Para rule variation???

@Topmat

AxA has often been called a “beer and pretzels” wargame, I suppose because it is fairly simplistic and available—FOR a wargame. That’s not because AxA is elementary or easily mastered, its because other wargames tend to be even more rules-heavy and detailed, which makes some of them famously and notoriously unplayable. They may have an attractive theme or rules, but the “chit” game era (60s-80s) built up to a crescendo before it burst. PC Computer gaming was a major catalyst for this; the ASL/Avalon Hill/SSI style games BEGGED for a computer to handle some of the more complex calculations, setup, rules etc.

I think AxA has the general appeal and longevity it does precisely because it appeared after this “First Golden Age”, and is not married to overcomplex or overly realistic considerations, its a truly “abstract” wargame, where each step (building, conquering, purchasing, combat, movement) is fairly simple, but all together, they are complex enough to satisfy long-time players while only barely overwhelming the new ones.

And, the fact that AxA doesn’t try to simulate or do everything a wargame possibly COULD do is the very reason why there is enough room left in the game to add more, but that’s not necessarily desirable. If the game was already highly complex, rich and random, it would already have many of the things that people are trying to add to it—but its likely no-one would play it. I think most of the more complex house rules systems for AxA fall into this trap, by pushing the complexity/time investment level out of the Goldilocks zone.

I bought a “political” Avalon Hill chit game in 1992, Republic of Rome (4/4 difficulty rating). When I read the instruction manual, I was blown away-- I understood nothing of what i’d read… until I read it for nearly 2 years. We only played it in college 4 times, and the Republic consistently lost as a group. Its a great game, but its also an example of a highly complex simulation game with a narrow audience from the first era–very few people still play these games because they lack any general following or appeal in the internet age, and have been replaced by computer-style games, like the Total War and Europa Universalis series.

Allright- here it is.

The Japanese lost without a massive US contribution. The US built a Flying Tiger tactical bomber turn 4, and the Chinese Nationalists managed to keep the Burma Road open for a turn, so it got to Szechwan. The Russian Far East Army was in Novrosibirsik and Samara by turn 5, so the Japanese made the critical mistake of attacking Amur. This enabled the Russians to divert their tactical bomber from Moscow, and fly it to Suiyuan. The Mongolians walked into the Chinese Communist army over the next few turns, and by turn 8, the CCP had:

8 infantry, 2 of which were Mongolian
2 artillery
1 Russian tactical bomber

The Nationalists had traded Yunnan back and forth four times over the course of the game, and had lost Kwiechow, Anhwe, Hopei, and Hunan. Other than that, they were doing OK, as Szechwan was safe.

The game ended with a narrow Allied victory on turn 12. The FEC had attacked the Japanese unprovoked on turn 2, and by turn 5 had French Indo-China bulked up heavily, with

5 infantry
3 artillery
2 fighters
1 tactical bomber
mIC

Over the next three turns, they built 3 tanks a turn (they controlled Siam and Sumatra).

This forced the Japanese to build an IC in Shanghai, and built 3 tanks every turn to keep the Chinese coast safe from either the Nationalists or the FEC. This means that, out of 55 IPCs a turn, they were automatically spending 18 a turn in an arms race where the Chinese were a factor as well. Then, on turn 8, everything cracked. The CCP retook Chahar at the cost of 4 infantry, and received a Russian tank.

The Nationalist Chinese, who had been playing fairly conservatively, hit Yunnan hard with

9 infantry
6 artillery
1 fighter
1 tactical bomber.

They came out of this battle with 3 infantry dead. Finally, the FEC followed up on this with throwing everything they had at Kwangsi. This triple blow wasn’t something the Japanese could immediately counterattack. They started a new line of defence encompassing Jehol, Shantung, Manchuria, and Kiangsu. They also shipped 6 infantry to hold Hong Kong. It wasn’t enough. The Chinese Communists and Japanese wiped each other out in Jehol, while the Nationalists retook Kwiechow, Hunan, and Kiangsi without any difficulties. ANZAC was cooperative enough to eliminate the possible landing spot of Formosa.

While all of this was going on, the US was focussed chiefly in Europe, where they had done Torch and taken Rome (and were putting its IC to good use!) Normandy had been traded back and forth a few times as well. This had the effect of forcing the Germans to keep 6 infantry in Northern Italy, 2 in Albania, 4 in Yugoslavia, and 1 in Greece. They also had to keep a garrison in Paris, including a fighter to help ward of bombing. This had the effect of the Germans not being able to take Moscow, so there was no immediate danger in Europe. Therefore, the US decided that the time was right to hit the Japanese. On turn 9, they built 3 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 2 strat. bombers. On turn 10, this all sailed out to Hawaii, as 4 loaded transports came out of WUS. On turn 12, the Japanese (who were down to 12 IPCs a turn, thanks to the Chinese mopping up the northeast, and ANZAC clearing the DEI), succumbed to a US invasion fleet. That same turn, the British captured Paris and Northern Italy, causing Germany to surrender.

