• '17 '16

    Der Kunstler’s thread on changing Aircraft cost and values to get more on board and a more historical depiction due to TcBomber intro.
    Rethinking Air Units
    October 04, 2014, 09:44:08 am to Reply #81 on: October 27, 2014, 06:23:43 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34502.msg1328356#msg1328356

    An Aequitas et veritas’ thread exploring various TcB combat values and discussing which kind of planes it figures and how it was use in WWII tactics. A must to learn more about comparison between Fighter and Tactical Bomber.
    Tactical Bombers and their use
    March 11, 2014, 10:58:20 am to Reply #120 on: May 16, 2014, 11:18:26 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1258795#msg1258795

    On Tactical Bomber, a debate around YG critics of TcB loophole in SBR.
    Re: The Cliffside Bunker House Rules
    Reply #16 on: April 28, 2016, 06:05:24 pm  to  Reply #28 on: July 31, 2016, 10:53:21 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37848.msg1534439#msg1534439

  • '17 '16

    On air to air combat HRs, firsts thread of many to find:

    Another simplified dogfight with 3 planes-Carrier and SBR House Rule for 1942.2
    April 07, 2015, 07:25:28 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35676.msg1396139#msg1396139

    4 ways to play aircrafts dogfighting inside G40 or 1942.2 ?
    November 26, 2014, 09:17:43 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34875.msg1351379#msg1351379

    Many ways of figurating air-to-air combat in general combat
    October 07, 2014, 07:08:58 pm to Reply #2 on: October 08, 2014, 03:32:38 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34535.msg1330307#msg1330307

    Up-to-date best version developped a simple roll “1” and hit a plane system for 1942.2
    Last post introduces variant: 3 planes Carrier Fg A2 D2 M4 C7, hit planes first.
    The thread also included some Charts to judge the worthiness of different SBR HRs values:
    A simplified dogfight and SBR House Rule for 1942 2nd Edition
    September 04, 2014, 04:56:57 pm to Reply #10 on: April 07, 2015, 07:16:46 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34227.msg1317357#msg1317357

    Baron’s work in progress:
    The first post contains links to other same topic threads.
    Alternate 3 planes Carrier, Air oriented for G40 or 1942.2 with TacBs
    October 28, 2014, 06:44:42 pm to Reply #31 on: January 19, 2015, 08:14:33 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34676.msg1338630#msg1338630

    Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat: 2 planes carrier
    October 27, 2014, 06:04:56 am to Reply #8 on: March 10, 2015, 07:22:52 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

    Alternate Air combat in OOB G40 with 2 planes Carrier, 1942.1 and 1942.2
    March 18, 2014, 04:14:56 pm to Reply #8 on: March 23, 2014, 04:36:37 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33229.msg1262270#msg1262270

    Improved historicity of Fighters G40 SBR escort, interception & Night bombing
    March 15, 2014, 11:28:33 am to Reply #1 on: May 20, 2014, 11:13:06 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33210.msg1260829#msg1260829

    Dogfighting in 1914 version of G40 & SBR escort and interception
    March 14, 2014, 02:29:19 pm to Reply #12 on: March 17, 2014, 07:01:27 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33205.msg1260685#msg1260685

    Adapting A&A1914 rules for G40
    December 23, 2013, 07:46:00 am to Reply #72 on: March 15, 2014, 11:57:41 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32599.msg1229035#msg1229035

    An offspring from Uncrustable Enhanced Thread.
    Alternative way of integrating Air combat in regular combat- For Review
    November 08, 2013, 02:39:45 pm to Reply #46 on: November 20, 2013, 07:45:08 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32328.msg1211975#msg12119

    And was grounded on these previous threads:
    Alternate 3 planes CV, more planes oriented A&A for G40 or 1942 HR with TacBs
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33226.msg1262224#msg1262224
    Alternate 3 planes CV, more Air oriented A&A for G40 or 1942 with TacBs
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33334.msg1268768#msg1268768

    Here are the principles I tried to put in this House Rule on Tactical Bombers and Fighters.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33229.msg1262286#msg1262286

  • '17 '16

    A revision of warship cost, to increase Naval action and to tip balance toward Allies.

