Trisdin's A&A50 House Rules

[Young Grasshopper]

I have modified air superiority, coastal bombardment and Italian advancement chart slightly…… Cheers.

[Young Grasshopper]

WOW…. Almost 100 views and no comments! come on members, tell me what you think.

[ogrebait]

@Trisdin:

WOW…. Almost 100 views and no comments! come on members, tell me what you think.

Well, I can’t speak for the others, but here’s what I think.

You have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this alternative set-up, and I wouldn’t mind trying it out. In the absence of a lot of playtesting, however, it would be hard for me to render an opinion on what works and what doesn’t work in this modified rule set. That could also be said for some of the other A&A variants being circulated, and therein lies the rub….

I have been in and out of the gaming world for decades, and I am a relative newcomer to A&A. Over the years, one of the biggest obstacles I have found to pursuing this pastime is finding both a game I enjoy and a critical mass of other gamers to play with. It is of marginal benefit to invest a lot of time, energy and occasionally money into acquiring and learning a game which only a handful of people in the world are willing to play. I currently own four “official” A&A variants, but the only one that I regularly play is AA50, in part, because of the difficulty in finding people interested in the other games.

I certainly don’t mind experimentation, and I’ve suggested a few changes myself. However, without some clearinghouse to determine what rule sets should become the defacto standard, then all these “house rules” have the tendency to further fragment a relatively small population of players. My humble suggestion (which would admittedly be difficult to implement) is to first establish a method to propose, test, and semi-formally “bless” modified rules so that there is some standard that the A&A community can rely on. The closest thing we have to that right now is either the folks at WOTC or Larry Harris’s Game Design site, and both have their limitations.

That being said, if you or someone else would like to have a go at giving your rule set a test drive, let me know. Due to the demands of my life outside of gaming, I’m generally not a fast player. However, if you don’t mind a leisurely match, I can accommodate a trial run and give you some feedback.

[Young Grasshopper]

Thankyou for you’re feed back. I understand the importance of playtesting as I have designed a board game myself and the obsticals that arise during hundreds of hours of play have almost competely changed my design from it’s original form.

As for AA50, many posters here would likely agree that modifying the game into you’re own house rules could be viewed as a hobby more that a playing alternative. That being said, there are many omissions in AA50 that many believe the game can not be without, for example: escorts for bombing raids, the addition of the atom bomb and merchant shipping in the Atlantic.

What I have done is created a document apart from my post here where I have cut and pasted the AA50 pdf rules from the internet and have added my rules to encompass everything. This way, I believe I could introduce the new rules to a friend who has never played the game before and I could play the game the way I envisioned it. This requires some deception however, it is a good way to test the rules without people questioning you’re changes and it could also be subject to tweeks the newcomers feel it should get (sorry Larry).

I can’t create a link right now but I could email you my modified rulebook if you like (it took alot of work but I believe it was worth it due to the great results).

Thanks again for you’re comments

[Upside-down_Turtle]

@Trisdin:

WOW…. Almost 100 views and no comments! come on members, tell me what you think.

I know how you feel.  No one comments on my house rules either.

I’m new to the game, so I like to stick with the basics and not modify the game so much.  My house rules tend to be simple things, like letting destroyers bombard, since I think it’s stupid if a battleship and cruiser can, but a destroyer can’t.  The most complicated thing I’ve come up with is my nuke rules.

Players like Imperious Leader have been playing for what must be a hundred years.  :-D They have websites dedicated to countless Advanced Axis and Allies games with Larry Harris himself, with battle sequences involving 10 and 12 sided dice, weather, terrain, you name it.  When Imperious Leader posts something, it gets a lot of attention and respect.

Me?  Even A&A miniatures looks a bit too complicated for me.  Besides, I can’t afford all those games…yet.  I’m just a simple turtle.  You’d think with our low center of gravity we’d be able to stay upright more often.

Comments:

I think you meant to spell “Zubov” Zhukov.

I don’t like the National Advancement chart. It’s partially because I’m very comfortable with the AA50 tech rules, so much so I’ve come up with several variants of a 3rd Breakthrough Chart.

