torch invasion because of it.

This also allows the extra 4 IPC’s of French money to be put to use for the Allies under the Free French government, instead of wasting in purgatory waiting for the Axis to take them or Paris to be liberated.

I understand this takes away an Italian NO in not allowing them to take control of the French North African territories. This either further balances the game against the Axis, or another NO can be featured for them. Perhaps +5 IPC’s for the Axis holding Malta, Crete, and Cyprus.

Again, I’m more just spouting ideas out to see if anyone thinks this will help with balance. Too much in favor of the Allies? Just trying to think of ways to not have to include a bid. Please let me know what you think, I’d love to see. Brutal honesty is appreciated if you just hate the idea.

Happy Gaming,

Chris

When it comes to planes in this game, I tend to want to lean more towards a bit more historical realism. By that I mean, high level bombing/carpet bombing in WW2 was, by and large, extremely ineffective. And I don’t think should be amplified in game.

Yes, I’m sure everyone can hunt and pick some select instances of successful high level bombing against military formations (as opposed to stagnant facilities/cities). But overall, this was an extremely low efficiency attack. There’s a reason dive bombers/tactical bombers came into existence and heavy use in WW2. For example, I believe at Midway and the Coral Sea, B-17’s were found to have hit 1% of their targets. They were quickly considered not very suitable for that type of warfare.

The problem with high level bombing against targets like this is/was because the targets move. It was extremely hard to actually hit a moving target from the altitudes these heavier bombers were flying at. Hell, it was really hard for them to hit facilities/cities as well from that high even, and they weren’t even moving! The wind that high up comes in to play as well.

I personally struggle to even allow heavy bombers to carpet bomb units in game, if I’m being honest. I know from a game-play perspective it’s more fun to give them more options, but in historical context, it was not the overall norm for a heavy bomber to try and target units as opposed to buildings. Again, I know there’s individual circumstances where this happened. But in the grand scheme of the war on a game of this scale, I struggle to see how that can be shown in game with how little effectiveness it actually had!

To me, having Tactical bombers have target select already simulates pretty perfectly the abilities of planes to hit specific targets, but that might just be me! I think allowing medium bombers something like this maybe would make more sense, but not anything larger than that!

@captainnapalm I guess to me this is the rule:

“Movement: All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules.”

That part of the movement section just says that it happens during movement, period, and doesn’t specify during combat movement. The sentence after that is just expounding on the fact that blitzing is a specific thing of it’s own and couldn’t be allowed either, but as a part to the wider rule of the terrain rule that encompasses all type of movement, combat or non-combat.

@generalhandgrenade I’m simply pointing out it’s understandable how this question was asked. It’s nothing to take personal, as I’m not attacking anyone’s knowledge of the game or anything. It’s not a secret to players that the rule book has a lot of questions that arise from it with assumptions and ambiguities written in, and HBG has said multiple times they appreciate feedback to be able to clarify the rules (as is evidenced by a running 9-page errata). I’ve seen rules way more clear cut than this get clarification errata’s haha. I won’t argue the point anymore here, as my goal isn’t to make back and forth arguments. A question was asked, and it’s a pretty simple assumption to make that the OP isn’t the only one asking the question as they play. I’m frankly surprised a simple clarification suggestion has been met with this much hostility. I would think a clarification would be welcome for players and not met combatively, but I guess not.

Anyways, on to other posts :)

Thanks for the feedback Argothair. Best way to make things matter is to bounce ideas off each other!

Sorry in advance, I meant to/should have been more clear in my original post on a few of your questions.

@Argothair:

1. What does it mean for the Free French to have “a government set up in London?” Can they build units there? If Germany occupies London, do they loot the Free French treasury? With 4 IPCs / turn in London, will any new Free French recruited during the game typically do anything other than garrison London? It seems like it’s hardly worth a pair of British transports and an escort to get, e.g., 2 French inf + 2 French art into the action, because they can’t attack jointly with the British, but on the other hand if you save up for a French transport and French escort, then you’re talking turn 10+ before the Free French start landing troops on the front lines.

Should have been more clear on the Free French. Yes, I meant that they would be able to build units from London. I think it would be fair to also have Germany loot their treasury in the fall of London as well. You’re right, 4 IPC’s a turn isn’t much. But if you wait two turns, get 8 IPC’s and build a transport, it’s only one move to French West Africa with the naval base, from where you could further support the Allied effort in Africa. It’s not much, but the way I see it those 4 IPC’s wouldn’t be used otherwise unless taken by the Axis and retaken by the Allies. Couple extra infantry or mec, etc. once every couple of turns couple potentially help in the defense of Egypt, or at least help blunt a potential breakthrough of Italians if they take Egypt.

@Argothair:

2. What happens to the French navy?

I meant to answer this above, maybe I forgot. The French navy in SZ 93 would become Vichy, the destroyer in SZ 72 and the navy in the Channel stay Free French (thought the channel navy is probably dead).

