Okay, it’s too late to add anything official to the AAE40 or Global40 rules, but for semi-official house rules, how about:
Japanese/Soviet non-aggression: Japan cannot declare war on the USSR unless the Axis controls at least one of the following: London, Moscow, or Washington. The USSR cannot declare war on Japan unless the Allies control either: A.) Berlin, or B.) BOTH Paris AND Rome.
Air Transports: Cost: 7 IPCs. Attack: 0. Defense: 0. Move: 6. Can transport 1 infantry, paratroop, or marine from one friendly-controlled territory to another friendly-controlled territory during the non-combat movement phase. They cannot transport tanks, artillery, or mechanized infantry. They can also air-drop one paratroop into an enemy-controlled territory during the combat movement phase. (Note: There are various ways to designate an air transport. I bought extra poker chips in different colors, so I use a bomber with a blue poker chip under it to represent an air transport.)
Paratroops: Paratroops cost 4 IPCs, and each country can build 1 per turn. They function as regular infantry in all respects, except they may make air drops into enemy controlled territories. When making an air drop, they attack with a 2. If an AA gun is present in the territory they are air dropping into, the air transport that is carrying them must survive AA fire. If not, the paratroop is destroyed along with the air transport. (Note: There are various ways to designate a paratroop. I bought extra poker chips in different colors, so I use an infantry with a blue poker chip under it to represent a paratroop.)
Marines: Marines cost 4 IPCs, and each country can build 1 per turn. They function as regular infantry in all respects, except they attack with a 3 when making an amphibious landing. (Note: There are various ways to designate a marine. I bought extra poker chips in different colors, so I use an infantry with a green poker chip under it to represent a marine.)
Amphibious landings: Tanks and artillery have an attack value of 1 when making an amphibious landing.
Garrison units: The scale of A&A means that many units which played a role in the war were too small to be represented in the game, but still may have had an effect on the strategic situation. (The U.S. garrison on Wake Island, for instance.) If making an air drop with paratroops and/or an amphibious landing into an enemy-controlled territory that contains no enemy troops, there is considered to be a garrison unit with a defense strength of 1. This unit must be defeated before an air drop or amphibious landing can capture a territory. This rule is ignored if there are also land units (infantry of any type, tanks, or artillery) attacking from an adjacent land area.
Defender Retreats: During combat, any or all defending units may choose to retreat before any round of combat. The attacker then gets one round of “freebie” shots at the retreating units, who do not get to fire back. The defender may take casualties out of any “rear guard” units he decided not to retreat first. Any defending units which did not declare their intent to retreat before the combat phase (“rear guard”) may still fire at the attacker. Any units which declared their intent to retreat which survive this round of combat may then escape to an adjacent friendly area.
Lend Lease: The U.S. or Britain may give lend-lease money to any allied player. This takes place during the British or U.S. “purchase new units” phase. Roll a die to determine if the money and materiel survived U-boats, bribes, thefts, corruption, etc. On a roll of 1, half of the money is lost (round fractions up). On a roll of 2, one-third of the money is lost (round fractions of 1/3 down, and 2/3 up). On a roll of 3-6, all money arrives safely.
Rail Movement: Rail movement takes place during the non-combat movement phase. Units moving by rail have an unlimited movement allowance, provided all territories through which they travel were connected and friendly controlled at the beginning of the moving player’s turn. Rail travel can occur across the Suez and Panama canals. Tanks, mechanized infantry, and artillery units each count as two units. Rail capacity, in number of units that can be moved per turn, is as follows:
Germany: 4 units (limited to Europe and Asia)
Japan: 2 units (limited to Asia)
Britain/Free France: 2 units (limited to Europe, Africa, or Asia. Can be used to move U.S. units)
China: 2 units (limited to Asia. Can be used to move U.S. units)
Russia: 3 units (limited to Europe or Asia)
U.S. - 4 units (limited to Western Hemisphere. Can be used to move British or Free French units.)