In terms of play testing, I know from experience the Nuke advancement for US won’t work.  I tried one game where nukes were on a 3rd breakthrough chart.  All the US did was turtle and do tech roles, then game over.

I like the supply tokes idea and how you can move them, but only if you can attack them, thus disrupting supply.  Certainly, it can help in terms of stacking limits.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

@ogrebait:

@Trisdin:

WOW…. Almost 100 views and no comments! come on members, tell me what you think.

Well, I can’t speak for the others, but here’s what I think.

You have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this alternative set-up, and I wouldn’t mind trying it out. In the absence of a lot of playtesting, however, it would be hard for me to render an opinion on what works and what doesn’t work in this modified rule set. That could also be said for some of the other A&A variants being circulated, and therein lies the rub….

I have been in and out of the gaming world for decades, and I am a relative newcomer to A&A. Over the years, one of the biggest obstacles I have found to pursuing this pastime is finding both a game I enjoy and a critical mass of other gamers to play with. It is of marginal benefit to invest a lot of time, energy and occasionally money into acquiring and learning a game which only a handful of people in the world are willing to play. I currently own four “official” A&A variants, but the only one that I regularly play is AA50, in part, because of the difficulty in finding people interested in the other games.

I certainly don’t mind experimentation, and I’ve suggested a few changes myself. However, without some clearinghouse to determine what rule sets should become the defacto standard, then all these “house rules” have the tendency to further fragment a relatively small population of players. My humble suggestion (which would admittedly be difficult to implement) is to first establish a method to propose, test, and semi-formally “bless” modified rules so that there is some standard that the A&A community can rely on. The closest thing we have to that right now is either the folks at WOTC or Larry Harris’s Game Design site, and both have their limitations.

That being said, if you or someone else would like to have a go at giving your rule set a test drive, let me know. Due to the demands of my life outside of gaming, I’m generally not a fast player. However, if you don’t mind a leisurely match, I can accommodate a trial run and give you some feedback.

What, you mean like an Axis and Allies think tank?  A guild, or a league?  By the term “bless”, I’d say you wanted to establish a Church of Axis and Allies.

Yes, it certainly might be a good idea to form a free association of game testers which may endorse certain optional rules, and I’ve thought of the idea myself.  Still, I think the danger lies in this being too successful.

Things are very libertarian right now in terms of House Rules.  So what if small groups form exclusive social domains for certain house rules?  If someone comes up with a stupid or sucky rule, it only effects those who play it the one time.  And if they like the rule, so what?  I certainly wouldn’t want to impose defacto house rules on anyone.  It only stifles creativity.

And besides, House Rules are named so because they apply only in your house, and they change from house to house.  By definition, rules endorsed by an A&A Guild wouldn’t be House Rules, they’d be Guild Rules.   Just as the home is sacred, the rules of the home are sacred, even rules pertaining to games; especially rules pertaining to games.  That’s why, in some way, all House Rules are sacred, precisely because there is no one authority, and there are so many which contradict each other.

I think Larry Harris, Imperious Leader, and their associates all have the right idea.  They make their own games, then sell them for money.   :-)

[ogrebait]

Well, if someone wants to create “house rules” to use only among a close group of fellow players, who am I to object?

However, if someone is looking for broader acceptance among the gaming community with the hopes that these changes will be accepted and used among a larger group, then there is a significant obstacle as long as there is no established process to vet the proposed changes. Trisdin’s modified rules might make for a great game, but if he and half a dozen gamers are the only ones who use them, then they are of limited utility outside that group.

I have enough problems with my puny reptilian brain keeping up with all the differences in the “official” A&A games. If I am going to learn all the nuances of a complex A&A variant, I would at least like to know that I will actually be able to use them on a semi-regular basis. I’m not knocking Trisdin or anyone else who has tried to come up with a better mousetrap, but I just see a lot of people going in a lot of different directions without any mechanism for the broader A&A community to arrive at any kind of consensus on what that better mousetrap looks like.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

Say, this is supposed to be about Trisdin’s House Rules.  I’ll start a new thread, and we’ll move the conversation there.  Look for “Axis and Allies Guild”.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Upside-down_Turtle:

@Trisdin:

WOW…. Almost 100 views and no comments! come on members, tell me what you think.

