@Faramir
Thanks for your reply. I’ve considered this as an option too. It’s simple and easy to remember.
Damage can range between 4 and 20 though which is a bit inconsistent for my liking.
Thanks for sharing your ideas nonetheless
The Cliffside Bunker House Rules
-
@Baron:
you still keeping interceptors @2?
No… I removed the modified air battle values until further testing, but what do you think about restricting interceptors to air bases.
-
Why did you change the order of play? Japan before Russia, how’s so?
This house rule set was primarily designed for table top games with 4 or more players. We have found that more game rounds are played in the same time frame when 2 players conduct their turns at the same time. The new game round sequence would allow both Germany and Japan to start the game, and every game round there after. Also, because of the non-existent or rare interaction of the two nations… Russia and the United states would be next to conduct their turns together, and save valuable daylight hours for more game rounds. This type of game play takes practice to master, but eventually becomes second nature. It will also matter who plays which nation, because you don’t want one player playing 2 nations that are designed to go at the same time. Here’s a more detailed breakdown…
Game Round Sequence
1. Germany and Japan conduct turns at the same time
2. Russia and the United States conduct turns at the same time
3. China and United Kingdom Europe conduct turns at the same time
4. Italy and United Kingdom Pacific conduct turns at the same time
5. France conducts their turn, and a new game round sequence beginsSuggested Player Assignments
4 Player Games
Player 1. Germany / Italy
Player 2. Japan
Player 3. Soviet Union / UK Europe / France
Player 4. United States / China / UK Pacific5 Player Games
Player 1. Germany / Italy
Player 2. Japan
Player 3. Soviet Union / UK Pacific
Player 4. United States / China
Player 5. UK Europe / France6 Player Games
Player 1. Germany / Italy
Player 2. Japan
Player 3. Soviet Union
Player 4. United States
Player 5. UK Europe / France
Player 6. UK Pacific / China7 Player Games
Player 1. Germany
Player 2. Japan
Player 3. Italy
Player 4. Soviet Union
Player 5. United States
Player 6. UK Europe / France
Player 7. UK Pacific / China8 Player Games
Player 1. Germany
Player 2. Japan
Player 3. Italy
Player 4. Soviet Union
Player 5. United States
Player 6. UK Europe
Player 7. UK Pacific
Player 8. China / France -
@Young:
@Baron:
you still keeping interceptors @2?
No… I removed the modified air battle values until further testing, but what do you think about restricting interceptors to air bases.
I don’t think it is a necessity.
Keeping interception as it is may increase SBR action.
Forbidding +1 bonus damage is cool and not OP. -
@Young:
@Baron:
you still keeping interceptors @2?
No… I removed the modified air battle values until further testing, but what do you think about restricting interceptors to air bases.
I think the SBR rules are one of the most broken parts of the game rules. If escorts and interceptors rolled at 2 it would add an additional dimension about the undesirability of unescorted SBRs which is both true to history and adds to the game play. No wonder SBR in 1942.2 they made interceptors roll at 2 - but didn’t also make escorts do the same. I think that was also an oversight.
The other part I hate is combat movement after purchase, but I don’t think anyone is really interested in that.
Since we’re talking generally, I think the 1942.2 map is a bit broken with that Japanese BB off Indonesia. Too much of the game swings on that battle. I reckon it should be changed to a Cruiser and DD. Or some other similar change. If you make the SZ37 attack and kill the BB, it’s hard to lose. If you lose, it’s then almost impossible to win the game as Allies.
-
In my experience, it’s pretty difficult to get fighters available for an escort mission when they’re needed back home for maximum scramble defense. Also, you’d have to be pretty savvy to position those escorts close to the front in order to get the range needed. You would have to give up help for other battles so you can get your fighters in on escort missions, and the defender always has the choice to stay grounded. That always fustrates me when I’m looking for an air battle, because now you’re fighters did nothing but scare off the enemy when they could have been doing something else important. However, I do remember 1st edition… and nobody was doing SBRs back then, so I’m glad they fixed it a little, but it’ll never be perfect.
-
@Young:
In my experience, it’s pretty difficult to get fighters available for an escort mission when they’re needed back home for maximum scramble defense. Also, you’d have to be pretty savvy to position those escorts close to the front in order to get the range needed. You would have to give up help for other battles so you can get your fighters in on escort missions, and the defender always has the choice to stay grounded. That always fustrates me when I’m looking for an air battle, because now you’re fighters did nothing but scare off the enemy when they could have been doing something else important. However, I do remember 1st edition… and nobody was doing SBRs back then, so I’m glad they fixed it a little, but it’ll never be perfect.
That is how it adds to the game. OOB, SBRs are just awesome even if unprotected. That’s ridiculous. B-17s did shoot down fighters sometimes, particularly when the fighters were outnumbered 3 to 1, but it is hardly realistic to think that there’s an even match one on one.
