Hey Ichabod

We’re gonna play with the AAA guns starting on setup will be A D  white AAA guns so we know there attacking and defending AAA guns against planes only. If you leave the territory with a factory in it you will need to buy a grey one or white AAA gun to protect factory. If you leave territory from a factory you must declare if it’s a A D white aaa gun or just a defending grey aaa gun. Once u leave factory u can’t change aaa gun to attacking too. I will use a (off topic) 3rd aaa gun for Rockets Tech.

Will see if Germany has any kind of advantage.

@SS:

This is what we have in game now.

Bombers C10
H Bombers C12

Bomber     D6  1-6  3.5 ave  6 max dam 1 lowest dam

H Bomber  D6+2  1-8  4.5 ave   8 max dam  3 lowest dam

This is the change I’m putting in next game.

Bomber    D8  1-8   4.5 ave    8 max dam  1 lowest dam

H Bomber  D10  1-10  5.5 ave  10 max dam  1 lowest dam

Nice +1 dmg increase.
To your game, it fit perfectly well with no bonus, only 1 dice to roll.

I like the fact that heavy bomber get a wider range from 1 to 10.
I don’t think heavy (high altitude bomber) were more accurate than bomber.
Probably due to the high altitude of bombing.

Thanks for your honest comment Ozymandiac,
is the opening post easier to read and understand now?
Same information, different order.
I tried as much as possible to be clear in this new edited version.
Even the second post of this thread is just a more formalized way inspired by OOB 1942.2 written rules, which say same things than first opening post but with all words of official rules.

Thanks SS.  I re-read the report: minor clarification:  It looks like I’m recommending that Britain can’t be attacked at all R1, but actually meant that Italy specifically needs to wait until R2 to attack (preventing the total annihilation of all UK forces from the mediterranean on R1).  Also, I thought there was little the UK could do with these house rules to prevent a takeover if Italy was allowed to attack the UK in R1, but this was assuming Italy could set up their fleet and transports to attack England on R2 with Germany, but skilled Allied players could put naval ships in the path to block Italy from joining in on R2.  With that, I think it’s appropriate to play that Italy can attack the UK on R1… especially since the Italian player only earns 10 IPC’s at start and with no National Objectives, it could be a slow climb to more income if Britain has a chance to maintain it’s fleet and holdings in Africa.

I’ve settled on my house rules (for now) and so I’m going to release my files for a free download for anyone that’s interested in using them or even just checking them out to get some ideas for your own set. The link to download them is at;
http://www.mediafire.com/file/mucfl9jol75ujl9/GHG_House_Rules.zip

I also made a video with my house rule set that I use and the copy that I have sent to Young Grasshopper to put on the prize table at the Grasshopper Invitational coming up. It gives a summary of all of my house rules with a quick explanation of each as well as a close look at the units and markers. You can see the video here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCWswdQL-rw

CWO Marc I am not talking the Tech, but rather the availability of Sonar for ASW on ships designed for ASW and not the U boat threat but rather U boats attacking in unison.
Another factor with historically accurate concepts has to be playability without getting overly complicated.

IE German assault guns over tanks was lack of resources….and the availability of chassis from outdated tanks like the PZ ll and PZ 38t to create a need in Self propelled Artillery and Anti-Tank vehicles. I assure you that the Tanks were preferred over assault guns. This concept has morphed in house rules to what these assault guns were actually intended to do. A Panzer Division commander would rather be supplied Panthers over JagdPanthers

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

It is an Independence Day Mothership !!!

I don’t trust Aliens to be on human side.

Your not Vann, but a clone for sure.
:-D

@CWO:

@taamvan:

I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.

The British government may not have had an actual “backup plan”, in terms of something serious and concrete and specific.  My impression is that Britain’s civilian and military leaders were focussed on preventing an invasion in the first place, and on defeating it if it did actually occur, and that they were sufficiently confident that they could accomplish one or the other of those goals that they didn’t need to give any detailed consideration to what to do if Britain ended up facing defeat.  Hitler, similarly, didn’t give serious consideration to invading Britain until he was forced to admit that Britain wasn’t going to come to terms with him after the defeat of France.

It’s quite possible that British government considered the possibility of setting up a government-in-exile in Canada (or elsewhere), but “considering the possibility” isn’t the same thing as preparing a functional contingency plan.  And in fact, there would have been two good reasons NOT to work on such a functional plan.  First, it would have taken up time and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, even if it only amounted to a small number of staff.  More importantly, preparing such a plan – even in secret – would have been politically very dangerous.  Churchill had famously been proclaiming in the House of Commons that “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”  If word had somewhow reached the public that the same Churchill was secretly preparing plans to decamp to Canada, it would have had two very serious negative effects: it would have told the public that Churchill believed that Britain genuinely risked being conquered by Nazi Germany (which would have been very bad for morale) and it would have convinced people that Churchill was hypocritical on a monumental scale (which would have ended his political career).  It would also have destabilized the British government, which was the last thing Britain needed at that time.

No, I completely understand why Churchhill did that, he was a very ballsy man and someone who was needed for UK but you’d still think you want some kind of back up just in case. I am sure his staff and the Royal Family would AT LEAST retreat to Ireland if need be.

Thanks, we might give it a go not to change anything.

