+2 movement for airbases

@grinchveld

the ‘Suggested Topics’ does look like others have come up with similar ideas.

like this from 2015
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26036/simultaneous-play-in-opposite-theaters/11

I have not played the versions with more than 5 powers, but I do think the basic idea can work to reduce the number of turns in a round. by changing the turn order.

Implement after the 1st round or 2, to keep positioning balanced.
Depending on the balance, some small advantage for the power who gets skipped.

Then powers on the same side who have consecutive turns may all go together as long as you break the combat moves along the original order (from the perspective of the attacked)

Breaking the combat into multiple rounds does seem to be the organizationally new thing.
(or at least I haven’t found someone say it that way on this site yet)

Should Russia only be aloud to build in a territory with 2 factories. In our game we have Russia can move 1 factory per turn. They also have a NA where they can move 2 factories 1 time in game. The scenario is in game you can only build up to territory value only.

So if Russia has 2 factories in a territory worth 2 they can build 4 units. Based on time from 1942 and later this also helps if Moscow falls and the Russians can build in the Urals to hold Stalingrad and maybe take back Moscow.

Most other games have Minors building 5 units so this should be a go.
Our game is you can’t just drop a major or minor factory on a territory and build 5 or 10 pieces. You can buy a minor IC ( only in game ) at any time but must territories only worth 1.

As you see 2 IC in same territory. One is a Tankograd IC.
The Russian figs in Stalingrad are from them retreating in Moscow battle.

A1BE4CD5-8F8E-486A-B55E-148A8B0FC2CC.jpeg

What do you think about implementing respectively national adventeges  from 1941 spring (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 2.0)  to the 1942 2ed?

Especialy together with a initialy proposed by Larry Harris new setup.

I think, especialy the Soviet –Japan non aggression treaty would make the game a lot more historical correct.

If you think it would be accepteble the problem is German Scientists national idea is not implementabe to the 1943 2ed, since in 1942 2ed there is no weapon development, so  I think, it could be replaced by Fortress Europe (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 1.3) or some national ideas from Mr. Andersson’s House Rules for Axis & Allies Revised v1.1

Personaly I woul prefer using one or two of national ideas per country, if using this national idea would not destroy the game balance  at all.

Also I do not know, wheter the Panzerblitz national idea:

(Panzerblitz THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE 38 DEFENDERS. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.)

means, that the tank can move not only to a friendly  territory (due to the standard non combat movement rules), but also to enemy controlled (but not enemy occupied territory).

What is correct understanding of it?

I am also afraid, that the Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber national idea:

(EUROPE WAS BLITZED AND BOMBED. THE JU-87 STUKA DIVE-BOMBER, A SMALL PLANE, PLAYED A BIG ROLE. ITS SCREAMING SIREN GENERATED TERROR ON ALL BATTLE FRONTS. Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs. They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal. In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only. Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat. In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally. If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is cancelled.)

can make, that the odds in potential intitial G1 battle in West Russia can get slightly towards Germany, but I did not check it out precisely yet.

Yes Dorowar my token system works really well. It adds a mission based element to the game that probably can’t be duplicated with any other type of house rule. It is such a game changer that you don’t need to put in a bunch of other house rules. Rolling the D6 first and then choosing the chart takes more chance out of WD than you might think and everyone should give that a try no matter how they play R&D. My guess is your play group will want to adopt that for sure.

I don’t know if you’ve ever played the 1914 Tournament Rules, but they have something there that is a specified threshold for each nation that puts them in economic collapse. Perhaps an idea for you might be to determine an IPC level for each nation that must be met in order to develop weapons in lieu of NO’s. That is kind of the same thing as what I do - force a nation to be worthy of developing a weapon. That combined with your research token and some cash and you start rolling for a weapon.

Whatever you decide to do let us know how it works. Some of the best ideas are the ones we get from others here.

Seems like a legit point, my thought was that it would put a little more pressure on the German opening, making the standard sz14 opening a bit more risky (if G elects to ignore the canal then UK can make a play for the med, if they go for it, that leaves Gibraltar open.) If Allies don’t want to trade the middle east, then Russia can defend Trans with the tank and 1 fighter (that can still attack W. Russia and make the landing). But to do that and secure Trans then the Soviets have to be involved. This would produce a 50/50 on the G1 attack, but it also means sacrificing a transport, or else risking the loss of the Battleship to a UK airstrike. So there is a definite risk there for both sides.

But somewhere in Sub Sahara Africa would work too. I think if doing that then Rhodesia would probably be the most fun, since it gives a spawn point in sz 33 and a target for G or J to gun for.

I think I will edit to Rhodesia, just to keep things straight forward. This would also be cool for a fighter spawn in sz 33, if UK wants to keep their carrier instead of sending it into an attack. Or as a tank slot, for a sz33 transport or to race up to Egypt in 1 move. If Axis take Rhodesia then it’s a bit easier for them to hold the southern section of Africa. It might also make a factory expansion in SA more attractive for either side, since they’d already have 1 production slot in place (similar to the way Finland makes an IC in Norway a bit more attractive.

Good call man I dig it, Rhodesia it will be. Edited above :)

The whole problem lies on Japan’s absurd overpowerness. No matter what house rules are present, Japan will always take Soviet far east and China. Allies have nothing to prevent it.

Why Japan’s role is always trying to rescue Germany via marching to Moscow? Why Japan always outproduce Germany and USA? It is neither fun, nor historical plus it totally deprives Pacific front and two ocean going approaches for USA.

Typically USA esablish a pipelines in North Africa while abandons Pacific, Britain in N.Russia, Germany turning into surviving mod waiting Japan to recue. I’m really sick of to see the same thing.

The solution is make Germany 2 times stronger than Japan considering 1942 borders, make Soviet far eastern and Chinese territories less valuable (Making two territory worth 1 with Nos), Hawaii factory with 2ipc value, then rebalancing.

@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 !

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914