@CWO:

@toblerone77:

Korean Troops.

Hmm…I note that some of the troops lack hands, arms and heads.  I assume that these body parts are provided separately in the package for attachment with glue, and that these figures aren’t supposed to represent soldiers who’ve been severely wounded in battle.Â

How well do these figures fit alongside A&A troops in terms of scale?

They Americans a bit beefy compared to the Axis players but so are the Germans. You could probably snap the two piece figures together but I’ll be glueing them. I will also probably prime, paint, and dip thess guys too. I’m not sure what I’ll do with them yet. They were a steal at six bucks and I couldn’t pass it up.

The Koreans with AKs just fit the part of some kind of insurgent, and I couldn’t resist buying them. The Easy Company Americans have guys dragging parchutes and really might come in handy. The Korean era Americans have M-14s, M-1 Gerands, and M-1 carbines.

When I get a minute and get the guys off thier runners and cleaned up I’ll post pics.

@Tall:

Tobleone77,

––I didn’t mean it to appear I was in anything other than AGREEMENT with you on the issues of Air Transports & Paratroopers. :-D
----I simply wanted to share what seem to me to be very logical and obvious points so that others might consider them.

––Axis & Allies is such a FANTASTIC game that I feel it’s very important that any alterations or ‘house rules’ that we make keep all of the main gameplay attributes included.
––IMHO changes just for the sake of change,…or changes that would drastically lower the cost of units for the sake of “more action” would radically imbalance the game and should be discouraged. However, I completely respect the right of any/all players to play the game as THEY like it. But their changes shouldn’t become the normally accepted ‘house rules’ for the majority of A&A players.

“Tall Paul”

No worries brother. I was using my smart phone when I tried to quote you… didn’t quite come out right. My para-token idea was just a springboard for those who don’t like the HBG pieces. I personally already have most of what I need to get all of my player countries stuff for paras and air transports. I’m hoping we’ll eventually get gliders from someone someday. Cheers!

Hello all, I hope you enjoy my battle report

Rules used

Russian Revolution Rules ON
House rules added to help CP balance issues, Munich Factory only allowed to build 4 land/air units per turn, India factory only allowed to build 4 land/air units per turn, Added transport in SZ10, Added extra cruiser in SZ18.
Everything else is OOB.

I have attached my Battle report of the first 2 turns in a PDF
Playtest march.pdf

Native infantry were not supplied with much in the way of heavy equipment such as machine-guns. They were dependent on European leadership, hence they cannot operate or hold tt on their own. Their loyalty to colonial rulers was questionable. I wanted to represent that the war in Africa was on a much smaller scale than in Europe, but give the region more flexibility by having more units. I wanted them to be recruited only in original tts, so that there would be an incentive to defend your own colonies rather than just march around in circles.

If we restrict Askaris to sub-Saharan Africa it balance in that starting armies qualifying would be 4-4 and could be given 2 Askaris ech to begin viz:

Togoland, Kamerun, SWA, GEA

FWA, BEA, Rhodesia, Somaliland.

South Africa did not think much of arming natives…

Bombers caused a profound effect on populations, their morale damage was considered 20 times the material harm they ever did. The large late war planes were a generation on from early war aircraft, the German Gothas had a larger wingspan than any operational Luftwaffe plane of WWII.

By “movable” mines I meant mines that can be built and placed wherever required; assume that each NB has its attached mines to begin, but allow ships to lay mines in other SZs; as mentioned destroyers would have a mine sweeping role…

First of all, no country should ever be allowed to build units in a captured enemy capital/factory/production centre in any Axis and Allies game ever period.

I will add the Munich factory next game, this is for me just ahead of the other candidates Ruhr and Alsace.
Benefits of Munich are that its sufficiently well behind the front line to begin with, but allows every German home region to be reached by newly built units in one turn.
It also allows Germany to reinforce Austria’s drive in the south.

Will probably also make Petrograd a production centre and Russian capital (though Russia can move the capital to Moscow once in a game.

I’ve considered Canada as the magic 12th PC, perhaps with reduced starting units.

A completely different approach to placement is:

New units may be placed in any home region still contiguous with the capital subject to the following limits each turn:

Capital: 3 units

Controlled home region: 2 units

Contested home region: 1 unit

In addition

UK - Canada: 6 x IPC of units

UK - India 6 x IPC of units

UK, F, G, I - Africa 6 x IPC units (Askaris only)

There is a line on the map dividing Russia as per the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Russian Bolsheviks get the core “Greater Russia” tts; the original CPs annex the rest.

No, but I didn’t make a pig’s arse of the Russian Revolution rules.

Thinking about AAA role, maybe it could be a more active unit during the rest of the battle and not limited only to the opening fire phase:

@crusaderiv:

AAA - Always Active Antiaircraft
Every round of combat they get a roll @ 1, against each plane.
Geez…that’s a strong AA! I’won’t take the risk to fly over your territory!
OK against 1 plane each round but not each plane.