Off topic: I’ve thought about Europe 1940, but it’s so many rules and exceptions. I’d rather underwhelm than overwhelm them  :-) If they like Spring '42, they can always ‘upgrade’ to Global/Europe 1940 later on. If they think Spring 42 is too complicated, then the game series just isn’t for them. If they think it’s too simple, I can spring my Global-1940-monstersized-board-trap  :lol: I just want them to have a good time, get used to the flow of the game and see what happens.

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.

I believe though that aircraft should have the ability to fly over these zones.

Only before resolving great battle.
To be able to compare odds vs luck factor, once resolved.

I love how WAR ROOM mechanics are already manifesting into A&A house rule ideas. Great job!

Guys, I’ve wanted to take down the Halifax Rules thread as a sticky for some time now, but members have protested in the past against it. The fact that I started the thread, the fact that I was the last to comment on it almost 2 years ago, and that there is another thread with over 100 pages that can easily act as a replacement… I feel that it’s time to unsticky it.

It will always be in the data bank if you want to search it…

Cheers.

YG

I do sometimes have to look more than once when I see the CV.  Should be AC.

Too bad.
1914 players deserve a place of their own to read all related threads more easily.

I’m pretty sure some players would find many interesting ideas and an easier access than to read them than scrolling through this mess or using Google search which 50% of time bring up pages which have a different interface than regular blue colored forum pages.

I’m usually scrolling until I found  a link starting with www.org…., but sometimes it doesn’t work.
So, I have to check the date of the last quote and make a guess about which pages of this forum it is until I find it. Takes sometimes 10 to 15 minutes, other time I abandoned and try different keywords expecting that a www.org… will appear.

@Baron:

Do you know why you choose 2 complete rounds of battle?

That is a question to which I’ve given a bit of thought.  From my experience in 1914, one round is too low.  You’re almost always going to get bogged down and for many a turn if you only roll one round per turn.  On the flip side, if you use too many rounds then the value of the special designation loses all meaning.  How many battles are going to last four or more rounds?  Not many.  Two or three seemed to strike the right balance to me, and since I wanted to err on the side of the new designation being more impactful, I opted for two rounds rather than three.

Maybe this might come in handy, someday. Too easily lost if not quoted with a fitting thread name.

@Argothair:

Just brainstorming here – I thought I’d throw out a handful of potential national objectives for the 1943 game, and see if anyone likes any of them. If nothing else, maybe they’ll help inspire other people to come up with better ones.

AMERICA
Free French: +3 IPC if there is at least one Allied-controlled factory in Quebec, French Indochina, Normandy, France, or Southern France.
I Shall Return: +3 IPC if America controls the Philippines.
Champions of Democracy: +5 IPC if America controls at least 4 of the following: Norway, Holland, Denmark, Southern Italy, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia.
Chinese Bases: +5 IPC if the Allies control at least 8 territories marked with a Chinese rondel AND America has a strategic bomber in Kwangtung, Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol, or Manchuria.
Naval Supremacy: +5 IPC if the Japanese have no carriers or battleships on the map.

BRITAIN
Secure Supply Lines: +3 IPC if there are no Axis troops in Africa, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Persia, Northwest Persia, or Eastern Persia.
Colonial Restoration:+5 IPC if Britain controls India, Burma, Malaya, and Kwangtung.
Pacific Commerce: +3 IPC if the Allies control New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, New Zealand, and all of Australia.

RUSSIA
Relieve the Siege of Leningrad: +3 IPC if the Russians control Novgorod, Archangel, and any one of the following territories: Belarus, Baltic States, Vyborg, Karelia.
All Quiet on the Eastern Front: +5 IPC if the Russians control Amur and did not participate in combat with any Japanese units this turn.
Ukrainian Conscripts: +3 IPC if the Russians control Western Ukraine, Ukraine, and Rostov.

GERMANY
Atlantik Wall: +10 IPC if the Allies do not control any of Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Holland, Normandy, or Spain.
Oil Supplies: +5 IPC for each of the following territories the Germans control: Venezuela, Romania, Caucasus, Iraq, Persia, Saudi Arabia.
Panzer Offensive: +5 IPC if Germany has a total of at least three tanks in the territories marked with Russian rondels.
Finnish Defenders: +3 IPC if the Germans control Finland but not Novgorod.
Baltic Shipping: +3 IPC if there are no Allied ships in Sea Zones 113, 114, and 115.
Not a Step Back: +3 IPC if Germany attacked at least one Allied-controlled territory this turn and did not perform any retreats this turn.

JAPAN
Inner Defense Ring: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Iwo Jima, the Marianas, Guam, Formosa, and Okinawa.
Petroleum Shipments: +10 IPCs if the Japanese control Persia, Borneo, or Celebes and there are a total of at least 3 Japanese transports in Sea Zones 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 79, and/or 80.
Soviet Non-Aggression Pact: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Manchuria and Korea, and Japan has not participated in combat with any Russian units this turn.
Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere:: +3 IPCs for each of the following territories Japan controls: Kwangtung, Malaya, India, French Indo-China, Korea, Shensi, Yakut.
Imperial Glory: +10 IPCs if Japan controls at least two of the following territories: Amur, Hawaii, Alaska, New South Wales, South Africa, New Zealand.