I know how you feel.  No one comments on my house rules either.

I’m new to the game, so I like to stick with the basics and not modify the game so much.  My house rules tend to be simple things, like letting destroyers bombard, since I think it’s stupid if a battleship and cruiser can, but a destroyer can’t.  The most complicated thing I’ve come up with is my nuke rules.

Players like Imperious Leader have been playing for what must be a hundred years.  :-D They have websites dedicated to countless Advanced Axis and Allies games with Larry Harris himself, with battle sequences involving 10 and 12 sided dice, weather, terrain, you name it.  When Imperious Leader posts something, it gets a lot of attention and respect.

Me?  Even A&A miniatures looks a bit too complicated for me.  Besides, I can’t afford all those games…yet.  I’m just a simple turtle.  You’d think with our low center of gravity we’d be able to stay upright more often.

Comments:

I think you meant to spell “Zubov” Zhukov.

I don’t like the National Advancement chart. It’s partially because I’m very comfortable with the AA50 tech rules, so much so I’ve come up with several variants of a 3rd Breakthrough Chart.

In terms of play testing, I know from experience the Nuke advancement for US won’t work.  I tried one game where nukes were on a 3rd breakthrough chart.  All the US did was turtle and do tech roles, then game over.

I like the supply tokes idea and how you can move them, but only if you can attack them, thus disrupting supply.  Certainly, it can help in terms of stacking limits.

Yes ,you are right. Zhukov (how embarassing). I am very uncomfortable with the A&A50 tech rules for a lot of reasons that I won’t get into here, so we agree to disagree.

As for members owning every version of A&A and playing every night, some guys are just playaholics and thats ok, I will never have that kind of experience but my opinion is that if you are creative and wish to tweek the game with you’re own rules…. Go for it, even if you never get a chance to play them.

I havn’t looked at you’re house rules yet turtle but I will read them and comment as I understand that it is difficult getting feed back from people. Right away though, I’m not sure I like destroyers bombarding as they are smaller ,faster and loaded with depth charges. Their deck guns have ok power and range but not for pounding a coastline from miles away.

I’ve heard about A&A minitures but know nothing about it… I might check it out.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

Thanks.  perhaps commenting on any of my house rules would be bad at the moment.  they’re still a work in progress.

destroyers historically bombarded all the time.  sure, they weren’t the U.S.S. New Jersey, but they got the job done.  Larry Harris just doesn’t like an 8 IPC ship to have too many abilities.

[Emperor_Taiki]

I like how Russia starts with more tanks and not at war with germany
but why should escourt fighters have their range increased, A&A aircraft range is already unrelaistic enough and i dont see how stratgic bombing gives you more fuel capacity

and what happens if i am the US and using a spy dice and roll a chinese surrender, do i destroy my own units.

I also like the old techs and think if every tech is nation specific your missing out on parts of history. WHy not keep the old tech, and then just give each nationa 3 or 4 nation specifc advancments

obviosly the atmoic bomb is cool but the Germans were working on one too and before the US, if anything the atomic bomb should be a german tech and the US have to spy to get it.

I think it is also cool that indivdual genrals are represented, but i think it would be better if they were on the board and not just a tech

overall i think it is good even if I dont understand some rules and i will ask my group if they want to play these next game

[Young Grasshopper]

Escorts have increased range simply because they would never be able to reach an enemy factory and get home with a maximum 4 spaces. If escorts can’t reach the target area and have enough to reach a friendly teritorry, than SBR’s would be even more rare.

The U.S can’t roll for a chinese surender because that advantage only exsists on the japanese chart.

I have gone through the trouble of typing the whole rulebook with my rules added, I could e-mail you the document if you like and than you and your group could make changes to it.

[generalyk]

I wanted to study your rules a bit before I commented it’ll be awhile before I can playtest them.  Here are some thoughts though.

I like the setup, especially 1 fighter, 1 bomber for Russia & UK forces in Borneo, New Guinea, and East Indies.

I like the Baltic Sea rule, I have a similiar rule in my house rules.  Did you decide to drop any ideas concerning Gilbraltar & Turkish Straits?

