Houserule Feedback

[baron Münchhausen]

On 8)Tactical retreat:
https://youtu.be/Reo1VPpqOmk

About 9) Press the attack
https://youtu.be/3flMQxS-t7M

You may find some corroboration with DK HRs.

Collapse might be a way to end game faster.
Original idea, might become handy.
No more a conquer enemy capital game only.

[Der Kuenstler]

It all looks pretty cool, Jonathan! Maybe consider making #5 (Secret Movement) apply to navy only as ships were really hard to locate and keep track of in WWII.

[Caesar-Seriona]

1: I always liked the idea of everyone moving at once but how to do you handle two territories attacking each other?

2: I agree with this, tier leveling technology make sense.

3: You should set the price to be larger than a dice roll, so if you have it set that 6 means you got it, then make it worth 35 dollars as 5x6=30, you should pay more to get it ran taking chance.

4: Maybe it should be that dig units just have a larger defense than more life?

5: I don’t like this rule, because it sounds like infantry could move two spaces on a saved turn, you might as well do some kind of fog of war game.

6: I agree with this except I think that pro neutrals are already committed to the war, this should be used exclusively for strict neutrals.

7: I never played 1914 but how does a contested territory play?

8: I agree with this, I think it makes the most sense because USSR was famous for doing this when the Axis invaded.

9: I agree with this as well, why can’t mech and tanks destroy a village and then press on to the other?

10: I oppose this completely, it makes conquering a nation that much easier to do. I personally hated the idea that if your capital is captured, you stop collecting money, I think you should. I also believe the captured power should get your money but if you still have factories and territory worth, why can’t you still produce?

[jonathan.meyer84]

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

@Baron:

On 8)Tactical retreat:
https://youtu.be/Reo1VPpqOmk

About 9) Press the attack
https://youtu.be/3flMQxS-t7M

You may find some corroboration with DK HRs.

Collapse might be a way to end game faster.
Original idea, might become handy.
No more a conquer enemy capital game only.

Hi Baron,

I’ve definitely borrowed heavily from a few sources.  One of which was DK.  I’m a big fan of several of his house rules.

@Caesar:

1: I always liked the idea of everyone moving at once but how to do you handle two territories attacking each other?

2: I agree with this, tier leveling technology make sense.

3: You should set the price to be larger than a dice roll, so if you have it set that 6 means you got it, then make it worth 35 dollars as 5x6=30, you should pay more to get it ran taking chance.

4: Maybe it should be that dig units just have a larger defense than more life?

5: I don’t like this rule, because it sounds like infantry could move two spaces on a saved turn, you might as well do some kind of fog of war game.

6: I agree with this except I think that pro neutrals are already committed to the war, this should be used exclusively for strict neutrals.

7: I never played 1914 but how does a contested territory play?

8: I agree with this, I think it makes the most sense because USSR was famous for doing this when the Axis invaded.

9: I agree with this as well, why can’t mech and tanks destroy a village and then press on to the other?

10: I oppose this completely, it makes conquering a nation that much easier to do. I personally hated the idea that if your capital is captured, you stop collecting money, I think you should. I also believe the captured power should get your money but if you still have factories and territory worth, why can’t you still produce?

Hi Caesar,

1. That is a significant problem.  I know everyone goes at the same time in Diplomacy, but in Diplomacy you aren’t dealing with dozens of units at a time.  For Axis and Allies, I see this being solved by having everyone on one alliance go at the same time and then having everyone on the other alliance go.  All Axis nations move together and all Allied nations move together, but Axis nations do not move at the same time as Allied nations.

2. Since for regular research you’d pay 5 ipcs and have a 1 in 3 chance of succeeding (rolling a 5 or 6 on a 6-sided die), you should statistically succeed once for every 15 ipcs spent.  However, there’s always the chance that you might not succeed.  Paying 20 ipcs for guaranteed success would be 5 more you should have to pay statistically, but you would 100% get the technology.

3. I thought about that, but giving them extra defense every turn seemed overpowered.  Similarly, giving them extra defense for a set number of turns seemed to take me down the path of over complication.  In 1914, the tank unit is able to absorb hits.  My thinking is that trenches would work similarly.

4. Indeed it would appear that they could, but keep in mind that they aren’t actually moving 2 spaces.  They technically moved the prior turn, it just isn’t demonstrated on the board so that the nation’s enemies don’t know from where those units will strike the following turn.  I’ve thought about fog of war options, but everything I came up with was either overly cumbersome to manage or overly complicated from a rules perspective.

5. In 1914, when you attack a territory you roll one round of combat.  Casualties are removed on both sides.  If neither side is defeated, both armies sit in the territory and neither side gets the production.  On successive turns, either side (or both, or their allies) can funnel more troops into the territory and either renew the offensive or sit defensively.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Ah, then I like number 7.

[baron Münchhausen]

WW1914 like, seems to give a better feel of strategic level of operation, a given warzone is not economicaly productive and takes several months to be conquered. But, I see these issues:

It will increase the time-play of an already long game.
You need to consider the aircrafts inability to land into such zone.
Can the initial owner may still land Fg in this combat zone?
If the combat goes into further rounds, does attacker may land Fgs to protect his stack too?

What is the impact of rule #8 on #7?
IDK if this might goes against attacker and help defender reinforced his stack and provide an opportunity to strafe the attacker main hitter (Tank and Art).

HTH

[Caesar-Seriona]

He says it plays like 1914 so obviously their has to be a rule about aircraft. I am assuming fighters should have the ability to land for the sake of logic,

[jonathan.meyer84]

@Caesar:

Ah, then I like number 7.

Huzzah!

@Caesar:

He says it plays like 1914 so obviously their has to be a rule about aircraft. I am assuming fighters should have the ability to land for the sake of logic,

Affirmative. In 1914, aircraft are able to land in the territory where the battle is taking place.  If I apply this rule to WW2 versions of Axis and Allies, I would allow aircraft to do the same thing but only in these special territories.

@Baron:

What is the impact of rule #8 on #7?

Nothing special of note.  Should the defender withdraw from a “Thou Shalt Not Pass” territory, control would be ceded to the attacking power and the territory would lose its special status.

[baron Münchhausen]

7. To The Last Man/Thou Shalt Not Pass: Instead of rolling round after round until one side retreats or is vanquished, you roll two rounds of combat.  If neither side is defeated, the territory becomes contested (just like in 1914, except in that game you only roll one round instead of two).  Every capital would have this automatically.  In addition, every three turns each country could designate an additional “Thou Shalt Not Pass” territory which would function that way until it is seized by enemy forces for the first time.

Do you know why you choose 2 complete rounds of battle?

3 rounds might make things more fluids and guarantees this TTy is heavily contested, not just a bad luck roll.

Many 2 infs vs 1 unit may requires many rounds to be resolved.
Some Islands hopping might be delayed.

Does a minimum number of starting units should be prescribed to not slow down pace?
IDK

[jonathan.meyer84]

@Baron:

Do you know why you choose 2 complete rounds of battle?

That is a question to which I’ve given a bit of thought.  From my experience in 1914, one round is too low.  You’re almost always going to get bogged down and for many a turn if you only roll one round per turn.  On the flip side, if you use too many rounds then the value of the special designation loses all meaning.  How many battles are going to last four or more rounds?  Not many.  Two or three seemed to strike the right balance to me, and since I wanted to err on the side of the new designation being more impactful, I opted for two rounds rather than three.