Posts made by Wildcat6305

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

Ok, I went back looked at DK’s thread. I had looked at that sometime ago. Did I read all 30 pages? No, but I looked over the first and last couple of pages.

But what did you think of my idea? Especially the “1)  If at the end of the combat round, instead of them being auto killed. Let it be similar to AAA rules. For one final round, every warship can roll 3 dice each no more than the number of transports, the transports not hit can retreat.”
I think that is a fair compromise. It’s not making the TP op, but it is limiting how many shots can be taken at the TP.

Other one?

First off, I realize I am late to the party on this thread, my apologies.

Secondly, there were a plethora of ideas thrown out on this thread.

I don’t see the crime in modifying the transports rules.
I find it humorous that the main reasons not to let them defend themselves is from a historical/realistic stand point. When in reality, who has ever been able to choose their casualties in a war? So in that regard, a fundamental concept of A&A is not realistic.

In an amphibious assault, the defending forces (including scrambled planes, and naval units) top priority is going to be targeting the landing craft to keep them off the beach, not the naval bombardment.
The infantry units aren’t only representing riflemen in the game. Carriers represent carrier groups, and battleships represent that group. I say all that to say, couldn’t a transport represent the transport and a minimal escort?

A transport loaded with an infantry and a tank is 16 IPC. The same cost as an Aircraft Carrier, who takes two hits. An empty transport may be seen as fodder, but not a loaded transport. To lose one or more loaded transports is major setback.

Defending @1 either on a D6 or D12 sounds reasonable to me. That is an 8% or 16% chance of a hit. Those aren’t great odds.  I don’t care for the AA ability idea, that seems too limited. I also like the idea of allowing them to be taken as casualties during the battle.

A few of ideas I had and maybe a combination of would work:

1. If at the end of the combat round, instead of them being auto killed. Let it be similar to AAA rules. For one final round, every warship can roll 3 dice each no more than the number of transports, the transports not hit can retreat.
2. One unit on the transport and fire once at the end, before the auto kill.
3. For every two transports let one be chosen as a casualty during combat.
4. For every two transports let one defend at 1 during combat.

I understand that a transport shouldn’t be as strong a battleship, but it is an investment when loaded that needs protection.
I have enjoyed reading through this thread.

@Genghis:

yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.

You can’t upgrade Sydney, New South Wales is only 2 IPCs.

Thanks for the suggestions, those are definitely some good ideas.

@Young:

@CWO:

It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.

Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.

I think the main difference is YG’s requirement is for a Victory Objective, not a National Objective. So there needs to be a higher bar. A NO would merely be close the road, but the VO needs to be control all the territories. That keeps the intergrity in the system, because in the European theater it is being slugged out for N. Africa, so you need an equally challenging VO in the Pacific. (Not the those are the only two VOs in the system, just easy examples)

Well after reading page 37, 42, 55, & 56; I have the same questions.

I think the biggest difference is they introduce combat declination for subs and CAPs.
But
2a) I think the answer is no, only CAP and Carrier based Aircraft.
2c) I think no, but it really depends on the answer to 2b.

3a) My paraphrase of a CAP is a prolonged scramble with a few more abilities, minus the airbase requirement.
3b) No, it the CAP may instigate or decline, unless the navy has a carrier. But the CAP stops subs movement through the sz.
3c) I think to your point, it depends on the answer to 2b. I would think the escort rules would govern how many you can have  defending a convoy line.

But I could be wrong on all of what I said. Lol

@Young:

@variance:

To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?

The term “Burma Road” has always ment all the territories that connect it… I don’t see any misunderstanding.

I agree that the language is a little confusing more for the Axis Objective than the Allies.
For the Allies to have the road open, they must control the entire road.
But for the Axis to close the road they only need to control one territory within the road.
One might argue that for the Axis, that because holding one territory changes the status of the road for the Allies and closes the entire road, they control the road.

New players don’t know what things have always meant. With having a lesser experienced gaming group, I know there would be discuss at my table with the current language.

That’s why I would favor adding “entire road” to the objective even if it was in parentheses.

I actually used my LOTR Risk pieces as stand in units, when I am thinking with new house rule units. Your customizations look amazing!

@Requester45:

My question to be attached to this would be, if you upgrade a territory that is originally a 2 IPC territory, lets say the Caucasus, and it becomes 3 IPCs per turn. Would Russia then be able to produce a major facility on that territory?