Not all of this was caused directly by a stronger China, but that did influence it. Since China could do more, the Japanese did not gain easy access to the 12 IPCs of the Chinese interior, and only ever captured 6 Chinese territories over the course of the game. And holding these territories was trickier as well, as the Chinese could hit harder. Attacking Russia was a really stupid move on Japan’s part, as it not only opened up a supply route to the Communists (Mongolia), but diverted troops away from India and China. Since Japan had more on its hands, the US could focus more on Europe, contributing to Italy’s early fall and Germany’s inability to take Moscow (although strong Russian play and die-rolls played a part in the latter). Once both Axis powers were under a lot of pressure, the US could simply take Tokyo, thanks in part to good FEC play, but also because China could reconquer the valuable coast, depriving Japan of income. And once Tokyo fell, the German player knew that there was a 0% chance of taking Moscow, Paris, Rome, and Cairo. The Allied advantage in the Pacific was due partially to good FEC play and die-rolls, and the insane decision to attack Russia, but a stronger China also played a part.

Just for the record, the players were divided up into US/Nat China/France, USSR/CCP, UK/FEC/ANZAC, Japan, and Germany/Italy.

Mr. Piscolar;

the fortress idea is OK, but it seems OP when you can build them to defend key VC strongholds like Moscow.  Your point about inactivating them is interesting, but that’s not how the rules for Airbases work, you can’t disable them right before the scramble.  It is sort of interesting to imagine a fighter intercept/bomber part of that transaction, but at some point you simply need all your planes in order to overwhelm, you can’t split them off to wrack the forts first, or the defense becomes too favorable (because you have increased defensive power by +1 or reserved the planes for this task, either outcome increases the defense vs offense pretty dramatically).  When you are talking about potentially adding +1 defense to 40+ units, it becomes OP.

Actual fortresses are not realistic in WW2, as they were captured by paratroops, reduced by bombing, surrounded and besieged, or simply bypassed and ignored.

Your ANZAC idea is fun and interesting, but unless ANZAC takes the risk of moving its assets to Brazil, there wont be much coordination there.  Not sure why you would cleave off a second grey team.  Why not just clarify your original idea by making the ANZAC team better (by giving them Canada and 1-2 ships 1-2 units) at the expense of UK Atl.?  UK isn’t really a viable team at that point but neither is a 7 income independent team with split forces…

I like the special NOs from Balanced mod, but I’m not sure why you’ve added NOs that are active based on what teams already pretty much have or go for from the get-go.  NOs should draw the players into an unexpected alignment to incentivize new play, not reward them for doing what they were already going to do.

Adding German Units seems very odd since they are usually getting a bid of 20+ against them, now the required bid would be even higher.  You have offset some of the Axis advantage with other NOs, but I wouldn’t make the Germany start position even more advantageous its extremely powerful as is.

You also added several Axis NOs for just being Axis, these aren’t necessary to bolster their already dominating economic position and they aren’t dependent on what the Axis choose to do.  Giving Japan an NO for attacking allied zero $ islands or for Germany to attack Iceland are some examples of encouraging the player to do something that otherwise he would rarely or never choose to do.

the VC condition is messed up OOB, good effort on trying to change it

Tech/Cruisers/Bombers; these are similar to other suggestions, I think the tech doesn’t need new incentives to go after it, several of them are awesome and the rest are junk.  Unless you nerf the good ones and improve (all) the bad ones, making them easier to get doesn’t really balance anything.  Smart to reshuffle the Charts, but the “Land” one is packed with junk.

Crusiers are OP if they are 10 AND AAA.

Bombers are OP at 12, but if they cost 14, SB isn’t viable and buying them in bulk isn’t either.

These are just a ton of interesting extra rules, which are all fun and creative but they don’t seem to balance Axis vs Allies any better than standard rules.

I believe this thread below may provides some additional ideas and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
Territory Income Bonus: for Classic, Revised, 1941/42.2 etc
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31978.msg1190315#msg1190315

I play whit a part of the rules and for the other i adapt a part of the rules. The scale of unit and terrain is not the same. But in overall is fun and much historical.

Well i love these house rules man 19 posts! in 1 chat board!@!

Anyways, i’m new here as well and imperious could tell you how bad i am when i 1st came here and i am.
Anyways love some of the ideas (i will admit that i scimmed)  anyways ya well maybe you could have done a few less posts unstead of doing pg: 1,2,3,4,5 … etc.

well kamikazi’s were hardly ever succussful so there has to be some realism in its effectiveness

Must have been an earlier post I can’t read now, but what were these new house rules you refer to? I can sense that one of them is no Japanese first turn advantage against UK targets. Any others?