    Black Elk’s thread
    1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less
    July 09, 2015, 04:32:03 pm to Reply #14 on: July 18, 2015, 03:58:04 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36176.msg1426012#msg1426012

    EnoughSaid’s thread.
    1940 Cheaper Boats
    October 30, 2014, 12:27:13 pm to Reply #35 on: November 09, 2014, 09:29:46 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34687.msg1339369#msg1339369

    Historical Carriers, ASW and other vessels : 1942.1/1942.2/1940
    March 06, 2013, 05:16:03 pm to Reply #34 on: May 17, 2013, 01:14:18 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30262.msg1092044#msg1092044

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Oh good! I swear I was looking everywhere for that cheaper boats thread, but I kept searching ships rather than “boats” lol. Hang around this place long enough, and you’ll find a ton of solid HR proposals. They’ve just been buried under the avalanche of time hehe. I got about 20 pages deep into this section, and my eyes started glossing over. I probably missed an ace thread or two.

    I’m interested in the land bases, and proposals there like military outposts for just inf, or rail bases, and also the 3 tiered factory scheme in g40. Trying to locate the earliest discussions, or the most recent. But most of those systems require additional materials.

    Still just keeping with rules, another HR type worth mentioning is more about production restriction. I don’t know, maybe I just make one up as an example, to describe what I’m talking about haha.

    Factories only at VCs:
    1942.2

    Rule: All Victory Cities get a starting factory. Only VCs on the map get a starting factory. The factory unit is removed from the purchase roster.

    Purpose: to anchor the fighting around these territories and underscore the importance of the VC.

    This is another one I recall from AA50, or maybe Larry Boards, but which could potentially work in 1942.2. It would be a dramatic shift for the production spread (introducing France, Kiangsu, Philippines, and Hawaii into the mix), so probably needs to be attended by another rule or large bid for balance. But it would result in a major incentive for Germany to stay oriented towards the west, possibly with a strong naval game. Might work with an American Zero turn order (full turn?). Anyway the basic idea is that you have a set number of select factories in the game, and no more, then adjust the balance from there. Something similar might work for G40. I believe some of YGs rules call for factories that cannot be purchased, or restored to full capacity once captured. That recalls to mind another production restriction concept which I feel certain has been mentioned before. The idea of factories that can be permanently removed from the board, like auto-destroyed upon capture. This is a bit like scorched earth, but more extreme. Something basic would be along the lines of…

    Factory destruction:
    1942.2

    Rule: when an IC is taken by the enemy it is automatically destroyed.

    Purpose: prevents the quick turn-around of production from a captured enemy territory. Now the conqueror must build the factory anew if they want to exploit it. Slows down the Axis, since it means that territories like Karelia, Caucasus, and Moscow don’t provide an immediate production boon when conquered.

    Requires more money from the Axis if they want to hold the center. Similarly it opens up alternative territories as candidates for new production, with less fear that they will be used by the enemy. Rules like this one in a game such as 1942.2 would seem to recommend a cheaper factory unit at 12, but that could just be me. Again something like this might work in G40 as well. I’m sure its been discussed endlessly somewhere.
    :-D

    Oh one more before I forget about it again.

    Standard Playing Cards (52 deck) income bonus:
    for 1942.2

    Rule: Players use a standard deck of cards, and draw during the collect income phase for a bonus in ipcs.

    Aces high =15, Jack =11, Queen=12, King=13
    All numbered cards (deuce-ten):  
    Diamond =7, Clubs = 8, Hearts = 9, Spades =10
    Joker =20

    Purpose: to introduce more cash, and randomize each game round by purchase. Every nation has more average income per round, but Allies have more draws over all, so their economic advantage is built in as the game proceeds (at least until Axis can destroy one of them).

    More units in play at the outset, potentially prolongs the endgame, or encourages early resolution, depending on the luck of the draw in a given turn. For a more wild swing you can assign the bonus to numbered cards by their printed value rather than by suit. But I like the way it works with the floor at 7 ipcs, just for overall economic parity. Cursed diamonds hehe! But even those are a whole lot better than nothing. Another method is to split the deck into Black and Red suits and give one pile to each side Axis or Allies with Joker. Facecards at the values above. For all numbered cards: minor suit (diamonds/clubs) =9 ipcs, major suit (hearts, aces) =10 ipcs. This is slightly higher income, but also ensures both sides have an equal chance at drawing the same number of facecards.

