House rules for added realism

[Petrucci08]

Lets hear what people use for added realism in their games without getting overly complicated.

Here’s a few I’ve been thinking about.

1. fighters get +1 on attack/defence if there are no enemy fighters present in the opening round of combat. This gives a tangible advantage for having air superiority/supremacy and makes carriers all the more important for defending your fleet.

2. Subs cannot be attacked by planes unless there is a destroyer present and Subs may submerge after opening fire. This will make both subs and destroyers actually useful and creates a real threat to unprotected allied fleets.

3. This one might be getting a little complicated but would represent the necessity of a source of oil. If you do not own one of either Balkans, caucuses, E. America, TJ, Egypt or Persia, and whatever japans principal supplier was (Philippines???), then tanks may only move one space, fighters three and bombers four.

4. Getting into the realm of annoying would be infantry who attacked in this game turn may only defend on a 1, factoring in battle fatigue.

So what do you guys use or have thought about?

[mjkusn01]

i’ve seen alot of house rules dealing with air supremacy and i think i liked this one the most

[axis_roll]

@mjkusn01:

i’ve seen alot of house rules dealing with air supremacy and i think i liked this one the most

Jet ftrs would never miss….
pretty effective.

[Pervavita]

nether would stukas on there first round.
i think figheters are good as are. IMO they already are the best unit in the game, there is no need to make them better.

[way2slo]

@Petrucci08:

So what do you guys use or have thought about?

Here are my thoughts*:

1.  I can see this.  Perhaps making a roll of 6 always miss since WWII jet technology was not infallible.  Besides, if you own the skies, why do you need Jets?

2. It will make subs useful, but it’s not realistic.  Aircraft patrols played havoc with U-boats.  From up high on a sunny day planes can see a submerged sub in the open ocean up to a certain depth.  I always thought that subs should get a +1 or +2 bonus to it’s first round of fire*. (possibly eliminate if an enemy destroyer is present)  That simulates the surprise element of the first attack, before the convoy goes on alert.  (ex:  First round they hit on 4 or less, subsequent rounds they hit on 2 or less)

3. Try implementing using a penny for a marker for the oil refinery.  Place like you would a factory during the set-up phase of the game.  Allow strategic bombing of the refinery?*  Allied bombing of German oil reserves was key.

4. Implement by laying the infantry piece on its side when you put it back on the board.  Stand it up at the beginning of that nations turn.

One of my own…  (NOTE:  I have not read any “enhanced realism” rules, please forgive me if I duplicate something.)  This one is all about trying to make SBR a feasable attack.  In A&AR, you just don’t do it because you have little to gain.  However, the Allies did it a lot and crippled the Axis wartime production and supply lines.  I was envisioning having some balance between a waste of time and overpowering.  This would replace #1 from above.

(5)  Allow fighters to act as Anti-Aircraft Guns.  Each fighter (or maybe just one*) gets one shot at each bomber that passes through it’s territory AND that bomber gets one shot at the fighter.  Flak was dangerous, but enemy fighters were deadly.

(5a) Allow fighter escorts on SBR.  Must have the range.  They get a shot at defending fighters AND defending fighters get a shot at them*.

(5b) SBRs that do full territory damage also destroys the factory*. (maybe half damage?*)  You have to up the ante to make SBR’s worth trying.  Would you trade a few bombers to keep them from building new units for a turn?

(5c) Make Bombers cheaper.  12 IPC?*  Adjust to balance the cost of benefit ratio for SBR.

• May require refinement after play testing.

[tekkyy]

This belongs to House Rules forum hehe.

Instead of +1, a real effect is achieved by letting air units fire in opening-fire if enemy has no air units.

You can try submarine hits can’t be allocated on submarines or allocate on submarines last. No more submarine fodder.

By the way it East Indices and Borneo.

[Pervavita]

figher escorts and scrambling fighers for deffence are rules from some place. both i thought were good.
as for bombing raids being worth it, i think they are vary worth it. you take a $15 plain and it can take out if in the right place up too $6 in one shot, in 3 turns it can pay for it’s self. give it it’s 50% accuracey then it’s $3 per shot, in 5 turns it breaks even and 6th turn it’s shot down. over all it’s an even investment, but has the flex to aid attacks.
i am glad for the rule that a SBR can only hit for a max of what the teritory is worth.
i think to add value you could hit non factory teritories as well for up to half the teritories value rounded up (1 IPC teritory can be hit for 1, 3 for 2, 5 for 3 ext). this would be because your cutting off supply lines.
this may bring back bombing raids but i never was a fan of them as they in the old A&A they made the game no fun for Germany, and in the new they just don’t pay off.

[Guest]

I relocated this to House Rules.

And I think SBR’s should not destroy cash, they should destroy PRODUCTION capability for machined goods (any non-infantry unit).

For example, if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage, they can produce AT MOST 5 non-INF units that turn (too much damage at the shipyards, etc. to build ships, planes, tanks and artillery.

