Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

2 hit BB

House Rules

1.7k

?

Guest
last edited by

I’m not sure if this is the correcy forum, but here goes. I’ve only played 6 games of AAA 2ond edition. I just read through a game in which paratroopers and 2 hit BB was used. My questions is, if a BB is hit once during a battle and survives, does it still take 2 more hits to kill it? It seems to me having the player with the hitBB pay 1 or 2 ipcs would be reasonable to restore it to the 2 hit status.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
Y

Yanny
last edited by

In AAE + AAP, the battleship will repair at the end of the turn. In AA original, using the optional battleship 2hit rule, the battleship cannot repair and is killed outright after the second hit upon it.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
?

Guest
last edited by

Thanks, Yanny, for clearing that up.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
X

Xi
last edited by

Clear and concise!
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0

Featured Topics

League rules idea: mulligans for patrons

Guadalcanal Tournament at Strategicon (Los Angeles) Feb. 17, 2024

T-shirts, Hats, and More

global 1940

176

anniversary

1914

1942 2nd ed

tips&tricks

bm3

video

axis & allies

Suggested Topics

U

Some house rules for A&A 1942.2, would love feedback

House Rules
• • • userx

10

1
Votes

10
Posts

867
Views

B

I like all the special sea zone restrictions. Gibraltar and Danish straights. Any thoughts on Suez going through Egypt.

Also like the inclusion of aaafire and some limited transportation capability. Anything that makes for more attractive ship builds always seems good to me.
:-D

On the air, the main impediment to ready testing FtF is the requirement to buy more stuff than comes in the boxed game. With a G40 expansion you still only have 3 sculpts.

I was thinking about this issue for the C5 strategic bomber concept in 1942.2.

One thought I had about Tacs in 1942.2 for the Defenseless Strat B idea I had, was that some aircraft might be represented on the map by a scult that always has a green chip under it (saving all green chips for this use). So with that idea, I was thinking you could represent 3 air units with only 2 sculpts. For example

Strat B = C5 SBR only
Green Chip Fighter = Tactical Bomber
Fighter (red or gray chip) = Fighter

Or you could use a roundel, or paint a tail, but the green chip seemed pretty easy to work with.
Fighter can still fit on a deck that way.

Perhaps if its a game designed to use G40 sculpts for 1942.2 you could just do the same thing with the bomber sculpts? Like
Medium bomber = normal sculpt
Strat bomber = green chip sculpt.

Just an idea to make it easy to test, without a big commitment in painting or purchasing new stuff.

For the factories, I do worry that it takes any series threat to Tokyo from the Americans pretty much off the table. It’s very hard to get onto the mainland in an effective way with US, without expanding production on the money islands. Is this what you are trying to avoid? Or are you trying to prevent Japan from using one on India/Africa/Australia?

For my part I enjoy the factory unit, so rules that restrict where it can go aren’t as appealing to me. Basically the 3 islands affected, Philippines, East Indies and especially Borneo, are pretty much the only interesting territories in whole the Pacific, by virtue of their production potential, so it seems a shame to lose them.
S

2nd timelime E1940 2 ,Russia and Germany team up, spain and south america joins

House Rules
• • • sirjonkey

2

0
Votes

2
Posts

431
Views

S

National Objectives

Germany NO
+5 IPC’s not at war with spain 5

+5 IPC’s atleast 1 german land unit is in egypt

+5 IPC’s germany controls Denmark Zweden norway and finland

+2 IPC’s germany controls Iraq

+2 IPC’s germany controls Persia

+2 IPC’s germany controls North west persia

+5 No allied warships in the Mediterranean sea

+5 if the Axis control at least 3 (Gibraltar,S-france,Greece,Egypt

Russia
+9 IPC’s if russia controls Novosibrisk and is no longer neutral

+5 IPC’s SZ125 is free of allied warships and they control archangel

+3 for every caputered territory ,Turkey,West India,Egypt, saudi arabia

US
when at war
+25 IPC’s if your control all of its orignal territories

UK
+5 IPC’s if your control all of its orignal territories

Italy
?
Spain
+?
B

1942.2 IPC revisions for a 3rd Edition

House Rules
• • • Black_Elk

8

0
Votes

8
Posts

1.0k
Views

B

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.
B

1942.2 Strategic Bombing Raid SBR, Bombers and escorts, Interceptors vs triple A

House Rules
• • • baron Münchhausen

7

0
Votes

7
Posts

2.2k
Views

B

@Black_Elk:

This thread has too much good information to let it sit for an entire year without comment.
:-D

Right now my group doesn’t play with escort/intercept rules, because it just doesn’t seem worth the risk to the fighters (in either role). So when the rules are in effect it mainly serves to discourage bombing altogether.

With altered abilites, like the ones suggested here, I might be more inclined to play the Escort/intercept game.

I think you probably need 3 things to bring Air into balance:
a. an improved SBR mechanic.

b. Better Anti-Aircraft Artillery units Abilities. Like one that can move in combat, with a normal attack defense value of 1, in addition to a one time opening shot vs air, or something along those lines.

c. Some form of naval AA-fire.

I think you have touched on all the essentials here. And have brought up the others before. In addition to working out a dogfight system. The stats in thread are compelling and demonstrate how the first aspect “improved sbr” might be approached.

Nice work, as always

Thank you very much.
I forgot this thread, I will probably use some stats into my Summary thread under construction about various SBRs.

Nonetheless, it needs full focus to really weight all the aspects of SBR with all these numbers.
I can easily understand you need to be in a certain “vibe” to read this kind of posts, hence it was quite dusty.

Besides, I agree on your analysis of these 3 points a, b, c. They need to be coordinate to get a better game.
I made a lot of posts on these points over months.
Need to find the good angle to get a fresh start on these.
S

2 Possible 42.2 House Rules? (want opinions)

House Rules
• • • Sean.C

3

0
Votes

3
Posts

758
Views

S

@Gargantua:

I like 1B, that’s not bad.

But it’ll make things like 8 transports 1 destroyer a HELL of a force to deal with. I’m not convinced…

Maybe they could operate like AA for eac 2 you have paired or something…

Well with 1B, then only the destroyer and 1 transport would get to defend, and the transport could only hit air units.

I see your point if your talking about 1A though. So maybe 1B? I just don’t think having transports have absolutely zero defensive capabilities whatsoever is neither historically accurate or fair.

For 2, i think I’ll leave them at 6. It seems allies are a little bit behind in this version, and the 6ipc tank rule hurts germany more than anyone else.
1

2 turn production - capital ships

House Rules
• • • 12doze12

6

0
Votes

6
Posts

1.1k
Views

1

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from. Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right? I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea. Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game. Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game. Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of
A

AA50: Battleships and the hit that never was

House Rules
• • • allboxcars

32

0
Votes

32
Posts

4.5k
Views

I

I will add these to my official house rules.
T

AARHE: Phase 2: Victory Cities (VC)

House Rules
• • • tekkyy

20

0
Votes

20
Posts

3.2k
Views

I

ok good.

44

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts