War Bonds House Rule

@skhande2

I my view, tanks, artillery, and infantry units don’t just represent those things, but rather their units. Most tank, artillery, and infantry units during World War 2 contained some organic AA guns. While there are obviously differences in the size of divisions between the powers (Soviet divisions and corps were smaller than Western ones, one reason they were able to rack up such large numbers), I think a unit represents X number of soldiers, tanks, AA guns, etc. (while actual AA gun units are for dedicated anti-aircraft units which exist semi-independently of other divisions).

I’ve heard suggestions of giving artillery anti-tank capabilities, similar to anti-aircraft artillery in Global 1940 (North Africa’s anti-tank gun piece has something similar too). I think different win rates between different units is mostly represented well (as I hope I’ve somewhat demonstrated above).

@barnee
Thanks for the feedback. Currently we do not have a printed technology sheet. We just write the name of the technologies on flash cards and place a national control markers and chips to keep track of progress.

As for them being too involved, for a first-time player we disagree. We played with a couple people that had never played Axis and Allies, but after a single game of G40 (keep in mind this already entails 8+ hours of practice) and they were all ready to implement our house rules on the next game.

Our house rules started as a question of how can we re-work the existing research rules to encourage the use of all out of box units.
It was never our goal to have unique technologies/units for each nation. The work done by @The-Captain and company is more complex than what we attempted to do, so kudos to them as it looks like they did a terrific job developing their house rule expansion. We should give their rules a try one day.

I am not a Axis & Allies player, but I play a lot with Conquest of Nerath. I like this zombie version.
I believe that can be improved.
These are my house rules
Deadnapper convoys revised . Add to existing rule: Shore zombie bombardment In a amphibious assault your transport can fire once against zombies: score an hit . Its attack value is (3).

Strong Neutrals: When a zombie card create an outbreak in a neutral territory add 6 zombie in 2 IPC territories (Turkey and Spain )and 3 in the other (1 IPC value) territories -(“call us neutral not zombies !”)

Zombie apocalypse revised (not so easy allies victory ).The side that controlls the greates number of zombie-free territories wins. In case of tie who controll the greatest IPC value of zombie-free territories win.
Different set up every game . Starting purchase : place everywhere pieces on the game board in territories/sea zones (example I have not text this )
add 4 IPC Russia
add 3 IPC Germany
and 6 IPC UK
add 8 IPC Japan. /
add - IPC to US
I try also to use Nerath deployment rules:

Moving New Pieces: Once you have placed your new pieces,they can immediately move from the space where you placed them to any friendly space they can reach with their Move. Doing this lets you position new troops to defend against enemy counterattack. New Warships carrying new land pieces can immediately move, carrying those pieces, and unload them in a friendly land space. However, you cannot move an existing Warship that you placed new land pieces on. Enemy Sea Spaces: You cannot place your new Warships and Storm Elementals in enemy sea spaces, even though they can move after you place them

If you have 14/16 Ipc to spent you can immediately reinforce a new conquered territory by boat or make a land invasion more easy.
It seems that this variant helps more the Allies
What you think about gameplay(forget realism,you are playing with zombie ;-) ) ?

Updated. Simplified the rules more.

@UltimateChaos:

Yea you are correct. I guess POWs would never really work in this game because unlike real war it does not matter how many men you lose

I’m not convinced the idea couldn’t work, only that the current idea of it wouldn’t work.

How about a situation where, for every 3-5 infantry you kill, you gain a PoW that can be placed anywhere. PoWs need to be protected from liberation and every PoW in a province over it’s IPC value costs you 1 IPC/turn in support.

Results:
You don’t muck with the balance around attack/counter attack and amphibious assaults.
You’ve got incentive to distribute the PoWs you capture and risk their liberation, rather than stock them in your capital.
The Axis, generally considered the stronger side, will take brunt of the downsides since they are killing large numbers of Russian and Chinese infantry. Might actually balance the game.

Sorry for the late reply. I told Seancb I would post his PDF for him. It got lost in my dice mailbox :)

A&A Global realism rules.pdf

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9531

Due to the nature of the game, that more often than not results in Germany and Japan playing two different games, I had an idea for an house rule to speed up a live game.

This idea requires quite few changes to the mechanics of the game, and requires at least 4 live players.

The turn order is:

Germany AND Japan
Russia
United States European Command AND United States Pacific Command
UK London AND Uk Pacific
Italy
France AND Australia

So basically, while Germany do G1, the Japanese players sets up J1 too.
USA is split in two nations, in the same manner that UK is, with two different economies.
The two USA commands are played by two different players, as the two UK economies are played by two different players.

So for example, let’s say we’re playing a game between LARRY, KRIEG, NOLL, OZTEA and KAUF.

LARRY plays GERMANY and ITALY.
KRIEG plays SOVIET RUSSIA
NOLL plays JAPAN
OZTEA plays USA EUROPEAN COMMAND, UK LONDON, FRANCE
KAUF plays USA PACIFIC COMMAND, CHINA, UK PACIFIC, ANZAC

During turn1 Larry sets up G1, meanwhile Noll sets up J1.
When both players are done, Krieg plays R1.
After Krieg is done with R1, Oztea and Kauf plays an independant game, they both go from USA to UK turn independently. Kauf plays also ANZAC.
At this point Larry plays Italy.
Then Oztea plays France and a new turn starts.

In order to make this work, these house rules have to be implemented:

USA economies is split, but not on a map basis.
European USA command has 20 IPCs income prior to war.
Pacific USA command has 32 IPCs income prior to war.

The regular NO are discarded, instead you get a war bonus economy like in the original game.

After war is declared:
European USA command has +10 IPCs income (30 Total).
Pacific USA command has +20 IPCs income (52 Total).

During NON-COM if USA wishes to do so, he can move units from EURO to PACIFIC map and vice-versa. These units will be in control of the other USA command starting from next turn.

Same rules apply to UK.

The special case of Russia: In order to avoid annoying Russian can-openers due to the turn order change, there’s a change on the relation between Japan and Russia:

Russia and Japan may NOT declare war between each others unless one of these criteria are fulfilled:

If there are less than 18 infantries split between the Russian Pacific territories of Amur, Sakha, Yakut, Siberia, Soviet Far East, Japan can declare war on Russia anytime.

If Russia production is 50 or more IPCs, Russia can declare war on Japan anytime.

If Berlin is in Allies hands, Russia can declare war on Japan anytime.

@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