I think that’s a neat idea. What about making it a research option? Tech was always improving in increments throughout the war so it can be tough to decide where to draw the line. For example, most armor from 1940 would be no match for most armor in 1944 or 1945. I’ve rationalized it to myself by assuming that surviving units from the earlier rounds of play are being periodically “refitted” with new equipment throughout the game. Naturally, that happens passively and without cost for the sake of simplicity. I bring up that example as a comparison to rocket artillery because I think you could make the case that rocket technology is different enough that it would justify an entirely different unit type as you described. Even though the Germans and Russians were using them in the field by mid-war, it’s reasonable to say that that’s because they invested in the research earlier. You could also say that the level of effectiveness you’d give that type of unit (perhaps beyond the true effectiveness of Nebelwerfer or “Stalin’s Organ”-equipped units) warrants tech research. For my house rules, we have a somewhat different set of research options and a different convention for achieving them. The researcher picks a specific technology or program which has its own set of odds based on how good it’s deemed to be and the number of prior attempts. I’d probably make what you described a low to mid-level difficulty technology to acquire.

@Baron:

CR’s cost 10 Ipc’s now

In fact, the real balance option on cost redux only should have been:
Now, Cruiser cost 10 IPCs AND Battleship cost 18 IPCs, everything else is as OOB.

I think that’s a good option. I’ve found that the difficulty with house rules is making them reasonable, fun, simple, and as few as possible all while achieving what you set out to do in the first place and integrating them seamlessly into the remaining existing rule structure that has not been altered. And it all has to make sense to the rare breed who actually play the game :wink:. Judicious cost changes and as-simple-as-possible ability changes/wrinkles tend to achieve those ends I think.

Hello All,

I think cruisers are actually priced right and like them as a unit, though I do sometimes find it hard to justify building them, thinking to myself that I might as well spend the extra 8 IPCs for a battleship or invest in a carrier and air power instead. I suppose I’ve got an unspoken debate going on in my head similar to what may have prompted this thread.

With that being said, one option that might make them more enticing while not throwing off the hierarchy could be derived from their armor. Their position between destroyers and battleships in terms of firepower is already represented by the 3/3 A/D values vs. 2/2 and 4/4. They also have the special ability of supporting amphibious assaults whereas destroyers do not and battleships are slightly more effective. However, what is not already represented is the level of protection between a destroyer and battleship. Cruisers were intended to be able to go toe-to-toe with many other surface warships and take hits better than destroyers, though not to the extent of battleships. With that in mind, what if, upon taking a hit, a die roll of say 4-6 or 5-6 would cause the cruiser to tip like a battleship rather than being destroyed outright? If it survived the hit, it could then proceed like a battleship would to continue the fight and ultimately be repaired at a naval base if it makes it there.

@Baron:

I agree, this is quite impressive work.
A lot of time has been invested in it.

I like the graphics of your charts.

Why is there two mobilization zone charts?

I don’t understand the use of target chart?
Does it mean you have different attack and defense value against different units?
For example, Light tank gets a 5 against Strategic bomber, what does it mean?

Do you give us the licence to use your Excel file?
If someone want to customize different combat units and values, it provides a pretty interesting scaffolding.

Thanks!

There are two mobilization charts for printing purposes. Since they’re fairly small, I could fit two onto one page and then have a card to cover the original zone on both the Europe and Pacific maps. They’re exactly the same as one another. Sorry for not clarifying that in the original post.

The target chart is to facilitate the “hit scorer-chosen casualties” rule. For the light tank/strategic bomber example you raised, with the light tank as the “firing unit” and the strategic bomber as the “enemy unit,” the 5 means that the light tank must hit any eligible target with a lower target chart number (which is all eligible land units, fighters, and tac bombers for a light tank - see the target chart) before it can hit the strategic bomber. Note that all combat aircraft have a target chart number of 1 for any enemy unit which means that hits scored by combat aircraft can be applied to any enemy unit the one doing the shooting wishes (unless the enemy force has covering aircraft - see “air cover” rule - which keeps enemy high value targets from being pummeled when the enemy force dedicates aircraft to covering them).

The “hit scorer-chosen casualties” rule and its target chart are used because I didn’t like that low value units could be used as a shield no matter what was being used to attack them (certain units should be more effective at hitting targeted enemy units) and a significantly superior force had little to no risk at all for its high value units it sent into battle (they should be at less risk because they’re exposed to less fire from the inferior enemy force but there should be a possibility to be hit if the enemy force contains similar units, albeit fewer). With this alternate convention, an inferior force with say, a fighter, at least has a chance of taking down an enemy fighter, tac, strategic bomber, or other high-value unit with it. In such a scenario, that lone fighter would probably get only one chance at doing so though, since the flip side of the target chart implication is that those enemy aircraft he’s trying to chip at also can go straight after him rather than having to chew through any infantry or other lower-value units present first.

Regarding the Excel file, you all are certainly welcome to use it! I’ve also integrated the rules and charts into electronic versions of the original 2nd edition rulebooks but I’ve not posted those because I’m not sure if that’s OK/legal to do outside of my own private use.  :? If it is OK, I’d be happy to post those as well.

@Procas:

This is very impressive! I’ve only just started reading it but it seems incredibly well thought out and executed.

Thanks! I tried to add some historically-driven elements and make some convention changes that would be fun and add to “realism” while still being able to use most of the base rules and the boards themselves. We haven’t uncovered any unforeseen problems during actual play and it’s been fun so far. We’re playing Europe on Friday so we’ll see how it goes.

Hello all,

Attached is an Excel file with my house rules for A&A Europe, Pacific, and Global 1940, 2nd Edition. I’ve got them integrated into the respective games’ rule sets as well but this file gets more to the point for those who are already familiar with the original 2nd edition rules. The major changes are the way casualties are selected, the number, types, and special abilities of units, defender retreat/evasion rules, scorched earth rules, “post-war” winner rules, research and development options and mechanics, and special rules for the UK, Italy, and China.

Thanks for reading and let me know if you have questions!
A&A 1940 2nd Ed House Rules.zip