-
@Young:
In my experience, it’s pretty difficult to get fighters available for an escort mission when they’re needed back home for maximum scramble defense. Also, you’d have to be pretty savvy to position those escorts close to the front in order to get the range needed. You would have to give up help for other battles so you can get your fighters in on escort missions, and the defender always has the choice to stay grounded. That always fustrates me when I’m looking for an air battle, because now you’re fighters did nothing but scare off the enemy when they could have been doing something else important. However, I do remember 1st edition… and nobody was doing SBRs back then, so I’m glad they fixed it a little, but it’ll never be perfect.
That is how it adds to the game. OOB, SBRs are just awesome even if unprotected. That’s ridiculous. B-17s did shoot down fighters sometimes, particularly when the fighters were outnumbered 3 to 1, but it is hardly realistic to think that there’s an even match one on one.
It is a thin line between SBR with no interception (OOB G40) or no SBR because of too much frightening Fgs on IC TT (OOB 1942.2 SBR optional). As YG noted, even when you bring along escort it is often an opportunity lost to use this Fg elsewhere because defender choose to duck in instead of intercept.
So the defender must see an advantage to risk his precious Fgs when the attacker has an overwhelming forces of StBs, or simply a clear advantage.There is only a few conditions which provides attractive ingredients to get more action during SBRs.
1942.2 with Fg A1 first strike Defense @2 and bomber A1 first strike but damage D6 is not very good incentive for the attacker. And the first strike attack can be scarry for the defender when only 1 or 2 Fg can intercept. Net result, no intercept or rarely. And when there is not enough bomber, StBs stay on regular combat acting like long range tactical bomber attacking @4.However, if you rise damage to D6+2, you get something in between G40 and 1942.2
which have some merits.But what YG is trying can probably work better (even if the odds are less appealing to the attacker). Blocking a +1 bonus cannot be enough for a few StBs but in large number, reducing 5 or more damage to IC can worth the risk to intercept. And as counterweight, when 6 or more StBs attack, an interceptor is likely to be destroyed (6 times 1/6 = grossly near 1 odds).
The attacker lose some damage on bombing but he gains an opportunity to shot an interceptor. -
@Baron:
There is only a few conditions which provides attractive ingredients to get more action during SBRs.
I wouldn’t limit our imaginations, all it takes is some trouble shooting…here’s a problem with SBRs…
A loophole in the role of Tactical bombers during SBRs has been exposed and abused.
By not announcing targets during raids, tactical bombers are being brought in for the sole purpose of escorting even though they are not permitted in this role. However, because there is an eligible target with 1 or 2 bases present… a loophole is created. A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered, and have the posibility of multiple air battles triggered, the defender would divide their interceptors among each separate raid, and than the attacker would divide their escorts last.
-
@Young:
A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered
Isn’t this part already the rule?
Of course, this loophole is also resolved moderately well by having fighters A2 D2 with both types of bombers A1.
-
@Young:
@Baron:
There is only a few conditions which provides attractive ingredients to get more action during SBRs.
I wouldn’t limit our imaginations, all it takes is some trouble shooting…here’s a problem with SBRs…
A loophole in the role of Tactical bombers during SBRs has been exposed and abused.
By not announcing targets during raids, tactical bombers are being brought in for the sole purpose of escorting even though they are not permitted in this role. However, because there is an eligible target with 1 or 2 bases present… a loophole is created. A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered, and have the posibility of multiple air battles triggered, the defender would divide their interceptors among each separate raid, and than the attacker would divide their escorts last.
Why do you see it as a loophole?
It is only 1 IPC cheaper than StratB or cost 1 more than Fg unit.
At least, it can bomb Bases for D6 damage.
And being fodder for StBs is not very different than Infantry protecting Artillery.Also, during Battle of Britain, a lot of German TacBs were shot down.
-
Isn’t this part already the rule?
No… oob rules state that bombing targets are announced by remaining air units after the single round of dog fighting.
Of course, this loophole is also resolved moderately well by having fighters A2 D2 with both types of bombers A1.
This would be balance mod rules you’re referring to, I’m still 50/50 on whether or not I want to adopt them. oob rules have all air unit combat value @1… so BM does help with the loophole.
-
Hmm, ok. But Tacs can only attack airbases and Naval bases anyway. Doesn’t seem a big problem. You’re hardly going to bomb a base unless you think the IC will be maxed out.
@Baron:
Why do you see it as a loophole?
The part I see as a loophole is that Tacs are effectively escorting the Strat bombers, about as well as a fighter would.
It’s a bit like the way transports effectively defended battleships in classic.
-
@Baron:
@Young:
A loophole in the role of Tactical bombers during SBRs has been exposed and abused.