    IPCs here could be assigned different values for the cards too, depending on player preference. Deuces Wild, Crazy 8s, whatever. But the basic idea is that your group assigns an ipc value to the cards in a standard deck, and then draw against each other for a bonus each turn. Similarly you can use a scheme like the above to award bonus units rather than cash, if that seems more interesting.
    :-D

    Those are a bit long winded. Still trying to summarize, since the og post is eluding me, but we can trim it down later with internal links.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Oh good! I swear I was looking everywhere for that cheaper boats thread, but I kept searching ships rather than “boats” lol. Hang around this place long enough, and you’ll find a ton of solid HR proposals. They’ve just been buried under the avalanche of time hehe. I got about 20 pages deep into this section, and my eyes started glossing over. I probably missed an ace thread or two.

    Those are a bit long winded. Still trying to summarize, since the og post is eluding me, but we can trim it down later with internal links.

    :-D :-D :-D

    If you want to put friends together, quote my post and copy the link and comment within your own post.
    Then, I will erase mine. It will spare some room and keep things thematically together. If you wish.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    The best part is that it was right under my nose, in a link that I linked earlier, but I just blew right past it while searching around lol. Totally how I would opperate, wasting time with google, when I could have just followed the bread crumbs haha. For now I don’t mind some reduplication. Any links are good. This thread is helping me to necro some of the oldies, and get my head back in the game. One way or another, we’ll get this info to read at glance at some point.
    :-D

  • '17 '16

    This post is about Defenseless Transport and ways to give some escorting defense value point.
    Some simply want to get back to Classic Transport (TP A0 D1 C8, 1 hit), or a weaker variant by keeping the taken last mechanic.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER: if you add 1 rule you have to remove 2 other rules
    January 30, 2017, 12:05:49 pm to still active…
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39270.msg1625963#msg1625963

    In this thread Black Elk and Baron had some input on TP as discussing 1942.2 ways to balance it.
    Game unbalanced?
    January 07, 2015, 09:15:18 pm to Reply #61 on: April 01, 2015, 09:26:09 am
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35097.msg1364418#msg1364418

    New Transport Defense
    September 13, 2017, 07:30:03 am to Reply #74 on: Today at 05:10:22 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864

    Der Kuenstler famous thread OP which contains many, many possible variants
    The aberration of the defenseless transport
    March 29, 2013, 10:24:39 am to Reply #433 on: July 16, 2016, 08:59:50 pm
    @Der:

    Let me start this off first with a quote:

    “All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward” - Glasgow

    For six editions and the first 24 years of AA history, the transport has cost 8 IPCs and defended @1. Starting with AA Guadalcanal, transports became defenseless (the unit pricing scheme was all different). In the 50th Ann edition, transports became defenseless and cheaper, costing 7 IPCs.

    I understand new rules create sales, so from a business standpoint, changing things is good. But IMO changing the transport rules hurt the overall game and here’s why:

    1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.

    Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.

    2. The 7 IPC rule makes amphibious assaults easier and cheaper.

    Honestly, this rule seems to have been added only because transorts were made weaker by the first rule. To me this is going in the opposite direction of the way it should. It’s already too easy to take islands like Okinawa and such with bombardment. Amphibious assults ought to be hard and EXPENSIVE - that’s why it took the allies so long to achieve one in Europe.

    OBJECTION: Transports defending @1 is unrealistic!
    ANSWER: how often in WWII were transports left completely alone? To me this defense value reflects smaller DD escorts, PT boats, AA batteries and such that would normally be in the vicinity of transports. Plus some transport vessels were lightly armed.

    VERDICT: I say they should have left transports the way they were!

  • '17 '16

    This post contains link to threads aiming at simplify aircrafts, Submarines, Destroyer and Transport interactions. Mainly, no need to bring DD to allow aircraft to hit Subs.

    This one works with OOB cost and includes related OOB rules from rulebook with visible changes from original rules.
    Introductory steps to use TPs, Subs, Destroyers and planes: simpler interactions
    July 01, 2016, 04:14:43 pm to  Reply #4 on July 04, 2016, 09:26:14 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38180.msg1557369#msg1557369

    Inside this thread there is also many try at different cost structures.
    Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes
    September 14, 2014, 11:38:21 am to Reply #156 on: March 31, 2015, 10:52:53 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1320853#msg1320853

    This Der Kuenstler’s thread is about a balance issue on Destroyer blocking abilty against Submarine.
    Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
    August 28, 2014, 03:06:53 pm to Reply #91 on: February 05, 2015, 08:54:33 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1314701#msg1314701

    This thread explore which ratio should be better than 1 DD block all Subs.
    Also, contains a long list of all threads on Submarines in various forums.
    Alternative to OOB aircrafts, destroyers and submarine warfare in G40 and 1942
    March 31, 2014, 07:25:59 am to Reply #9 on: April 02, 2014, 06:03:21 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33290.msg1266767#msg1266767

    Contains the many variations on Submarine’s rules. Main focus is on planes need DD or not to hit Sub.
    History of the introduction of the actual G40 OOB Subs rules
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33260.msg1264458#msg1264458
    March 24, 2014, 05:29:19 pm to  Reply #13 on: April 01, 2014, 09:18:58 am

    Earlier draft of Baron’s Submarine houserules to solve Sub padding fleet issue.
    Lasts posts contain many links to Youtube Documentaries on ATO DDs attacking Subs and Wolfpack.
    Sub vs planes w/w out DD: HR to limit subs-fodder and to keep equity
    January 16, 2014, 10:56:24 pm to Reply #36 on: July 08, 2014, 06:11:15 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32780.msg1237882#msg1237882

    Basic principles of a new Sub Warfare House Rule (nSWHR), for review
    October 29, 2013, 09:23:32 pm to Reply #14 on: January 09, 2014, 12:29:47 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515

  • '17 '16

    I found this one, not exclusively on Cruiser.
    Maybe you were looking for it?
    You can place it with corresponding posts theme.
    Not enough time to seek into it but don’t want to loose either.

    Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
    @Black_Elk:

    I’d like to start a general thread discussing this relationship in Axis and Allies: how blitz units can be used to exploit the turn order.

    Having explored various concepts on the G40 map, such as a variable turn order, and a totally collapsed turn order by side, and “same time” G40 where all nations move at once… it has become abundantly clear to me that the only way to come up with a workable system to vary turn order, or collapse the turn order, is to first come up with a way for players to make their own can-openers, rather than relying on their Allies to do so. What do you think about the way can openers are used in A&A?  And what do you think about how it effects the aesthetics, creating that checkerboard map? You know, where say Italy moves into a territory, then Germany moves to hold this space with infantry and fighters, while blitzing on through to the next space with their armor and mech… Gray, Brown, Gray, Brown etc. It seems to me that this is a huge part of Axis and Allies. Basically the rules about landing aircraft in newly conquered territories (prohibiting it), and the rules that describe the abilities of blitz units, combine to create this feature of the game. I think this is a metagame exploit that the turn order and the blitz rules encourage, but which is so foundational to the game going back to Classic, that everyone accepts it as just built in.

    What if the blitz rules were changed? So that turn order didn’t matter for game balance?
    Then you could actually explore different ways to approach turn order generally, like variable turn, or collapsed turn, or same time. Think about how Italian ground units can-open for Germany OOB. Or how German air can-open for Japan on the water. Or how America or China can-open for the UK. The turn order exploit is all over the place right now, and is built into the overall balance. To ever get beyond this, step one would be to eliminate the “ally can-opener”, and replace it with a “self can-opener” that you can run on your own combat turn, using your own armor. So for example, right now OOB, Italy takes Baltic States and then Germany blitzes through to take Leningrad, but what we need is for a way for Germany to blitz both by itself. Basically there is enough special stuff going on in G40, that I think you could justify having an entire phase or battle phase round called “Special Combat.” Then put Blitzing into that, in something similar to “sub surprise strike, or scramble, or sbr/intercept” some way for tanks and mech to “advance” out of the combat, and into an adjacent territory.

    The Blitz move would then feel more like a true blitz, and it would better capture the blitz concept, of rushing units forward in a kind of double combat, rather than having the action separated by a round of gameplay, and interjecting an ally into the equation. What do you think of the idea of allowing for “self can-openers” with Tanks? Also if you like the idea of the self can-opening Tank, what do you think about adding additional Blitz units?