@Argothair:

3. What happens if Germany (or Italy) invades and conquers Southern France before invading Normandy, or, for that matter, before invading Paris?

This was the question I thought would come up. To make Southern France the Vichy capital it could be similar to the liberation of Paris by the Allies. Once Paris falls to the Axis, the earlier mentioned Vichy territories revert back to Vichy control if they were in Axis hands before. So they could take Southern France if they wanted, but it would fall back to Vichy. This one could certainly be tweaked, but could work.

@Argothair:

4. Even if the Vichy troops stay loyal 50% of the time, i.e., on a roll of 3 or less, why would Germany bother to build them? Wouldn’t Germany be just as happy leaving southern France empty?

This can be answered two ways I think. 1) The French player controls both Free French and Vichy forces, Vichy can’t do anything anyways, and France just needs to do what makes the most sense for the defense of French territory, or both sides could decide together what is fair to build. 2) You let the German player decide, and you’re right, they could decide to not use the money, but then that’s still 9 IPC’s (7 if we just assumed Japan takes French Indo China) a turn that won’t get used for anything at all. Germany could decide that’s the best course of action, or take the gamble that the units will fight for them.

@Argothair:

5. Do you really want to make it impossible for Hitler to invade France before the Allies land in Morocco? What if the Allies ignore north Africa – is Germany just stuck with a whole bunch of neutralish French territory on his doorstep for the entire game?

I must have worded that wrong. I didn’t mean the Hitler couldn’t invade France. They still take Paris and Normandy G1, but after that and there’s a Vichy government the rest is generally an ally. This is very true that the Allies could just bypass North Africa and you’re right, Germany would be stuck with neutrals. But that money still wouldn’t be used against them any way at least. We could add that once the Allies attempt any landing in Europe the Axis can have the right to decide to attack Vichy territories or not. If they want the money badly enough at that point they’ll do it. Or if they like the security of North Africa being untouched they can do that.

@Argothair:

6. Have you tested the impact of Vichy on Sea Lion? Does Germany wind up with noticeably more troops in Normandy that can be used to invade London on G2/G3, or is Sea Lion still balanced?

We admittedly don’t have a ton of Sea Lion attempts in our games, but have tried it. True, a few less German troops have died by not taking Southern France (if any). But you’re also taking 7/9 IPC’s away from the Axis treasury each turn that would maybe normally be spent building two INF a turn to help defend on the eastern front while Sea Lion is attempted. Add in the 4 IPC’s of the Free French in London, and there’s an extra Allied INF a turn in London to help defend as well. Seems like kind of a wash to me, though would have to be tested more to see.

Hopefully those answers make sense. But again, the input is appreciated. The crux of it is that there’s an 11 IPC/turn swing (+4 to the Allies, -7 to the Axis), as well as the unknown of what Vichy units might do when presented with combat.

I’ve looked at these so many times over the last couple years. Just had to finally post and say how incredibly awed I am at your guys’ work. The detail done. The color schemes, everything. Just incredible.

I’ve recently decided it’s high time I paint my own units. I’m going to be so incredibly happy with anything 10% as good as what you have here, so I can only fathom how you guys feel playing with these!

Just wanted to come here and say congrats and a huge thank you to @djensen! You’ve done so much to keep this site going, and I think we all know and appreciate that!

I’m realizing there’s conflicting information for colonial troops for the UK and French. Hoping someone here has an answer!

Under the “Great Britain Special Abilities” section on their reference card, it states:

 Colonial Infantry: The British may build colonial units any of its Colonies (British starting
territories that are not part of the Home Country). These units are regular infantry and can
move and attack. No factory is required to build these units. Britain may build a total of two
infantry per turn. The zone they are built in must have a point value.

Bold added by me. This pretty clearly says they can build two per turn.

But then, under the “Specialist Inf” section of the reference card for Colonial Infantry, the Build limit section says:

Can be built without a factory and can move.
Build 1 per turn. Maximum 1 per territory.

Again, bold added by me. This clearly says 1 per turn.

Of note, the French reference sheet does not have this same discrepancy. Seems pretty clear on that one that it’s one per turn.

Anyone know what the superseding rule should be for colonials? One or two a turn?

Thanks,

Chris

@SuperbattleshipYamato Thanks for this!

@Krieghund Thanks for that! I must have just overlooked in the rules. And yes, I do have the new rulebook from Renegade. Thanks again!

Not saying these are at all perfect, but I posted about some potential Vichy house rules for 1940 a while back as well! Just thought I’d share here in case it sparks anything for you as well or anything to go along with your own!

I explain my thoughts in this post, but my hope was to avoid any massive deviations to the standard A&A game play. By that I mean, I didn’t want to go crazy adding or changing a ton of specific rules or anything that exist in the game already.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26099/vichy-france-global-1940?_=1688593330283

Sorry if any of these have been asked and answered elsewhere (and also if these are obvious and I just missed in the rules), I didn’t notice any threads on this so thought I’d come here. I had a few clarifying questions on amphibious assaults I wouldn’t mind having cleared up!

• For the artillery bombardment that gets to happen from defending artillery units on amphibiously assaulting units, is that on top of their regular defense, or in lieu of? So for example, if I have 2 artillery defending, do they get their 2 shots at the amphibiously assaulting units at the beginning of the phase, and then also their standard defensive roles as well? I wasn’t sure if the initial bombardment replaced the defensive roll entirely, almost serving like a first strike with subs in other A&A games.

• Do fighters have any negative impacts when joining an amphibious assault? I know tanks don’t get their special attack ability when amphibiously assaulting, but I wasn’t sure if fighters had the same negative affect (i.e. do they help with aerial superiority and/or do they get strafing shots)? I had thought I’d read it in the rules, but when we ran into this in the game I couldn’t find it again. Quite possibly I was totally misremembering what I read, but thought I’d ask for clarification!

• I’ll use the actual game example here for ease. The UK amphibiously assaulted Kiel. The naval base there of course allowed for the use of mines. After the initial attack, Kiel was contested. If on the UK’s next turn they want to send their transports back to London, pick up more troops, and land them in the contested zone of Kiel again, do the Germans get another round of mine attacks? I wasn’t sure if the territory being contested made this not possible.

Thanks in advance!

Thanks guys! Yeah, haven’t gotten a chance to finish the game yet, but I’m definitely seeing spots where I could have done better as the CP already. I watched some of The Good Captains videos like you said, and I most definitely misplayed the CP navies right away at the very least!

@superbattleshipyamato Thanks, I’ll check those videos by him out!

Yeah, I’d agree with you on the turn length in time, a year is probably about right. Goes to the point of waiting until turn three a bit late in my opinion if house ruling for historical accuracy.

Sorry for replying to an older thread here! I just got a copy of 1914 with the Renegade Studios release, and we started and almost finished our first game just yesterday.

I’d first say I’ve really enjoyed the game! I’m a massive fan of the larger games (1940 and Global War), but it’s fun to have a game like this that can more or less be finished in a single day when there isn’t maybe time for the larger ones!

I too was struck immediately by Italy being a belligerent nation from the beginning of the game. Unless I’ve misunderstood at times, the general consensus is that it’s awfully hard for the Central Powers to win I think? That could give credence to a small change with Italy as well. I know I typically don’t like to make massive changes to rules and setups, so a delayed entry by Italy could be very intriguing.

I have a couple questions on your proposals though, and I’m curious how they’ve played out for you.

1. My initial thought is that waiting until turn 3 for Italy to join the game is far too late. My largest reasoning for saying that is because the US enters on turn 4. If your reasoning is historical, I don’t think a single turn is fairly representing the two years in between Italy and the US joining the war historically, when the preceding 3 turns encompass less than a year between the historic start of the war and Italy joining. So my real question is, what about delaying Italy only a single turn? Does that present any real changes you think?

2. My other big notice from what you said is not allowing Italy to purchase any units until such time as they enter the war. I get in some ways why this might be needed to avoid just having them be as strong as they might have otherwise. But how are you justifying allowing the USA to purchase units every turn until they join, while not allowing Italy to? Again, I mostly don’t like making too picky of nation-specific rules like that (i.e. if not allowing one neutral country to purchase units, then no neutral country should be allowed to purchase units, etc.).

Curious on your thoughts! Still learning this one of course, so I’m super curious!

Just wanted to come here for an update. I just received my copy of the 1914 reprint this morning, and it looks fantastic. I’d signed up for the pre-order, but I think they’d initially given an August release date. So if I’m remembering correctly, they were ahead of the game there. Hopefully anyone who didn’t pre-order will get their games soon too! Came pretty well packaged, and everything looks great. I haven’t taken inventory yet, but the eye test makes me think there’s plenty of chips and German infantry (both key complaints from the original run, if I understood properly). Excited to get this one on the table to play!

@thrasher1 I totally agree with you here. Would be awesome to have some of that done and incorporated. I think the potentially tricky thing that I’ll be curious to see is how to implement things like this while still keeping the rules/feel of the game A&A at its core. I say that from the lenses of the developers, as I have to imagine that’s going to be on the forefront of their minds as they design. You can’t stray too far from what A&A is and still call it A&A, so it just makes me wonder how “convoluted” they may go to showcase some of this. Again, I certainly hope they do, but will just be interesting to see how it’s all implemented!

We had long ago made some Vichy rules for our 1940 games that were pretty simple so that we didn’t stray too far from the parameters of the A&A rules!

@superbattleshipyamato Oh absolutely. I’ll be curious if in a game like this the French are somehow worked in, or if they’ll just make the French African territories Axis for the sake of game play. Definitely a lot in this campaign that’ll need to be looked at!