@mhal21 I don’t play poison gas warfare for one simple reason. Poison gas was not as much of a thing as people think it was in WWI. Yes it was terrifying and it made the headlines when it happened, but the estimates are that around 150 000 casualties happened due to gas, which is something like 2-3 days of a huge battle on the Western front.
I know some people have dabbled with it so there is stuff out there. You might want to hop on the Axis and Allies Facebook page to ask your question !
The Cliffside Bunker House Rules
-
Thanks for posting - I already snapped up your “(mech) may tow 1 artillery each during non-combat movement” idea.
-
Thanks for posting these. Couple of questions/remarks:
-
I recall you adding a fighter to Canada, have you abandoned that idea?
-
Regarding the Allied objective Africa: is this only applicable to the original non-neutral territories? I can already see some game where Allies attack the true neutrals. Would the Allies have to take out the African pro-Axis Neutrals? And what happens if Italy moves into a pro-Axis neutral?
-
Regarding the Allied objective Pacific Fleet: what happens if Japan buys a capital ship in the Purchase Units Phase and loses all of its existing capital ships in the Combat Phase of that very same turn? Will the Allies gain their objective or is the Japanese buy preventing this?
-
Regarding R&D Improved Production: doesn’t this breakthrough also affect the New Medium IC Facility? I would expect it to produce 6 units now instead of 5.
-
Lazy remark: could you add a line to paragraph UK Pacific Nation stating the income of UK Europe? It’s still 28 but it’s nice to see it confirmed/reassured if you’re setting it up for the first time without having to check yourself.
Great observations Ozy,
1. No… the additional fighter in Canada was part of a combined Canada and ANZAC commonwealth nation we experimented with. It didn’t work because a lot of UK income was being pushed to production facilities away from the fighting.
2. Yes… only for non-neutral territories, I will edit that.
3. Yes… the Allies would gain that victory objective immediately for no capital ships on the board (“no matter how or when the objective was achieved”).
4. Yes… good eye, I will edit that.
5. Sure… no problem.
-
-
@Der:
Thanks for posting - I already snapped up your “(mech) may tow 1 artillery each during non-combat movement” idea.
Cheers DK,
We discussed your AA capabilities on cruisers and battleships, but it didn’t reach the table as we tend to be nervous about changing resolve combat dynamics.
-
I see you removed the paratroopers and added super carriers instead? I agree, the paratroopers is hard to gain anything from.
Why did you change the order of play? Japan before Russia, how’s so?
-
@Young:
@Der:
Thanks for posting - I already snapped up your “(mech) may tow 1 artillery each during non-combat movement” idea.
Cheers DK,
We discussed your AA capabilities on cruisers and battleships, but it didn’t reach the table as we tend to be nervous about changing resolve combat dynamics.
Are you sure about your SBR values?
You create the less incentive method, even OOB 1942.2 SBR gives more favorable odds for the attacker.
Combining Balance Mode Fg A2 D2 with 2 other conditions and D6 damage is the opposite spectrum of OOB G40 SBR. -
@Baron M
I suppose you may be right, I imagine G40B values were created to prevent dark sky strategies and promote escort missions. However, our group doesn’t have dark sky problems, so I would be ok with postponing those values, or my other idea was only allowing fighters to intercept from operational air bases… but I definitely want to keep the bonus cancelation conditions.
-
@Baron:
Are you sure about your SBR values?
You create the less incentive method, even OOB 1942.2 SBR gives more favorable odds for the attacker.
Combining Balance Mode Fg A2 D2 with 2 other conditions and D6 damage is the opposite spectrum of OOB G40 SBR.It’s been restructured this way…
Modified SBR Rule
The +2 damage bonus for each strategic bomber during strategic bombing raids will now be distributed like such…
+1 Damage - if the strategic bombers rolling for damage have departed from an operational airbase.
+1 Damage - if the strategic bombers rolling for damage did not encounter an enemy interceptor.
-
To be sure following your idea, you still keeping interceptors @2?
I would feel better if Fg stay A1 D1. -
@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.
Suggested Topics