    For example, it might be possible to allow such a blitz play with 1 unit type from each category: Land, Air, and Sea…

    Land: Armor = Land Blitz
    Air: Tactical Bomber = Air Blitz
    Sea: Cruiser = Naval Blitz

    In this final case with the cruiser, the naval blitz ability could make up for its cost relative to the destroyer, and would give it more of a reason to exist in the unit roster. The self can-opening blitz unit. If this could be done, then A&A could function under other turn order conditions, such as variable sequence of nations, or collapsed turn order by side, or same time play for all nations. These are all possible if new ways can be thought of to handle the Blitz/can opener. Right now I am curious to hear any general thoughts about how the can opener effects your G40 game/experience.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Now there’s a blast from the past, I hadn’t thought of in a while! Haha nice one.
    :-D

    Guess I should put this link in here as well, since the blitz topic above mentions it.
    This idea was a total conversion of A&A to create “Same Time” combat conditions.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35590.0

    In it we discussed the differences between Same Time, and a similar type of total conversion which has been proposed at various times (by Imperius Leader and others) for 2 turn game, All Axis vs All Allies. Same Time is rather more involved than All Axis vs All Alies, but some may find the idea worth exploring.

    At some point when I have a bit more time, I will organize all the turn order HRs into a single section. Right now I can think of 4 broad categories, based on how extreme the proposed HR change is to the concept of the normal game “turn.”

    1. Adjusted standard Turn order sequence, with otherwise OOB rules. Example: China First for G40, or American Zero Turn for 1942.2.

    2. Randomized start to the standard Turn order sequence. This would be all those HRs I’ve mentioned at various times, where the turn order for a given game is unique and determined by an initial roll. Not sure how much time I’d want to dedicate on this one, since so far the only one interested in the concept seems to be me haha.

    3. Collapsed turn order by sides, All Axis vs All Allies. This has been proposed a few times, so probably worth formalizing.

    4. And finally Same Time, ie no turn order, players conduct each phase simultaneously.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34581.msg1335539#msg1335539

    I’ll edit in links when I find them, and try to summarize those rules for anyone who might be interested. Other Total Conversion ideas, not totally unrelated to the first idea of an adjusted turn order would include things like YG’s UK Pacific economy or Halifax ruleset.  Or any mods which take a ground up approach to redesign, introducing changes to both the rules and the proposed unit set up for a given board. Some of these have introduced a new standard turn order in the process. But I think the category there should probably be broader, like HRs for “creating new player nations” on a given board. Commonwealth or Vichy or Minor Axis etc could come under that umbrella

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Factory destruction:
    1942.2

    Rule: when an IC is taken by the enemy it is automatically destroyed.

    Purpose: prevents the quick turn-around of production from a captured enemy territory. Now the conqueror must build the factory anew if they want to exploit it. Slows down the Axis, since it means that territories like Karelia, Caucasus, and Moscow don’t provide an immediate production boon when conquered.

    Requires more money from the Axis if they want to hold the center. Similarly it opens up alternative territories as candidates for new production, with less fear that they will be used by the enemy. Rules like this one in a game such as 1942.2 would seem to recommend a cheaper factory unit at 12, but that could just be me. Again something like this might work in G40 as well. I’m sure its been discussed endlessly somewhere.
    :-)

    Those are a bit long winded. Still trying to summarize, since the og post is eluding me, but we can trim it down later with internal links.

    @Young:

    What about…

    When a territory with a major industrial complex is captured, it is redused to a minor IC, and if a territory with a minor IC is captured, it is removed from the board.

    This was in Redesign thread.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Nice! All this re-reading of HRs lately just makes me want to play more.
    :-D

    I’m trying to think of a more general way to state the zero turn idea. The way it works, a nation is jumped to the head of the turn sequence and given a restricted opening. Non Combat, Purchase/Placement to kick off the game (skips combat phase.) From there the match proceeds as usual, otherwise following the standard sequence for the rest of the nations.

    I like an American Zero turn A0 for 1942.2

    For 1940, I think it would be more interesting and balanced with a minor Nation getting the zero turn. I like China, although an Anzac zero turn might be kind of cool there as well. An American Zero turn is not inconceivable for G40, though you’d have to make a close read on the DoW (I think in that case it would make sense that the zero turn not count towards US entry, so still 4 full rounds.) In both games 1942.2 or G40 the zero turn would act as a bid alternative for Allies, one which puts more of a spotlight on the Pacific side of the board. The nation that receives the zero turn has fewer units to move overall, so the non com itself is quick, but it gives a major leg up to the chosen nation, especially with an extra round of purchase/placement.

    This method can be used either to bring the game into a rough balance by sides, or to invert the balance, without altering the starting units. Still leaves open the option of a bid on top if desired.

    Here is another HR regarding China…

    No movement between Chinese and Russian starting territories.
    for 1942.2

    Rule: The border separating Chinese and Soviet starting territories is now considered impassable for all units.