By not announcing targets during raids, tactical bombers are being brought in for the sole purpose of escorting even though they are not permitted in this role. However, because there is an eligible target with 1 or 2 bases present… a loophole is created. A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered, and have the posibility of multiple air battles triggered, the defender would divide their interceptors among each separate raid, and than the attacker would divide their escorts last.
Why do you see it as a loophole?
It is only 1 IPC cheaper than StratB or cost 1 more than Fg unit.
At least, it can bomb Bases for D6 damage.
And being fodder for StBs is not very different than Infantry protecting Artillery.Also, during Battle of Britain, a lot of German TacBs were shot down.
I see it as a loophole because tac bombers used as fodder greatly favors the attacker, and why would I remove a more expensive tac bomber instead of a fighter during air battles?.. so that I won’t have to subject my tac bombers to built in AA guns from bases. So if I’m afraid my tac bombers will be lost to facility guns, why am I bringing them in?.. to increase my odds in the air battle by essentially using them as escorts for the planes that I really want saved, who are bombing the targets I really want bombed.
There’s something very cheesy about this move IMO, and I’ve seen it done many times. By splitting bombing units into different air battles, they are forced to bomb the facilitates they were briefed on while further defining the roles each air unit was designed for. The biggest problem with G40 SBRs is… everyone wants the benefits of having air units, but don’t want to lose any… therefore you get a lot of overkill attackers which results in turtling interceptors.
-
-
I think the American and Soviet war effort rule is cool, but what happened to the random aspect of it? Now it’s set in stone what unit you get each subsequent round after the USA/USSR is at war? Wouldn’t the random roll out of the pool be a little more fun?
-
Great new twist to your house rules by speeding up gameplay. Love it.
So just to confirm, for example you could be a few rounds into the game and you will have scenarios for example, where a german force and a japanese force can enter a Russian territory in Combat movement and combine their attack rolls during Combat phase?
Cheers -
I think the American and Soviet war effort rule is cool, but what happened to the random aspect of it? Now it’s set in stone what unit you get each subsequent round after the USA/USSR is at war? Wouldn’t the random roll out of the pool be a little more fun?
I agree that the random aspect is more fun, however, there were a few reasons for doing it this way…
1. It’s now meant to represent an increasing war effort that’s consistent with military progression as war rages on. Therefore, getting a superior unit before a cheap unit can not easily be explained.
2. The decline of unit types late in the game better represents a decrease in civilian and military moral if the war has not yet been won.
3. It’s only fair to the Axis players to know what is about to be placed on the board.
4. It allows the Americans to better prepare ahead of time for what unit they will get.
5. Many were asking if the 6 unit chart would reset, I thought it best to layout 12 without resetting.
-
Great new twist to your house rules by speeding up gameplay. Love it.
So just to confirm, for example you could be a few rounds into the game and you will have scenarios for example, where a german force and a japanese force can enter a Russian territory in Combat movement and combine their attack rolls during Combat phase?
CheersNo, the order of play is still to be obeyed… when units from 2 nations interact due to close proximity… players must be mindful of who goes first and play accordingly. Therefore, Germany could attack Stalingrad and take control… however, Japan goes next and can only reinforce it on their non-combat move.
-
@Baron:
@Young:
@Baron:
you still keeping interceptors @2?
No… I removed the modified air battle values until further testing, but what do you think about restricting interceptors to air bases.
I don’t think it is a necessity.
Keeping interception as it is may increase SBR action.
Forbidding +1 bonus damage is cool and not OP.@Young:
A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered
Isn’t this part already the rule?
Of course, this loophole is also resolved moderately well by having fighters A2 D2 with both types of bombers A1.
Maybe there is something which can be added to increase interception and make Fighter better than attacking TacBomber:
What do you think about a +1 defensive air bonus coming from an operational Airbase?
Up to three intercepting Fighters get +D1 bonus, making them defending @2 against incoming bombers and Fighters @1 during dogfight phase.
This is in addition to the +1 damage per StB negated if there is at least one intercepting Fg.Also, to simplify Tacbomber use, what do you think if it can make a single 1 point of damage against IC and factory, and keeping D6 vs bases, including military base ?
That way, Tactical can always be part of any bombing run and always submit to facility’s AA guns.
This remains very sub-optimal for the attacker but it allows more flexibility with air units. -
Axis Powers
- Global Economy
All 3 Axis powers have a combined total of 136 IPCs on the income tracker
(R&D) *The nation that controls the most
This should be a comparative between initial economy and final stage when 136 IPCs is reached.
Germany: 30 IPCs (45= 150 %, 60= 200%, 75= 250%, 90= 300%)
Japan : 26 IPCs (39= 150%, 52= 200%, 65= 250%, 78%= 300%)
Italy: 10 IPCs (15= 150%, 20= 200%, 25= 250%, 30= 300%)Otherwise, Italy player have little chance to get this victory award.
- Global Economy
Suggested Topics
