@Argothair:

I’m not really clear on how your rules would work – someone is rolling a die to get bonus cash? Who? When? How much cash? Do the Republican / Nationalist sides of the civil war have any starting forces, or are they entirely donated by the patrons? Does Spain always end the civil war with an army of exactly 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk no matter how stalemated or one-sided the civil war was? Given that control of Spain is apparently worth something like 19 IPCs in units plus 3 IPCs per turn in income, plus control of a tactically useful forward base, is there any reason why each side wouldn’t donate the maximum allowable amount?

All of that said, 1939 scenarios are tricky because they make it really hard for the Axis to win – the general consensus among historian types is that the Allies could have won the war quickly, easily, and decisively if England and France and Poland (let alone Russia!) had all made a coordinated attack on Germany before Germany had a chance to plunder half of Europe. So you need some mechanics that either stop the Allies from attacking or stop them from coordinating their attacks; otherwise the Axis get blown away. You also need to find a way to nerf the American economy so that the Americans don’t have 4 years of massive spending to prepare for a 1943 invasion, or the endgame also becomes an easy Allied victory.

I think the overall tendency of introducing the Spanish Civil War is to further advantage the Allies, because it provides yet another potential beachhead that the Germans need to defend. Let’s say the Allies invest nothing in Spain, the Axis contribute about 3 infantry, and so now the Axis are basically guaranteed to win the Spanish Civil War and will wind up with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk plus an income boost of 3 IPCs per turn. Well, the 1 art + 1 tnk gets used up real fast, and then it’s not obvious that 3 IPC per turn is enough to pay for an effective garrison of an additional high-value territory near Berlin/Rome. If the Soviets get control of Spain and Italy or whoever has to waste resources invading it, well, that’s that much worse for the Axis.

None of this is to say that you can’t or shouldn’t have a Spanish Civil War in your 1939 scenario, just that you have to be careful about it. Be careful not to advantage the Allies too much, is my advice.

“Someone is rolling a die to get bonus cash? Who? When? How much cash?” Yes, in a 2 player game the Axis player and Allies player rolls a die. In games exceeding 2 players, the Italy Player and the Russian Player roll the die for their respective side. Neither side has starting forces and their units can only be received through the die roll and donations. The amount of cash earned is the number on the die.

“Does Spain always end the civil war with an army of exactly 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk no matter how stalemated or one-sided the civil war was?” Yes Spain always begins with that much but the Iberian peninsula itself has been split up into multiple territories.

“Given that control of Spain is apparently worth something like 19 IPCs in units plus 3 IPCs per turn in income, plus control of a tactically useful forward base, is there any reason why each side wouldn’t donate the maximum allowable amount?” Yes, the lack of IPCs to do so in the first turn or finding a better use for the IPCs.

Now I understand 1939 is hard for the Axis to win, which is why I’ve taken liberties here and there and added rules (Such as politics, neutrality, and ways to sap money from the Allies). I believe had I introduced this with my entire 1939 scenario, a lot of your question would have been cleared up. Also going back to liberties and realism please reread the first sentence I’ve added as a disclaimer “This isn’t realistic”. I see Axis and Allies as more of a game with history theme rather than an accurate history simulator. This isn’t to say that I’m not grateful for your feedback (Which I am) but I would like you know 2 things

1: I prioritize fairness and fun over realism

2: I did not explain everything and things that would balance your suggested issues.

If you would like I could begin a thread explaining my whole game and then later on we could revisit this and see my idea with a new Point of View.

This isn’t realistic (to all the people that always get on me for realism). I understand what does and doesn’t make sense and why certain things happened. I just wanted to make a fun little rule that adds a bit of flavor as well as making a territory not useless.

I had a cool idea that ties into a custom version of Axis and Allies that I’m making. My friend and I are making a 1939 scenario and we are incorporating the tail end of the Spanish Civil War. What we have is that during their purchase units phase, each nation can either donate 1 ground unit, or 4 IPCs to their respective sides of the Civil War. The Axis support Nationalist Spain, and the Allies support Republican Spain. Then, both sides use whatever money they may have to purchase units. Only after this they roll a die to see how much bonus cash they get and once more buy units. Since Anniversary’s scale is smaller than 1940’s, its just an immediate combat that takes place. The winning side “gets” Spain. Spain is worth 3 IPCs and has 3 Infantry, 1 Tank, and 1 Artillery. If Nationalist Spain wins, then Italy gets to annex Spain. If Republican Spain wins, then the U.S.S.R gets to annex Spain. How do you guys think balancing works out?

@Argothair:

Well, I’m not a stickler for perfect detail; I just think mechanics in the game should correspond roughly to what they’re meant to thematically represent, because that makes the game more entertaining and easier to ‘model’ in your head…instead of having to memorize hundreds of rules, you can just apply a bit of common sense. Can I strategically bomb this factory even though it’s guarded by thirty fighter planes? I might not remember the exact interceptor rules, but I can still be pretty sure that it’s a bad idea. If you make the pieces shaped like bombers represent horse cavalry, and you make the pieces shaped like destroyers represent minefields, then common sense stops being useful, and every rule has to be tediously memorized. A little bit of unrealism (especially oversimplification) for better game play is perfectly acceptable, but we shouldn’t be totally cavalier about accepting unnecessary unrealism. Or, at least, that’s my opinion.

With that in mind, allowing players to manufacture tanks and planes in what would today be modern-day Chad or Sierra Leone or Yakutsk or Bali strikes me as very unnecessary unrealism. Those places still can’t build planes today, 75 years later.

