AA50 House Rules

During an interview with Larry Harris we did a few months ago, I mentioned house rules for A&A centered around Espionage. We got a ton of feedback about it. So, now that we have completed the complete series on Air Combat and Sea Combat, we decided to double back to make a video about possible set of house rules that center around the concepts of spycraft.

We worked with our friend Jonathan Bosch to develop a few fun options. We aren’t claiming these are 100% flushed out, but our hope is that folks will give them a try and have some fun with them. Let us know what you think in the comments and if you would like to see more videos like this one!

Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/6MaDGKjVbDI

Update -

Combined UK Commonwealth Nation

Works great! Played it out and it seems to be balanced and it allows for greater viability as the Allies.

US Rules -

The 2 IPC’s taken off from buying a bomber in Western US works fine and allows for some historical accuracy

The Free French

These units now move with the Commonwealth and attack and defend along with them.

Vichy France

Now moves with Italy instead of its own turn

NO’s

The NO’s are now an optional addition and you can pick and choose which ones are played in your game

Corrections

SS/Red Guard/Rangers/Commandos should move 1 instead of 2.

Canadian Sub starts in SZ 120 not 101

The Spain rule hasn’t come into play, as the German player has not been able to roll a 6, more on that later
R&D works like a dream and creates new tactics for the powers

Lend Lease

Gives the Russian and UK Player a better chance against German and Italian Aggression - Works well

If you can build rail centers, players get a risk/reward thing going on that develops player options. They buy something and it benefits them, the enemy can negate them and it costs them using as bomber which in turn costs the enemy the use for another purpose he did not intend.

If i did this “stop land units moving two spaces” you disrupt all currently known strategy…basically invalidate it with one sentence, then you make combat moves problematic because tanks are usually behind the front lines because they move two and they are protected behind the front lines ( in the case of the German-Russo conflict). With your idea the whole panzer army needs to be on the front line and have lost the options to move north or south two spaces, and just have to fight whats next to them. You with that rule ruined the game. thanks.

It appears you never played global 1940?

Just please stick to the actual rules and find a pretty idea that adds to what players can do in the game that was not already accounted for.

How about an idea regarding neutrals? or Tech changes to alter SBR raids ( perhaps jet fighters taken in as escorts fire at 2?)  ?  ?

Something from that mind, that generally smart mind you have…

@Ichabod:

YG,

1. Did you update your house rules in this thread (modify your original post), if so, what are the HR’s that are no longer being used?

2. Heavy Bombers Tech…I think you and your team got the right happy medium there! The classic edit. of 3 dice was over kill. Even 2 dice is overkill. But rolling 2 dice, but only selecting the “1” dice with the best results ensures the concept of the “heavy bombers” tech as an almost more than likely good hit, but still not overkill.

I’m going to be playing in a table top tournament (42 setup) soon that’s a 3 day event. But for a side table game with no time rush where we can leave the table setup over night…ect, I’d like to try to get a G40 game with your house rules (if I can get people to go along with it). Anything really out of the ordinary that I should expect? Also, are your house rules designed to make it a balanced game, as in no bid for the allies?

Cheers!
Ichabod

Hey Ichabod,

I decided to unstick the thread with just my ideas, and leave up the thread which have my ideas that our group actually plays with. Here it is… http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38351.0

BTW… the R&D Heavy Bomber rule is an oob rule, and I agree that it’s better than the past editions. In the link I provided, all my changes to R&D breakthroughs are highlighted in red.

There are many things to talk about when it comes to how my rules change the game… but balance was the main driving force so yes, no bid required. The VOs give clear ways to win the game, the NOs just make sense, and the modified facilities clearly favor the Allies.

If you are planning a game, you can email me cliffsidebunker@outlook.com and we can find a way to talk over the phone.

I made a small but significant modification (written red) in the first post about Subs vs Battleship in 1942 version to increase balance toward the new Subs and for historical reason.

Battleship in G40 and 1942 seems the same at first glance but are far more potent in 1942:
BB A4D4M2C20, takes 2 hits, can bombard @4.

In 1942, Battleship unit recover from damage after any attacking player’s turn. So, in a whole 5 players turn. They could recover up to 4 times from a battle.
The owning Axis player’s attack turn and the 3 Allied attack turns.

In G40, BB can only be repaired once in a whole turn, at the beginning of the owning player’s turn. In addition, you need to move it near a Naval Base before it can be repaired in another turn. So, in this case, it becomes fully operational only 2 turns after being damage.

Compared to the 1942 BB immediate recovery in any Sea-Zone.
G40 BB is clearly a much weaker unit.

By the way, that’s another reason why I consider that BB cost for G40E should be put at 18 IPCs when Cruiser is put at 10 IPCs.

In addition, all BattleCalc simulations show clearly that a balance battle between BB, CA, DD imply this ratio: 1 BB vs 1 CA+1 DD

@knp7765:

That is a good idea about limiting the Japanese Kamikaze use until they are kind of pounded down to a low income. The Kamikaze was a weapon born out of desperation after all.

Yes, and in addition to the pressure of Japan being in such a desperate situation, there was another related factor at play: the more the war progressed, the fewer top-notch pilots Japan had at its disposal.  Japan’s training philosophy prior to the war had produced an elite corps of pilots, which gave Japan an initial advantage but left it in a worsening position as the years went by and their casualties mounted.  The US Navy, by contrast, figured out that training large numbers of competent pilots was a better investment than training a small number of superb ones (especially since the US could produce enough aircraft to take advantage of its abundant pilot supply).  When Japan’s situation became dire enough in late 1944 for it to consider extraordinary measures such as kamikaze tactics, one element which worked in favour of the kamizaze concept was that it required very little pilot training: the pilots basically just had to learn how to take off, how to fly to their targets and how to go into a steep dive.  This kind of rudimentary flight instruction was the opposite of the elite-oriented training philosophy Japan had followed prior to the war, so it would make sense to have a rule saying that Japan can only make kamikaze attacks late in the game once Japan is on the ropes.  Maybe this could even be seen as a kind of tech – a capability which isn’t available at the start of the game, but which becomes available later when certain conditions are met.  With a normal tech, you need to invest money to gain the new capability; in this case, kamikaze attacks (a kind of reverse tech because it reflects a training downdgrade) would become available when Japan’s economic and strategic situation drops below a certain threshold.

if i had nukes tech i would build a stack of bombers and nuke every opposing territory within range,
for 45 - 50 I.P.C. i could build 3 -4 bombers and nuke territories with no opposition with the superfortress tech,
getting nuke tech needs a twist because of the damage that it can do,
simply getting lucky by rolling a tech that has nukes tech combined would be a game killer, i think that a cost for nukes that would force a player to factor the cost of nukes into the I.P.C. spend would make nukes plausable within a set of house rules,

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D