New rules for AAA:
On first round, AAA get a preemptive antiaircraft strike (as per OOB rules):
3 Att @1 against up to 3 aircrafts, limited to one roll per plane.
After first round, each AAA get 1 Att@1 against 1 aircraft but as regular strike, not in the opening fire phase.
If Air Supremacy Rule: 1 AAA can block up to 3 planes from striking on the opening fire phase.

This will somewhat reduces the advantage of AirSupRule and did’t let the AAA be a lame duck for the rest of a ground battle.
What do you think? Did someone ever try this combination of two house rules?

I think the allies need a lot of help in Global.  Trouble is, if the bid gets too big they can put it all in one theatre and unbalance the situation on one side of the map.  So what I propose is a rule for bids that says you must place 50% of your bid on the Europe map and 50% on the Pacific map.  If the bid is an odd number, you can place 50%+1 on one side.  So for example if the bid is $17 you would have to place 8 or 9 in each side.  This rule would allow bids to get a lot larger and give the allies a fighting chance, while keeping it reasonable on each side of the world.

@Imperious:

OK.
Cruisers when they shoot and roll a 1 can force the defender to remove a plane
Cruisers move 3 spaces even if they didn’t come out of port.
Now they are worth the extra 2 IPC.

@Young:

@variance:

Another idea has been that each cruiser would only fire an AA shot at 1 attacking plane.

This is better than 3 shots per ship IMO.

So our Cruisers combine those ideas and get:
1-An attack and a defense @3 + 1 bombard @3,
2-A first round AA @1 against 1 attacking aircraft,
3-Cruisers when they shoot, either on attack or defense, and roll a 1 can force the attacker/defender to remove a plane.

In the game I played, the AA has more of a psychological impact than a real effect.
Indeed, it never destroyed any aircraft. And thus, neither by the AA and even by the “1” roll which force the defender to destroy an aircraft.

But UK bought 3 cruisers, instead of any BB, against German Luftwaffe.

Thanks everybody, those suggestions makes cruiser a more interesting unit that worth buying.

However, it can be a real nuisance for Germany but it may also help protect the Baltic fleet against UK aircrafts: at least, it slightly upgrade the Baltic fleet to better defend against attacking UK planes.

OK.
Thanks.

Think of it this way.

1 ipc off of each infantry is a 33% discount on the most common unit in the game
3 ipcs off each battleship is a 15% discount on the least common unit in the game

Tell me you see the difference ……

@italiansarecoming:

@goalievogel:

Weather would overcomplicate the game. Don’t “fix” something if it isn’t broken.

declaration of warm

I know its a typo, but this is a weather thread and I giggled

Some treads treat this subject but I wanted a new start here in house rules.
I have summarize some ideas to make these two units:
No more than 1 type of unit/territory.
Allow up to 2 bunkers or pillboxes/territory (2IPs allow 1 additionnal hit).
Also allow up to 2 heavy weapons fortification: cost 1 IPC and give +1 def 1 Inf/Art.

Cost   Move  Att  Def              Special
Coastal fortifications: 10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Ship Gun
Inland fortifications:  10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Tank Gun
Coastal fortifications work only against amphibious assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by land.
Inland fortifications work only against land assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by amphibious assault.

Both share the same other traits:
Take 2 hits, repairs as BB/ 6 damage points, repair at 1pt/1 IPC
Give up to 3 (Inf or Art) +1 defense/
AA in-built against SBR from SBs & TBs/

3 coastal guns ASG each@1 pre-emptive against support ships during amphibious assault, in order BB/CA/DD: once hit a BB cannot bombard, must repair.
Or
3 Anti Tank Guns 3@1 (pre-emptive strikes vs Armors)
It must take 2 hits to be destroy, or the territory has been captured.

Even if the 3 defenders has been killed, but take only 1 hit, as long as the territory is not captured then it can be repaired at no cost, as BB. Except for a Strategic Bombing Raid:

Can be SBR (damage are cumulative, up to 6 points) but do not affect the number of hit that unit can absorbs:
1-3: no effect
4: -1 def 1 Inf or Art/ -1@1 ASG (2 coastal guns attack)/ATG (2 anti-tank attacks)
5: -1 def 2 Inf or Art/ -2@1 ASG (1 coastal gun attack)/ATG (1 anti-tank attack)
6: -1 def 3 Inf or Art/ no coastal gun attack / no ATG attack

Even after taking 6 points of damage, it can still take 2 hits before being destroyed.

Special features:
The bombers (SBs/TBs) can make their first shot an SBR against these complexes (before the amphibious assault/ or normal combat occurs) and makes normal attacks against any ground units after the first round.