Based on the list you shared, this would be the case in
-Caucasus (@3 for a major)
-West India (@2 for a minor)
-Western Canada (@2 for a minor)
-Alaska (@3 for a major)
-Egypt (@3 for a major)
-Trans Jordan (@2 for a minor)
-Union of South Africa (@3 for a major)
-Ukraine (@3 for a major)

I would think IF you allowed Majors to be built, you would have to downgrade/damage them if the derrick were bombed. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read the rules as if when the derrick is bombed it is removed and not damaged. I would think if you were to allow majors to be built, you would need to make the derrick receive damage instead of being removed.

@Argothair:

This is fun and gives a bit of an option to “invest in the future,” which is mostly missing from the rest of the A&A franchise. But depending on how hard it is to bomb a derrick, many derricks will either be obvious buys or obvious non-buys.

Like, Central US will never be strategically bombed, so of course you put a derrick there. But Cairo and Tobruk are just begging to be bombed by both sides, plus there’s a good chance you won’t hold those territories long enough to collect your investment.

I also agree with Hambone that the rate of return is pretty steep. So that’s the challenge as you work on this rule – how do you set a rate of return that’s high enough to induce players to take risks (putting derricks in territories that aren’t 100% safe from bombing), but low enough that you’re not just awarding bid income to players with safe oil territories (Central US, South Africa, etc.)?

I wonder if you could start the game with derricks on the riskier territories built" reducing the risk to building these.

In my house rules I have incorporated Heavy Tanks as a unit, similar to GHG’s Heavy Tank rule.
My question is what piece do you use for the each nation?
Specifically the Italians/minor Axis.
In my house rules, I only allow the US, UK, USSR, Germany, and Italy to build Heavy Tanks.
I bought units from HBG, and I was very pleased with the quality.
In trying to select a Hvy Tank for Italy though I bought a brown Stugs. The units look great, but they are about the same size as the OOB tank. I really would like a larger unit for the Italians, but I am not sure which to get.

@robbie358:

Hello all.  I thought I would solicit your thoughts on which types of pieces in any version of A&A scream for painting the most.

IMHO, the most confusing piece on the board in the original Pacific and Pacific 1940 is the USA fighter in China.  Having to differentiate between a Chinese fighter that looks American and any USA fighters in that zone seems like a headache waiting to happen.

Otherwise, I would say the pro-Axis and pro-Allies neutrals in Europe 1940 need attention.  The fact is that upon being attacked, you’re supposed to pick any random country to donate an infantry to that territory.  If the attacker doesn’t win, the infantry stay there but cannot be moved.  Seems like confusion might set in eventually.

Your thoughts?

HBG has British infantry for sale. I bought 25 and painted them white to use for neutral armies.

I made a dice tower out of project board that I use for my Catan.
I found the plans on youtube. In my opinion, it works great for around 6 dice.
But when you get more than that mine is undersized. So I typically just use a box lid as a dice tray instead for A&A.

This is a neat idea. I was looking at HBG’s oil war rules for global war 36.
Compared to those, these are definitively easier to comprehend.
They have you need oil to move units each turn, creating a different concept altogether.
But like I said, this is cleaner.

Thanks guys! Hopefully I didn’t break anything too bad, lol. Looking forward to getting y’all’s feed back.

Hey guys,

I just posted to YouTube a new series discussing my House Rules.
Part 1 goes over the mechanics/modifications that I have implemented into our games that we have enjoyed.
Part 2 is an Intro to my R&D System, some reasons why I felt I wanted my own.
Part 3 is the mechanics of my R&D System
Part 4 is the Techs that I have applied to the game.

Find my Rules @:
Wildcat6305’s YouTube Series going over the Rules
Wildcat6305’s Dropbox

I have been inspired by my others in the development of my rules and R&D system. I in no way claim to have all original ideas. And I want to thank those that have inspired me to develop this rule set.

Thanks for the inspiration to:

GHG R&D
Siredblood’s R&D
DK’s Research
Hilltop Pill Box -Global 36 Amp Assault
YG’s House Rules Intro
HBG Youtube

Thanks again, and I hope you like it.
Good criticism is welcomed.

Wildcat6305

DK,
Are the 3mm magnets string enough to attract metal through the plastic deck?
Or do you need a magnet on the belly of the plane?

I am moding my planes to be on stands, and I have been placing magnet strips on top of the deck, like siredblood and GHG. I like the look of yours better than having the magnets on the deck.
So again my question, are the magnets under the deck strong enough to attract a metal stand on top of the deck?