Axis and allies 1942 second edition house rules

The combined arms artillery bonus is pretty silly too in an amphibious assault. Simon, there is significant historical precedent for warships carrying detachments of marines into combat. For starters, virtually all US battleships, during World War II, carried marine detachments between 50 and men , who, in addition to manning ship guns, served as ship expeditionary forces.

See, e. Smaller warships also carried marines. For example, it was a group of ship-borne Royal Marines that proved decisive in the Battle for Madagascar. From the relevant wikipedia article:. The deadlock was broken when the old destroyer HMS Anthony dashed straight past the harbour defences of Diego Suarez and landed 50 Royal Marines amidst the Vichy rear area.

So, yah, the idea of cruisers and battleships transporting small land forces is not only fun and good for the game, its historically accurate! Eliminating Cruisers from Global Advice needed!

YG is making Young Grasshopper is exploring combined arms with BB. An exception because it talks about shore bombardment and can increase unbalanced vs Cruiser: [ Cruisers, whats the point? An interesting post on Cruiser price and cost calculation from Larry Harris buried in Anniversary threads. Krieghund :. Hello Telamon. Thanks for your most kind posting. In fact there were times when I was the best player in the world for each of my games.

It is when that world population exceeded 3 people that I noticed a decline in my standings. For 19 IPCs I can buy something that the navy is really all about: a transport.

A sub costing 6 and having a combined attack and defense total of 3 2 on attack plus 1 on defense cost me 2 IPCs for each opportunity to hit my opponent. They cost 8 and have a combat value of 4. A battleships with its price tag of 20 has a cost per potential hit at 2.

Of course a battleship has two lives so its cost really is 1. Good deal! But it cost so damned many IPCs. So why pick on the cruiser. Yeah, I know DDs have a that special anti-sub thing and subs have their own special points of I want to say: confusion value.

In any case, I assigned a value of 12 to the cruiser perhaps it should have been an I could not always use this simple formula when assigning values to these various units.

I also had to take into consideration my perception of what was fun but yet made the most sense. Look at the bomber or the carrier for example. They have a cost of 2. Is that long range of a bomber worth that extra. I guess so, I mean I think so. Who knows for sure? You got to admit, however, that all the units are certainly in the ball park when it comes to cost. HolKann :. Hmm, nice reasoning. Sorry mr. So summarized: 1 inf extra in Egy, 2 in Yun, and a Cru of 11 or 10?!

Please mr. Otherwise those shiny new Cruisers in AA will stay in the box too much. Telamon :. Extra hits. I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships. At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships. Hold on a second…. The vulnerability of the big ships was one of the top 5 lessons of WWII! It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.

Small discrepancy, but its all relative. These are great Baron! I know I can always count on you to help hunt down good discussions! This is an excellent first step to gather the info together in one place.

I think to be truly usable for the more casual player who is interested in trying some HRs with their group, at some point we probably need a bit more in the way of editorial summary for some of these, like a final analysis with concrete suggestions. So for example, based on the discussions in a given thread, has any consensus developed? So take the battleship or cruiser as an example, we have seen a number of different HRs in various threads that try to make this unit more attractive, so I wonder if we can make some generalizations?

I can see two basic approaches here, when it comes to altering existing units. Some of these solutions were more popular than others, but when we put together a final draft list, it might be worthwhile to consider each unit in the roster independently. First giving a suggested cost modification for the OOB abilities, followed by the top suggestions for adjusted abilities at the OOB cost.

In addition to these approaches there are also suggestions for a total conversion of the unit roster, where adjustments to various OOB units might include changes to both cost and abilities, and which work best only when integrated together.

Finally we have proposals for new units. These likewise might be intended for use with the OOB roster, or a total conversion roster. Purpose: to increase the range of all naval units, thereby decreasing the amount of time it takes to cross oceans and speeding up the play pace for naval powers. Opens up more shucks, and essentially resets the map from a naval perspective. This HR is largely untested at the moment, so it is difficult to say what the balance implications may be, but it has the advantage of a very simple implementation.

In this HR transports get a movement upgrade, while warships retain their normal movement at 2. Purpose: to make this defenseless unit a more strategically interesting purchase. To speed up the gameplay and put more VCs into contention. Purpose: to make naval purchases more attractive for all nations, and somewhat more appealing vs OOB aircraft for the cost.

OK also I really wanted to include a section for production expansion. This would include stuff like the land base idea, and the 3 tiered production concept for ICs in G40 multi tier production ideas in general. Some of these have undergone several permutations, so I sense a longer winded post is needed. Before talking about production expansions that require new materials beyond OOB such as unit markers , I want to talk about ways to expand production purely via the rules.

Rule: Every factory on the board including newly purchased factories , may produce 2 additional units over the printed territory IPC value on the game map. This production bonus is also included in the Max damage for a given factory, which is also increased by 2. A newly purchased factory in Alaska could produce 4, Sinkiang or Hawaii could produce 3 total units etc.

Purpose: to expand the production spread across the entire gamemap, allowing for more possible entry points in all theaters, while simultaneously increasing the number of viable targets and max thresholds for SBR damage. All Victory Cities may produce 1 extra infantry unit : for all games.

Rule: Any territory with a Victory City may support the placement of a single purchased infantry unit. In the case of VC territories with a factory, this infantry unit is in addition to the max production capacity of the territory.

Purpose: mainly for novelty, as a way of making otherwise low value VC territories slightly more interesting. The effect overall is comparatively minor since it is limited to infantry, but may make certain VC territories more useful, or more significant for staging even without a factory in place.