As far as breaking the game, I think other commenters have already pointed out the downsides better than I could – the Japanese would be able to easily recruit reinforcements in western China and/or central Asia, which would make a mockery of the carefully crafted supply line difficulties in that region. The whole point of the Japan-China war is that Japan has better technology (tanks, planes, etc.) and initially superior numbers, but Japan has trouble pressing its advantage because as Japan eats up Chinese territory, it gets increasingly far from a source of reinforcements and loses its flexibility. Meanwhile, the Chinese are constantly hemorrhaging units, but they can deploy what units they do have literally in any of their territories. That’s an interesting asymmetry that gets flattened by the new rule about micro-factories.

You get similar problems for the British in central Africa (it’s interesting that the British have to figure out how to ship troops north from the naval base and minor factory at South Africa and have trouble penetrating deep inland; drop a micro-factory in the Congo and all of a sudden that interest is gone), for the Germans in Scandinavia after the Baltic Fleet gets sunk (it’s not worth defending Norway with a whole minor factory, but on the other hand if you leave Norway without any defenses then the Americans can easily pick it off with one transport and make a huge profit by denying the German NO), or for Japan in Western Australia (normally ANZAC can fight on for a while against a modest Japanese landing because Australia is so far from Tokyo, but if Australia has been kicked out of the money islands and Japan gets any toehold at all, then Japan can build micro-factories in every Australian territory it conquers and snowball its way into Sydney, meaning that a minor ANZAC defeat automatically becomes a total ANZAC defeat, which is less interesting).

Okay, I’m convinced. I must have not seen the repercussions that this had. Thanks for pointing them out Argothair!

@Argothair:

I like this idea, but the board is not really made for it.

General De Gaulle nailed it here – having a third tier of factories would be really interesting, but most of the map isn’t designed with a third tier of countries in mind. In Soviet Russia, there are some obviously plausible “tertiary” factory sites like Vladivostok, Vologda, Archangel, Chelyabinsk, Perm, and Kazakh, all of which had notable concentrations of heavy industry in the 1940s…but these are all worth the same 1 IPC as completely ridiculous locations like Sakha or Nenetsia that couldn’t manufacture even one squadron of airplanes if they broke the local economy trying to do it.

Same thing in Africa – the idea of having the Gold Coast or French Central Africa pump out combat-worthy tanks is just laughable; these places couldn’t even manufacture sliced bread in the 1940s. On the other hand, Rhodesia or Ethiopia probably could have managed it. They’re all worth the same 1 IPC.

Same thing in the Pacific – there’s no industry or even enough locals to recruit on Iwo Jima, which is worth 1 IPC, but you could have easily recruited a few infantry regiments and equipped them with locally sourced rifles in, e.g., New Guinea, which is worth 0 IPCs.

So I think you either need a totally custom map, or you need some other way of extending the unit roster for production centers. I favor the “training camp,” which might also cost about 7 IPCs, but where you can recruit up to 2 infantry (only) per turn, and no other units. This helps get at the idea that you can set up a recruiting station just about anywhere, even if there’s no industry to speak of, because rifles are lightweight and easy to ship or haul across a continent – but you can only manufacture tanks and planes in genuine industrial centers that were built up at least a little bit before the war started.

But at the end of the day, so much of the game is unrealistic. Why bother getting it down to the very last detail when there are other aforementioned inaccuracies such as Siberian territories being worth as much as they are. You didn’t mention once how it would break the game, only how unrealistic it is.

@Combat:

we call them Recruitment Centers.  This picture is of one I put a red-cross flag on to represent a hospital.  I sell them at my shapeways store.  https://www.shapeways.com/shops/war-game-miniatures

I really like the name of your factory, and the complexes look nice too!  Do I have your permission to call them Recruitment Centers as well?

@Charles:

This has some very serious implications:
All of eastern Russia and China will become easy places for Japan to build up.
Soviets can be building in the east.
The big Pacific islands that Japan usually takes can be easily reinforced from within.
An invasion of Australia is more realistic because micros can be built in the west.
The U.S. will be building micros just about wherever it can (North Africa, Hawaii, Iwo Jima).
Africa in general becomes a factory haven.

I like this idea, but the board is not really made for it.

Would you say so? It sounds to me like there aren’t enough IPCs to make what you claim a reality. Even if there is, it doesn’t sound like to leans towards one side anyway.

I had this cool idea where there would be another type of factory called a Micro Complex. Its a step lower than even a Minor Complex. It can produce 1 unit per turn and costs 7 IPCs to produce. The only placement rule is that the territory you put it in must have a value of at least 1. You can upgrade a Micro to a Minor for 8 IPCs.

Moderator’s edit: Added tag [Global 1940] to title.

Thanks GHG for clearing it all up. It seems he’s right. To answer the question of where I live, well, I’d rather not.

I could not find a fitting place to discuss this so please point me to a better page if you find one. I apologize in advance

What’s up with HBG and their shipping prices lately? I was planning on buying some things from them (All 4 of Global’s board and the GW Manchukuo expansion to be specific) and it seems that their shipping prices have skyrocketed since I last bought from them. It was $28 for something that should’ve been $29.50, totaling to $57.95. Does anyone know why? I added other things in my cart and tried all sorts of combinations but its still $28. When I add a single infantry to my cart (Which is $0.75) it was $8.10 for shipping.

If I’m being honest, I’m against it, however I would like to see other people’s opinions on it as well