You & I have been talking about SBRs, your escort fighters attack @ 3, interceptors defend @ 4.  I’m sure you’ve come across SBR rules that have the attack & defense values reduced.  The most common one I’ve come across is escort fighters attack @ 1, interceptors defend @ 2.  The people I play with decided to have it escorts attack @ 2, interceptors defend @ 2, bombers dogfight @ 1 before bombing run.  I’m just wondering if you’ve tried it, if not it might help with increasing SBRs.

I like the ‘shipping lanes’ rule how does it play out for you?  It reminds me of something vaguely similiar proposed by a gentleman by the name of Jim Lee.  His post is in these house rules much further back, I’m just not sure how to find it & attach it to this post.  He suggested not using the paper money, place coins on the board for income & a nation had to move the coins to factories to purchase units.  That’s how we’ve been playing up here in the chilly, wet north country.  Anyway, you gotta do some extra planning to get your supply lines & convoys organized and once organized you gotta protect them pretty hard cause any disruption can lead to 1-2 turn setbacks.

We used a dogfight rule like yours, except for the first round strike on grounded aircraft (I don’t think I could sell that part to the other guys).  We decided to drop the dogfighting to streamline the combat round.  Now we use random casualties.  If interested in that let me know.

Your techs are more like National Advantages.  There is nothing wrong with them but I prefer techs that are available to any nation.  Is the Atomic Bomb designed to be a game ender?  If not, then maybe roll 2d6 or 3d6 and the total would be the number of land units destroyed.  However, the defender does have an opportunity to intercept & shoot down the A bomber.  Anyway I like it.

Emperor_Taiki is correct to a point however, the Germans were nowhere near as far as the Americans were with atomic research and the German A Bomb was totally screwed after the heavy water plant in Norway was bombed and what remained of their heavy water was sunk on a ferry in the Baltic Sea by commandos, I’m a little fuzzy on the details, its been awhile since I saw that on the History Channel.

All in all your house rules are nice work. :-)

[Young Grasshopper]

Thanks for your imput.

I included the critical strike on grounded aircraft to give the attacker reason to get involved in a dogfight seeing how deffending aircraft hit @4. The critical strike is @1 and for the first round only, I believe attackers shouldn’t get a disadvantage for being agressive. Without the critical strike, players ask themselves why should I attack with my valuable aircraft and get all the odds against me.

I don’t enjoy changing the attack and defend capabilities of any units, I believe the game is difficult enough without trying to calculate all the different changes for any given senerio. for example: Fighters attack @3 except when escorting and except in dogfights and except on carriers and except….ect.ect.ect. (you get my point).

I am still tweeking the merchant convoy rules when transporting supply chips however, this is a major aspect of my rules and it must be handled with care to balance the game. On one hand, the allies have enough to do, what with keeping up with with the axis agression during the first 4 rounds and on the other hand it is too much of a factor to just ignore the importance of the merchant shipping lanes. For example: if I were the supreame commander for Germany during the war, I would never have shiffted towards bombing London or even think about opperation Sea Lion when they were so close to starving the little Island. Non the less the rule is still a work in progress… any Ideas?

I might think about a rule for the Gibralter however, I don’t want to limit the Italian fleet entering the Black Sea. That would only limit them to Africa and I want the Italian player to have options.

As for my Tech charts, I believe that if your going to have the kind of game ender like a nuke just for historic reasons, I would prefer to limit it to one Nation (U.S) and still leave it to chance of getting that advantage. As for Nations limited to thier own charts, I have found in my games that players really think hard about what Nation they wish to play at the begining of the game because they want to play with some charts but don’t want to be up against others. One aspect that I have found very important is giving each nation one free chance per turn to get a tech, this way techs are always a factor in the game while still rewarding others for buying extra chances.

I have a book where I have cut and pasted the Axis and Allies rules into a word document and have added my own rules to make everything more compleate to the newbies I play with. It took alot of work and I think it looks nice, I could e-mail you a copy if you like and that way you can edit it to your own house rules, the good thing is that most of the work is done for you. Just send me a personal message with your email address… I think you would like it.