    Szechwan no longer connects to Kazakh.
    Sinkiang no longer connects to Kazakh, Novosibirsk, and Evenki.

    Purpose: to represent the vast distances and unforgiving terrain of Western China, by preventing gamey movements across this border as Japan or the Allies. Closes off the central route of the Axis center crush, and gives the Japanese campaign in China a more singular focus.

    This rule is much like the option to close sz 16, except here it applies to land territories and restricts movement for all units (including aircraft.) Likely requires a bid, additional Chinese starting units, or other HRs to keep China in play.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39104.165

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Here are a few more one-off rules proposed at various points.

    War Bonds for All:
    for Global

    Rule: Each player nation is granted the War Bonds tech advance for free.

    Purpose: to increase the overall cash and purchasing variety. Potential substitute for the Allied bid.

    It is possible to put a similar rule in place for 1942.2. Basically each nation rolls 1d6 to determine their bonds for that turn.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1452322#msg1452322

    Island Movement Bonus:
    for 1942.2

    Rule: If an island is completely contained by a single sea zone, and under friendly control, then aircraft movement into or out of that sea zone from the island is not counted towards the total.

    In other words, the owner treats the island like a stationary or permanent aircraft carrier inside the sea zone, for the purposes of movement. On defense however (if attacked by the enemy), the island aircraft is still considered to be parked “on the island,” so not hovering in the sea zone at all times, only when moving on the player’s own turn.

    purpose: to simulate the air base idea, but in 1942.2, and make otherwise zero ipc island territories more valuable for staging.

    I’m struggling to find that one, if anyone comes across it, link me up.

    Another rule very similar to the above, but with a different application…

    Island Scrambling
    for 1942.2

    Rule: If an island is completely contained by a single sea zone, and under friendly control, then aircraft stationed on this island may scramble to defend the sea zone.

    purpose: again to give zero ipc islands some gameplay interest.

    I believe the idea was for a nerfed scramble (compared to G40) with a limit of 1 or 2 fighters. Fairly sure both these were discussed in the same thread, though I can’t seem to hunt it down at the moment. Will update with discussion links when I find them.

    Oh also, this idea of a house rule master thread, it was first proposed here…
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1535806#msg1535806

    That was a while back. Clearly taken me some time to muster up the motivation haha. Consider this the draft thread. Its mainly trying to pair things down and put them in a list format. For a proper list, once I have enough material in one place. I will use the locked thread idea that YG suggested. But to do that first need to get the list and the links.

    Still hoping some others will help me bang it out here. Even if you can’t recall exactly where the rule first arose, or point to a discussion, if you can describe the HR in a few words, hit me with it. Because that stuff is helpful too.
    :-D

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I think this is definitely worth including in the list…

    Income & Progress Credit
    for all games

    Concept: the acronym “IPC” is now understood to stand for “Income & Progress Credit,” rather than Industrial Production Certificate or Industrial Production Capacity.

    Purpose: to make this basic element of the game’s internal economy more abstract and flexible. Grants players the ability to adjust IPC values in their HRs with greater freedom and conceptual consistency.

    This is not exactly a rule in and of itself, but rather a way to support or justify house rules that make adjustments to the boxed IPC values. These could be anything really, from starting cash, to objective or territory bonuses, to direct adjustment of values on the game map. It separates the IPC from any strict connection to industrial development or resources, so it can function more like a more generic game point and gameplay driver/reward.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38721.msg1596006#msg1596006


  • @Black_Elk:

    Income & Production Credit
    for all games

    Concept: the acronym “IPC” is now understood to stand for “Income & Production Credit,”

    Shouldn’t that be “Income and Progress Credit”, which was the formulation (and the underlying concept) in the other thread?

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @CWO:

    @Black_Elk:

    Income & Production Credit
    for all games

    Concept: the acronym “IPC” is now understood to stand for “Income & Production Credit,”

    Shouldn’t that be “Income and Progress Credit”, which was the formulation (and the underlying concept) in the other thread?

    Lazy typing from phone haha. Yes, and thank you! Corrected now, in all threads where I just posted.
    And thank you for the acronym. I think it’s brilliant!

    IPC = “Income & Progress Credit”

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Alternative capital capture and liberation rules. These have been discussed in various places, so if you have links by all means, but here are another half dozen rules I’ve used before with varying degrees of success. Some of these are compatible, others mutually exclusive. For all games.