I would love a rail system. However no one has yet to come up with the mechanics that we can all agree on to make it work.
I would personally love to see some sort of ‘Contested Territory’ system, or rather implement one in house rules. I haven’t worked out all the kinks, but the basis for it would be like the system used in Guadalcanal . After a certain number of rounds, perhaps three or five, the battle for that zone ends. The attacker and defender each stay in that territory, providing the defender has at least one land unit, of course.
On the defending player’s turn, they have the option of reinforcing or conducting a strategic retreat (ie, getting the hell outta Dodge City).
If the defending land unit still remains in the territory, the attacker on their next turn may press on, reinforcing (if possible), or after one round of combat, retreat. (if possible)
Right now, I can only envision this for land battles, maybe air skirmishes, and perhaps naval combat. Of course, I’m seeing if I can work out the bugs to this.
And nobody would get the income
I still want blockhouses.
@Brain:
I still want blockhouses.
Those might be nice. But i would rather it be like airbases and naval bases where you pay like 15-20 ipcs and then put like a “fortification token” on a territory that ups all infantry defense by like one. It would be great to have in like France and England and such. But expensive enough so that it is an investment. And it also is different enough from infantry to make sense to use (instead of buying lots of blockhouse pieces). Now for my wishlist…
1.Canada must have the same status as ANZAC in the global game.
2. special A-Bomb research rules.
3. plenty of pieces/markers/chips/everything (no scimping)
4. A well written rulebook.
5. No board errors.
6. A game that is realistic as possible while still being as equal as possible.
GET OVER CANADA
On the other ones, are you expecting to find some hidden banna plantation to bribe the chimps with.
I like you defense idea
@democratic:
And nobody would get the income
If you are referring my post, yes. The defending player may not get the income generated by that contested territory, but they may place units on an IC, if applicable.
Hopefully, I will have made something definite after next week. I’ll post em’ in House Rules section.
@The:
@Brain:
I still want blockhouses.
Those might be nice. But i would rather it be like airbases and naval bases where you pay like 15-20 ipcs and then put like a “fortification token” on a territory that ups all infantry defense by like one. It would be great to have in like France and England and such. But expensive enough so that it is an investment. And it also is different enough from infantry to make sense to use (instead of buying lots of blockhouse pieces). Now for my wishlist…
1.Canada must have the same status as ANZAC in the global game.
2. special A-Bomb research rules.
3. plenty of pieces/markers/chips/everything (no scimping)
4. A well written rulebook.
5. No board errors.
6. A game that is realistic as possible while still being as equal as possible.
I agree with most of what you said, but I still want a blockhouse piece, we already have air and naval bases.
And stop with the Canada already :-D
I will never give up. They can not be excluded next time.
@The:
@Brain:
I still want blockhouses.
Those might be nice. But i would rather it be like airbases and naval bases where you pay like 15-20 ipcs and then put like a “fortification token” on a territory that ups all infantry defense by like one. It would be great to have in like France and England and such. But expensive enough so that it is an investment. And it also is different enough from infantry to make sense to use (instead of buying lots of blockhouse pieces).
Brain Damaged & Fire Knight, I agree; I’ve posted what I’ve found to be good fix for a blockhouse piece in the house rules section…now to work out the rule details… :|
my idea of block houses is a structure that have 0 attack, 4 defense, 0 movement, and would cost 5 ipc. when you purchase one you can place it on any territory you own, regardless of its IPC value.
my idea of block houses is a structure that have 0 attack, 4 defense, 0 movement, and would cost 5 ipc. when you purchase one you can place it on any territory you own, regardless of its IPC value.
Not bad. We had a discussion on these sometime back and we went round and round and there were lots of good ideas but we definitely could not come to an agreement.
the same goes for a rail system. in the future if i can i will incorporate a rail, and block house system for my A&A games. they would really add a new prospective.
the same goes for a rail system. in the future if i can i will incorporate a rail, and block house system for my A&A games. they would really add a new prospective.
Flashman had some good ideas on a rail system.