You could ALWAYS “build” Infantry… SBR’s destroyed the FACTORIES, not the bedrooms  :wink:

[tekkyy]

@ncscswitch:

For example, if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage, they can produce AT MOST 5 non-INF units that turn (too much damage at the shipyards, etc. to build ships, planes, tanks and artillery.

Ah. That may well be the solution to the SBR gameplay issue.
You can now have the Blitz before Sealion.

Quite exciting for AARHE.
There build capacity for infantry and non-infantry units are separate.

You could ALWAYS “build” Infantry… SBR’s destroyed the FACTORIES, not the bedrooms  :wink:

now thats a controversial issue :wink:
be fun house rule never the less to model terror bombings

you can choose to flatten bedrooms instead of factories but public opinion goes down and US income goes down
of course, a roll is performed before income goes down, modelling censorship

of course this can also apply to UK and maybe Germany

[Imperious Leader]

Hey yea thats brilliant!!!

You bomb factories and your ability to churn out junk is reduced. This does not apply to infantry…

Yes Tekkyy this is very good.

Remember our rule for AARHE:  builds at IC = 4 times the value of IPC territory in total value… So now its reduced by the amount equal of the SBR result in IPC… please add it to the rules. You caught a big fish on this one.

good job switch!

[Zero Pilot]

@ncscswitch:

And I think SBR’s should not destroy cash, they should destroy PRODUCTION capability for machined goods (any non-infantry unit).

For example, if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage, they can produce AT MOST 5 non-INF units that turn (too much damage at the shipyards, etc. to build ships, planes, tanks and artillery.

I really like this idea but I don’t quite get the corollation between bomber damage and unit limitation. Are you saying if Berlin gets bombed for 5 damage, their industrial output is REDUCED by 5 non-infantry units that turn? I really like the sounds of that.

But the way it reads if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage they can produce at most 5 non-infantry units that turn so… if they get bombed for 10 damage they can produce at most 10 non-infantry units that turn? Maybe I’m just reading it wrong. ~ZP

[tekkyy]

You’re got it right, Zero Pilot.
I believe you interpret switch’s idea correctly.

Its just a coincidence that Germany is 10 IPC so that its 10 - 5 = 5 units.
So if get bombed for 10 they can produce 10 - 10 = 0 units.

[Zero Pilot]

@tekkyy:

Its just a coincidence that Germany is 10 IPC so that its 10 - 5 = 5 units.

Aaaahhh! I never gave that a thought. :-P Thanks. ~ZP

[Jennifer]

I’ve played games where successful invasions of either E. USA or W. USA removes America from play.  Their forces will still defend, but they can no longer purchase units, nor conduct combat moves.  This really, REALLY keeps America honest about defending the west coast.

I’ve also done rules where you only collect money for your territories at the start of your turn, instead of the end.  This prevents people from collecting twice for territories in MOST cases.

Also, I’ve done rules where 50% of your income MUST go to infantry purchases.

I’ve also done rules where Japan was plain out forbidden to attack Russia, period.  They had to treat it like a neutral zone (as in the AAR rules).

[Imperious Leader]

Also, I’ve done rules where 50% of your income MUST go to infantry purchases.

I think i brought that up and we haggled over it. You were against it as i remember. But i said no more than 50% of your income can be spent for infantry.

[Adlertag]

@Cmdr:

I’ve also done rules where you only collect money for your territories at the start of your turn, instead of the end.  This prevents people from collecting twice for territories in MOST cases.

The out of box rules are a little un-realistic, since you collect twice for territories that see much combat. In real war that territories produced very little because the assets was bombed and destroyed and on east front it was also used the scorched eart taktics, wich is you blow up or burn everything.

The most realistic rule would be the one from A&A D-day, where all players can share territories. Like germany attack Ukraine with 4 inf, and one of the russian inf survive after first round of combat. Now germany choose to not attack again, and so Ukraine is divided between german forces and russian forces, and make no income.

The best rule is of course to collect income before combat move, but then no players would have cash that could be SBR’ed. You would need to wright an essay on a pad about who lost how much during SBR. So a better rule is as mentined above, no income from territories that are contestet or recently invaded.

[Jennifer]

@Imperious:

Also, I’ve done rules where 50% of your income MUST go to infantry purchases.

I think i brought that up and we haggled over it. You were against it as i remember. But i said no more than 50% of your income can be spent for infantry.

I think I was against no MORE then 50% for infantry.  I’m in favor, sometimes, with limiting purchases of other equipment to no more then 50%

It stops things like America bagging the Axis and dumping a large fleet in the Pacific or England only buying fighters to send to Russia because it’s navy is destroyed, etc.

[tekkyy]

Thats right. To me, the multiple collect income causes inflation.
Yes collecting income before combat does stop this.

Regarding the essay on a pad that can be reduced. For example in AARHE the Axis/Allies sequence makes. Its not 4 turns between Russia 1 and Russia 2. So you don’t have to hire an accountant to keep track of things even if we collect income before combat.