Spring 1942: 1941 scenario

Panzer Grenadiers: 3-2-2 costing 5 ipc. Germany can have no more than 6 of these at any time.

Super Battleships: 5-4-2 costing 24 ipc and takes 3 hits to sink. They fire preemptively each round (losses are applied and do not get a chance to return fire) Cannot be built until turn 3.

Heavy Carriers: 2-3-2 costing 18 ipc and takes 2 hits to sink. Three planes can be carried, and while damaged they cannot launch planes. Cannot be built until turn 3.

Q-ships: 1-1-2 costing 10, these are armed transports and can be used to take combat losses like any other warship. They carry the same cargo as regular Transports.

Optional starting Technologies: UK gets Radar, Germany and USSR gets Self Propelled Artillery, Germany starts with Mobile Warfare Doctrine, USA gets Naval Radar on turn 3.

I recently played a game with a new group, and they had a few changes that altered the game dramatically. They edited units so that they “represent” real units during the war. For instance, they changed German tanks to Panzers and made them 4/4/2’s for 8 IPs. They gave Russia 2 free INF at the start of their turn to place at an IPC before mobilization. They made Japanese fighters into Zeros making them 3/3/4’s for 8 IPs. British AA guns hit is increased to 2 while in London. Lastly, American transports get to move one space after offloading, but cannot pickup or dropoff during this move. This was my first exposure to these rules. In my opinion, the US transport rule made shuck-shuck much faster. These rules clearly favor allies, but definitely changed the game. Give me your thoughts, changes, etc.  :mrgreen:

Moderator’s Edit: Added [Spring 1942] to title

I like your starting setup because it is flavorful, thoughtful, and sane, but there’s no way it favors the axis. If you are ever near San Francisco, I would bet $500 that I can beat you with this Allied setup (as in, I play the Allies every time) in at least 2 out of 3 low luck games.

USSR: 42 (Russia worth 8, Caucasus and Vologda worth 6, Karelia and Novosibirsk worth 4, Archangel and Kazakh worth 3, Okrug, Yakut, Far East, and Buryatia worth 2
Germany: 40
UK: 24 (UK and India worth 6, Egypt and Australia worth 2, South Africa, Trans-Jordan, Western and Eastern Canada, Burma, New Zealand, Gibraltar, and Persia worth 1
Japan: 30
USA: 30 (Eastern and Western USA are worth 10, Central worth 6, Mexico and Panama worth 2)

Allows the USSR to hammer Germany and Japan. USA and UK are weaker to represent slower mobilization times. Also forces Allies to ensure USSR survives, or perish.

That depends on what you term fail? If they commit 3 tanks 2 fighters and Caucasus units and don’t kill the tanks and or at least a plane, then that attack is a fail, but nobody unless hes a fool will say “Game over- insert 50 cents- do not pass go” Alot of other battles and an accumulation of advantages over turns is what you want. Of course the “Big Battle at Moscow” could change the fortunes of either side. Go to steam and enter my name and #2799 and we can play a game.

@baron-Münchhausen

Sweet ! haven’t read it yet but i will. Just wanted to say you and @Black_Elk online at same time lol Awesome !

About history I agree but my point is absolutely not to make many rule changes - In fact we hate house rules but sometime we “feel” obliged to introduce some very few. And we are really happy when some experienced players or our own experience shows us later that the official rules were better! Lesser and simpler the rules better the game!

If it were only about 2 hits against a fleet like 1xBB + 1xAC + 2xFighters > We wouldn’t need any house rule because 1xBB damage and 1xFighter destroyed stays a reasonable response … But …

When 2 hits against 2xBB + 1xAC + 2xFighters > We HATE the 1xBB + 1xBB damages for many reasons explained elsewhere. Worse with 3 BB (for ex. we experienced the 2 first Japan BBs surviving and regrouped with a third one) > That is a shield of 3 hits! And that’s what we want to change with a house rule as SIMPLE as possible …

Clarification for the vets like Elk: Total respect for your stats and very precise calculations - And if our house rule makes players buy less BB in the futur … Well … Let’s say it’s the historical decline of the BB that started in the middle of the WWII! (Remember we are in 42) … And be sure some newbies (like me) will keep on buying BBs sometime to time because we don’t play maths + to overawe our opponent and finally because WE JUST LOVE BBs lol!

To be said in the last example: With our rule the defender can choose 1xFighter destroyed + 1xBB damaged (because last hit) … But the next hit (if any) should be on the BB.

I finally found a different HR intended to fix Subs vs planes:
@deslock:

IMO, subs are too weak if they can’t be used as defending fodder (I know some other user agree as I read posts complaining about this).  To illustrate, suppose USA approaches Japan with an invasion force and Japan strikes first:

Japan (attacker):
8 ftr
2 bmb

USA (defender):
2 CV
4 ftr
8 sub
2 dd
4 trn

The rules are fairly clear that in this battle the USA can’t choose to take subs as losses, which means Japan has a ~90% chance of victory (killing everything except for the subs).  I’m contemplating a house rule that states:

Defending subs can be hit by any air/sea units regardless of whether or not an attacking DD is present.  However, if no enemy DD is present, the subs may submerge before any rolling.  If subs attack and no defending DD is present, then defending air units can’t hit subs (even when they’re on the surface).

(I believe that the last two sentences are how it already works, but I included them with the house rule for clarity)

This way subs’ current capabilities are preserved, but they can now be used as defending fodder. Does that seem reasonable to the more experienced players here or does it throw off the game mechanics? (I’ve only played AA50 a couple times)

And there is also this thread about how to limit the DDs vs Subs ratio (same problem):
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6367