    Capitals can only be looted once.

    Rule: capturing an enemy capital only awards the vanquished player’s purse to the conqueror the first time the capital is taken. If a liberated capital is captured a second time that nation’s purse is returned to the bank.

    Purpose: to discourage the situation where a team declines to liberate a fallen capital for fear that it will simply be looted again and again and again.
    :-D

    Capitals can only be looted for half the cash.
    Rule: when a capital is captured only half of the vanquished nation’s purse is awarded to the conqueror (round down).

    Option A. The rest of the cash is returned to the bank.

    Option B: if the vanquished player still controls a territory with a production value, they get to keep the other half of the cash.

    Capitals can no longer be looted.

    Rule: the capital capture looting rules are removed from play.

    Option A. When a capital falls all their cash is returned to the bank.

    Option B. If a nation still has a territory with a production value, they keep all their cash.

    Purpose: to limit the capital capture dynamic’s overwhelming influence as a gameplay driver. Prolongs the endgame.

    Secondary Capital
    Rule: When a nation’s original capital is captured, a new capital is established. The nation may continue to collect income and conduct their phases as normal, so long as they still control the secondary capital.

    Option A. The secondary capital is established at the start of the match.
    Option B. The secondary capital is declared as soon as the original capital falls.

    Possible restrictions: Only a victory city may serve as a secondary capital. Or…
    Only a territory with an existing industrial complex may serve as a secondary capital. Or both.

    Control of original territories is not immediately restored when a capital is liberated.
    Rule: Only the capital itself is liberated. All other territories under friendly control must first be occupied by a ground unit of the restored nation, in order to be reclaimed for production/income collection.

    Purpose: to encourage liberation during the endgame, without immediately sacrificing overall production and income parity in the process, for the liberating side.

    A vanquished nation’s territory may be claimed by the first friendly nation to occupy it.
    Rule: when a nation loses control of their capital, the rules for original ownership of all other territories still under their control no longer apply. Any nation on their team may claim such a territory (for production/income) simply by occupying it with a ground unit.

    Option: remaining units in such territories are treated as pro-side neutrals, and can be claimed by the occupier.

    Gold Reserve
    This idea was not fully articulated, but also seemed interesting. Related to the looting dynamic.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1449117#msg1449117

    If anyone has other such rules they want to introduce, or variations on the above, hit us with em and we’ll edit them into the final HR list.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Another one just mentioned, but which has been kicked around before.

    Team Coordination Rules:
    Unit co-location restrictions

    For G40 and 1942.2

    Rule: Basic formulation = (Nation’s) units cannot end their turn in (Teammate’s) “starting” territories, if those territories were still under friendly control at the start of the turn.*

    The following restrictions are in effect, until the relevant capital is conquered. After the capital falls, team coordination rules for starting territories of the vanquished Nation no longer apply.

    Japanese units cannot end their turn in European Axis starting territories.

    European Axis units cannot end their turn in Japanese starting territories.

    Western Allies units cannot end their turn in Soviet starting territories.

    Soviet Units cannot end their turn in Western Allies starting territories. **

    *If the territory in question was under enemy control at the start of the turn, then it may be liberated by a teammate, but the liberator must leave the following turn or be in violation of the rule. If the units are unable to leave a liberated territory on the following turn they will be automatically removed.

    **1942.2 Option: US supported starting Chinese territories are not considered “Western” for the rule as stated above. Soviet units may end their turn in Chinese territories, but American units (including those in China) still cannot end their turn in starting Russian territories. So the movement across the border of Western China is one way, from Russia to US supported China, but not the other way around.

    Purpose: To prevent gamey and ahistorical unit movements by teammates. For example, by the US/British in Soviet starting territories, by the Soviets in British starting territories, by the Japanese in European Axis starting Territories etc. Restricts aircraft transits in particular, to prevent the worst abuses. Likely creates some balance issues by sides.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39465.0

  • '17 '16

    About changing PTO islands, NAP and Victory conditions to create more action in PTO
    First time I produce an alternate VC condition based on 6 IPCs bonus NAP for Japan:

    How Can We Incentivize the US to Split its Effort Between Atlantic and Pacific?
    July 14, 2016, 06:17:40 pm to reply #18 on: July 20, 2016, 04:44:41 pm
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38240.msg1562052#msg1562052

    I also found that one:

    Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1348932#msg1348932

    If its an acceptable HR to solve this issue for G40, do you have some ideas for 1942.2?