Since A&A 1914 came out, I’ve been looking to import some of the rules from there into the Global 1940 game. The rule I’ve been eyeing most is the contested territory mainly, but as this is mainly a result of the limited combat rounds I feel it may limit the game too much. That was until I thought this could be a perfect time to implement oil rules! If you used oil to “buy” extra combat rounds as needed, this could simulate supplying your army as they attack. This really allows the use of the contested territory rules without the limiting effects of a hard one-round cap on combat, as well as limit territory exchanges. I thinking something along the lines of:

**Oil Refinery
Cost: 12-15
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defense: 0 (AA ability)

Oil Refinery: Oil refineries give the nation that possesses it 3 oil tokens. These refineries can be built in any land territory you control that can support an oil refinery i.e. a territory such as the Caucasus or Romania (places that had a historical set of oilfields during the conflict); you can only have one per territory.**

Somebody have test 2 diferent IPC value, like oil? For example;
Infantry 5ipc
Tank 10ipc+5oil

A hints that it is within some limits for playability:

This unit gets almost the same benefits than official marines in A&A Pacific but it is now available to every Powers.
It keeps same cost/ get +1 Art bonus to Inf./ get 1@3 (on 2e round) attributed to the Art instead of the marines.
If two Elite units are paired, they get each +1 Att after the first round.
Thus, it is for 2 E units2@2 but drop 1@1 if one Elite unit is hit.
Same cost as Art, if we compare 2 Art with 2 El unit:
2 Elites can get on board a transport but only 1 for Art.
Offensive points are very near: 2 Art= 2@2= 4 pts / 2 Elu=2@1 = 2 pts first rnd and 2@2= 4 pts on second rnd.
Although 1 Art alone has Att:2/ 1 Elites unit get only Att: 1@1

This way of seeing this new Elite unit has still some historical likelyness with Marines:
i.e. Not unbeatable marines @3 on the first round of an amphibious combat.

Or 1 marine alone able to combat @2 vs 1 Inf@2 on defense.

Actually many US marines were crippled on the beaches against entrenched Japanese Inf. and suffer many loses before taking a solid hold on the battle ground.

Rule from AAP:

From Axis and Allies Pacific

U.S. MARINES
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1 or 2
Defense Factor: 2
Cost: 4 IPCs (USA only)

Description
Only the United States has Marine units, these are the dark green infantry pieces. Marines normally attack just like infantry units (with a roll of 1). However, they are more effective in Amphibious Assaults, as explained below:

� A Marine unit attacking in an Amphibious Assault scores a hit on a roll of 2 or less. A Marine unit that enters combat by moving from one land territory to another land territory may still attack with a roll of 2 or less as long as at least one friendly unit attacks from a sea zone making the battle an Amphibious Assault.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 2 or less.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory in an Amphibious Assault that is not paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 3 or less.

Does anyone knows why the more expensive units (i.e. cruiser 12$ and battleship 20$) are not able to bombard a only one shot on the coast once they win a sea battle offshore?

For me, it seems many times you cannot use their only special capability.
For all other cheaper units their is no such thing.

In what way does this rule is necessary to keep the balance?

In game terms, since a turn is three months long why a cruiser or a BB cannot fight the enemy ships, then help the amphibious assault since you cannot make any debarkment if you are not able to destroy the enemy naval unit?

I’m pretty sure that, during WWII, many cruisers and battleships were able to destroy others defending surface vessels and, some hours later, support with their heavy guns the marines launching an assault on a beach.

If both battles have been simultaneous (like Leyte Gulf Battle) that would be OK, but, in the game, if you loose or retreat no transport can unload their troops.

Anyway, I wish to suggest a different rule to simulate that cruiser and BB can do many things during a three month turn. Or can make a more intensive bombardment if their is no other assignment.

1- Always allow one coastal bombardment per surviving cruiser or battleship after a naval battle and before the amphibious assault (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports). If the BB was damaged during the previous battle, halfed the attack: 1@2 instead of 1@4.
Or we can logically say that a damaged BB have to repair and is unable to support a debarkment. This would make sens.

2- When their is no naval battle, allows 2 rolls of dice per cruiser and BB present (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports) but take only the better result for each one (like LHTR for heavy bomber) .

Example: 3 inf are part of an amphibious combat, so 3 cruisers (A, B, C) out of 4 (D) cruisers offshore can roll dices @3:
A 1,2 / B 3,3 / C 4,5,/ D not allowed
thus making 2 hits even though four dices make 3 and under.

In this way, the expensive units can always be use at their full potential.

Option B: we can instead halfed the attack value of cruiser and BB that made naval battle before a debarkment: cruiser get 1@1/ BB get 1@2.
And a damaged BB have to be repaired and is unable to support a debarkment.

What do you think? Do you have some answers for my previous questions?
Thanks.

Naval mines can hit transports. You call out mines on ships one by one. (to distinguish transport w/2 INF vs transport with INF+Tank)

So yea, amphibious invasions are risky, but if you have naval superiority why march through France as the US when you can land and Greece and be super annoying.

Very cool idea. I like it a lot.

:-D