Rule: Operational Air Bases may spawn 1 purchased air unit at placement. Operational Naval Bases may spawn 1 purchased ship at placement. Purpose: to increase the value of these bases all around, particularly bases at zero ipc territories, which would otherwise have no production potential whatsoever. The main effect is to increase the strategic value of all starting bases in both theaters, and to make the purchase of new bases more attractive.

It also encourages the purchase of otherwise unattractive units in some instances such as cruisers or battleships owing to the strict production limit of 1 unit per base. Although it is only a single unit per base, the impact on the game-play is potentially very significant, creating new entry points for aircraft and ships and new deployment strategies across the entire gamemap.

As I mentioned above, those last 3 entires were just off the top of my head. Part of the reason I want to make a list, is because its so easy for these HR ideas to get burried or lost especially the on-offs. At this point I think its probably more important to get the actual rules written down. This thread is more for gathering material at the moment. Anyone want to take a crack at describing the dice mods? Low Luck comes to mind, or perhaps D12 systems. A must to learn more about comparison between Fighter and Tactical Bomber.

Alternate 3 planes Carrier, Air oriented for G40 or An offspring from Uncrustable Enhanced Thread. A revision of warship cost, to increase Naval action and to tip balance toward Allies. Historical Carriers, ASW and other vessels : Oh good! I got about 20 pages deep into this section, and my eyes started glossing over. I probably missed an ace thread or two. Trying to locate the earliest discussions, or the most recent.

But most of those systems require additional materials. Still just keeping with rules, another HR type worth mentioning is more about production restriction.

Rule: All Victory Cities get a starting factory. Only VCs on the map get a starting factory. The factory unit is removed from the purchase roster. Purpose: to anchor the fighting around these territories and underscore the importance of the VC.

This is another one I recall from AA50, or maybe Larry Boards, but which could potentially work in It would be a dramatic shift for the production spread introducing France, Kiangsu, Philippines, and Hawaii into the mix , so probably needs to be attended by another rule or large bid for balance. But it would result in a major incentive for Germany to stay oriented towards the west, possibly with a strong naval game.

Might work with an American Zero turn order full turn? Anyway the basic idea is that you have a set number of select factories in the game, and no more, then adjust the balance from there.

Something similar might work for G I believe some of YGs rules call for factories that cannot be purchased, or restored to full capacity once captured. That recalls to mind another production restriction concept which I feel certain has been mentioned before. The idea of factories that can be permanently removed from the board, like auto-destroyed upon capture. This is a bit like scorched earth, but more extreme. Something basic would be along the lines of….

Purpose: prevents the quick turn-around of production from a captured enemy territory. Now the conqueror must build the factory anew if they want to exploit it.

Requires more money from the Axis if they want to hold the center. Similarly it opens up alternative territories as candidates for new production, with less fear that they will be used by the enemy.

Rules like this one in a game such as Again something like this might work in G40 as well. Rule: Players use a standard deck of cards, and draw during the collect income phase for a bonus in ipcs. Purpose: to introduce more cash, and randomize each game round by purchase. Every nation has more average income per round, but Allies have more draws over all, so their economic advantage is built in as the game proceeds at least until Axis can destroy one of them.

More units in play at the outset, potentially prolongs the endgame, or encourages early resolution, depending on the luck of the draw in a given turn. For a more wild swing you can assign the bonus to numbered cards by their printed value rather than by suit. But I like the way it works with the floor at 7 ipcs, just for overall economic parity.

Cursed diamonds hehe! But even those are a whole lot better than nothing. No Combat Value: It can, however, be taken as a casualty. AAA units may never attack. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat.

Each AAA unit in the territory may fire up to three times, but only once per attacking air unit. In other words, the total number of air defense dice rolled is three times the number of AAA units, or the number of attacking air units, whichever is the lesser.

Once the number of air defense dice is determined, the dice are rolled. These casualties are removed immediately, and will not participate in the remainder of the battle. AAA units do not defend industrial complexes against strategic bombing. Basically what this means, for those who are not familiar, is you can free up your AAA guns from protecting your ICs so they can protect your troops, but you may need more than one in a territory.

Prohibiting players from building industrial complexes seems like a step in the wrong direction to me in terms of gameplay — it may be accurate that there was no way to build up, e. Also, what about moderately industrialized areas Manchuria, Norway, Romania, Brazil, Urals and heavily industrialized areas Northwest Europe, France that start the game without a factory?

Is there a reason to prevent players from building factories there? Is the rule that you can build up to 1 infantry per IPC value of each territory, each turn, by paying 3 IPCs per infantry? Can you do this even before you lose your last factory? For example, can the UK mobilize 4 new infantry in Africa on its first turn?

Can Germany mobilize 2 new infantry in Finland and 2 new infantry in Romania on its first turn? If so, have you playtested any of those changes? Finally, at 20 IPCs, Battleships are a somewhat marginal purchase even with free repairs — do you expect players to buy any BBs if they have to pay 5 IPCs at a friendly factory to repair them? I am trying to make it slightly more realistic while still trying to keep it as simple as possible.

I am still open to changes as I get more games in with these rules and see what works and what does not. The extra starting units is meant to balance the start and eliminate the need or want for a bid. Giving transports defense is more realistic as they would have had some weaponry or escort. They still have to be taken last as casualties. No new industrial complexes makes it harder for Japan to go for Moscow, and just makes the game feel more realistic in general.

Loosing your money when your capital is captured was gamey. Now you can still produce units as long as you control an industrial complex. Producing infantry was meant to be if you no longer controlled any industrial complexes. Attack at The reasoning behind this is the cost of feeding and caring for the foreign forces and also the cost of countering the anti-Communist political propaganda that these forces would introduce to the Soviet populace.

Whether it survived the attack or not it is eliminated after the battle. May designate any Armour as SS at beginning of the turn. Attacks at and defends at