EXECUTIVE ORDER: if you add 1 rule you have to remove 2 other rules

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.

Thankyou Hobbes, i have edited the bombers in sea battles rules and also advanced (improved) mech infantry and aa cruisers (thanks to techroll)

@Gargantua:

advanced mech INF, similer to above everynation starts out with advanced mech infantry, except mech still cannot blitz without pairing with a tank

You mean like the tech?  Where you can pair inf/mechs?

i said advanced mech inf i had meant improved mech inf

it is exactly the tech (improved mech infantry)
though im not sure what you mean by pairing INF/mechs

They can repair damage to exiting facilities; -1 damage per turn. But choose the discount or the repair per POW, not Both.

Liberation:
If the territory a POW is in is captured, you may place an infantry per POW in your Place New Units Area.

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

interesting might give this a try

Well, it’s not realist to see a lot of japanese tank division because japan didn’t have the capacity to do it. So if a japanese player wants more tank, he must pay the price!

Japanese tank was not bad.In fact most of them were used as infantry tank.
So now if you introduce a tank with a cost of 4 and defend at 1.
Well I will buy more infantry,plane and artillery!

@Imperious:

heres some manageable rules to use:

I most like the part about destroyer and crusier negate submarine’s preemptive fire on a 1-to-1 basis (rather than unlimited in AAR).

Simple enough to implement for even first time players. Yet quite effective in improving gameplay dynamics.

Imperious Leader:
the whole idea of subs is to be on station waiting for some target to come by… If you just allow any destroyer to “SEE” the sub automatically on CM it defeats the purpose. I feel you must install that roll the DD has to make to achieve detection ( either that 3 or 2)

++++ Thanks Imperious Leader for your comments, you are right, I’ll drop this. Ditto the hidden subs.
Here are the new rules (bold stuff is new):

A player can submerge a submarine in his NCM phase or during his CM phase
when he retreats from an attack. Place a control marker under the
sub every round after the round where the sub submerged. When two markers are under the sub, it has to surface
in the next round. (In effect, it can move 8 fields submerged: 2 in the submerging round, 2 in marker one
round, 2 in marker two round, 2 in surfacing round).
(This may be a bit too much, I’ll have to playtest it. Maybe one marker is enough, making for 6 fields)

A submerged submarine may move through hostile sea zones without restriction.
Exception: When it enters a sea zone with an enemy destroyer in it, a die is rolled
for every sub in the pack. All subs must surface if at least one 3 is rolled (super sub: one 2)
Corollary: It is only allowed to enter a sea zone with a destroyer in it in a combat move phase.
Combat ensues when the subs have to surface.
The number of destroyers does not influence the detection dice roll, only the number of subs
(similar to AA gun / Fighter / Bomber rule)
The player may of course make a normal move and simply surface and attack the
destroyers in its CM.
All subs in the same sea zone have to surface at once.

**If a destroyer enters a sea zone where submerged enemy subs are stationed in a combat move,
they are detected on a roll of three (on a two for super subs). Again, roll as many dice as there are
subs in the sea zone, the number of destroyers has no effect. If a sub is detected, they are all detected
and have to suface.
(Optional rule: DD can go sub hunting: if they only move one sea zone in their CM phase instead of two

this has to be declared in advance - they may add 1 to their detection roll.**
Subs are never detected during a destroyer non combat move.

**4)  Attacking and defending subs may submerge except when an enemy destroyer is present (as stated in LHTR 1.3.).
If the sub submerges during combat, this round counts as a full submerging round.
Example: A sub has one marker under it, indicating that it has been submerged for two rounds.
In this round, it attacks on its CM phase, but retreats during the attack by submerging (or, if victorious, it
submerges in its NCM phase). Do not remove the control marker, instead, place another control marker under
the sub.

The markers are only removed if the sub surfaces during its NCM phase. (In effect, giving the opponent
the chance to take at least one combat action against subs even if he does not posess destroyers).**

So, I think I’ve thought of most of the stuff that can occur, I’ll start playtesting,  any feedback is welcome :-)
Additional thought: with this new sub capabiltiy, maybe it would be wise to raise the price of the sub?
(for instance to 10 IPCs?) And maybe the super sub advantages should not be applied to the DD detection
roles. Any comments would be much appreciated.

Regards,
sponge