    I’ve just found an old Thread based on one of your old post on Harris Game Design.
    Maybe it can be a start up to think about it?

    Increasing action in PTO: The Case against 0 ipc territories (Pacific Islands)
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32221.msg1207041#msg1207041

    We already discuss this issue here:

    Production Mod for 1942.2
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33302.msg1267351#msg1267351

    Here is the Opening post:
    @Black_Elk:

    This mod makes no changes to the map divisions, or the starting unit placement. Only to the production values on the board. See map overview

    http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/High-production-mod-for-1942-second-edition-td7585507.html;cid=1396406545745-319

    I have tried to gather all my thoughts surrounding production and present them in the simplest way I could think of, with a direct mod to the OOB game. At a glance it feels very similar to the OOB set up, but substantive changes to the value of key territories allow for a more expansive game. With new purchasing options and new strategies.

    On the physical board the modification can be done with those little round stickers you can get at any office supply store. Only the production numbers change, nothing else, so you can use the same set up cards.

    Basically the idea is this… If you give Russia more money (esp. in the East), not only do you balance the Russian game against the most crushing tank drives, but you also give Japan a viable route into North America. The start is 90 to 130, but this levels out to around 110-115 for both sides from the second into the third round, and could go either way after that. Can you see how the production builds? Basically this kind of distribution gives Japan more directions to go, instead of the straight push towards Moscow. At the same time, it gives Germany, UK and USA more options and potential attack routes. The idea is to put the money into the contested territories, so that rather than folding back to the core, all players are encouraged to fight out, and drive, developing production along the way.

    Take a look at the Eastern Front, Karelia in particular, then the Soviet Far East, the Pacific and China, North Africa, the governing principle is - more money, but always and only where it can trade hands. Along the way, all zero ipc territories are given a value.

    I’m curious to know if anyone likes this sort of direction for a mod?

    My thought was to keep the alterations focused on only a single aspect of the game, production, that way it is easier to adopt. So no messing with the map divisions, or the starting units, just modifications to the territory values. I’d like to hear any thoughts you might have on the way I distributed production, if you like it, or if not what you would adjust.

    Many people like to customize the game with a bid or unit adjustments to balance, or special rules. My chief interest is in how production might be used to accomplish similar things, without requiring additional rules, units etc.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Rules relating to Victory…

    Quick Victory for 1942.2

    Rule: Axis win at 8 VCs, Allies win at 9 VCs.

    Purpose: to make for a more intense early game, that resolves in sudden death. Likely requires some balance adjustment to prevent rapid Axis victory. This is the Victory option provided in TripleA, as an alternative to the 9/10 conditions stated in the Manual, or the 13 VC total domination game.

    Victory Objectives & Victory Tokens for Global

    Rules: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39467.0

    Purpose: Provides a ready way to determine the Victor and track game progress through the use of tokens. Under this system, players achieve Victory not simply by capturing VC territories, but rather by completing themed objectives. The gameplay incentive towards Victory, is encouraged by capturing tokens which can then be used for research and development breakthroughs. The tokens can be tallied for a final count at the end of the night, or with an option for sudden death at the end of the game round, to determine who won and who lost.

    Victory Objectives & Victory Tokens

    Once a victory objective is achieved, a victory token will be awarded, the side with the most victory tokens at the end of the day wins the game. Victory tokens are awarded immediately upon completion regardless of when, or how the objective was achieved. Also, a token can never be taken away once earned, and they may never be awarded twice for the same objective. It doesn’t matter which round the game ends, however, a win or a tie can only be declared at the end of a full game round.

    New Research & Development Rule:

    Research rolls are no longer used to develop breakthroughs, instead, nations are awarded development rolls when victory objectives have been achieved. Once a victory token is gained, the nation with the corresponding (*) instructions listed with each objective will choose a breakthrough chart, and make a free development roll with the resulting breakthrough taking effect immediately (may not effect units already in battle during the turn in which the breakthrough was rolled). Any breakthroughs gained by the UK regardless of which side of the map a token was achieved will effect all UK purchases and all UK units on the board.

    Here is a list of all victory objectives for each side…

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 7
  • 18
  • 10
  • 22
  • 7
  • 2
  • 10
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.6k

Users

40.1k

Topics

1.7m

Posts