OK, version 10 is now a available at BGG. An error was corrected and the Advanced Rail Network tech was enhanced a bit, hopefully it hasn’t become too terribly complicated - just a bit more useful.

We finished our second game with these rules. The Central Powers won it, Austia-Hungary was the star of the show, interestingly enough. It took Rome and jointly defeated Russia. Built a massive fleet in the Meditterranean and gained control of it where it was able to invade France from the southern coast while the Germans kept the French busy, and fleet battle after fleet battle kept the British occupied in the North Sea.

The Americans were sent to Italy to save them, which they did until the massive Austia fleet took the Med and entered Rome amphibiously. It was an 8 turn epic, at 1.5 hours per turn until the allies finally threw in the towel.

The tech kept things interesting. The more you accumulate the harder it becomes to remember to use it but that is a good problem to have. ;)

Well some are very similar. Ill try and write up a comparison of the two rule sets later.
Though I do prefer the tech token system in this rule set, tokens being 3 IPCs rather than 5, Success on 5-6, failure on 1-2, token awarded on 3-4

No one’s going to change the rules based upon theoretical purchases of units. Play some games, see what happens and what strategies work and don’t for an extended period before even considering this. Hell, maybe everyone just buys battleships?!

Kim

It took time to establish and defend railheads in warzones. Hence, it is unrealistic in my view that a power can rail units into combat, or into tts they have just fought over.

I have no problem in being able to rail from Portugal to Moscow in one move if you control all the relevant tts from the start of your turn.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

Krieghund please ask Larry about this.

In your opinion why can you trace a line from your territories to the capital EXCEPT colonies?

You are either a troll or just plain dumb lol

I’m all in favour of rails, but one important caveat is that units must never be allowed to rail into combat. It took time to disembark, reorganize and move up to the front from railheads. Rail, movement should be used to reinforce areas where you’re not attacking this turn.

But should Berlin be allowed to reinforce Baghdad?

http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ottoman_empire_1914.jpg

To some extent devastation is represented by the fact that contested tts yield no income, though we still have the absurdity that a tt might yet produce EIGHT TIMES the usual income if it changes hands often enough.

Interresting combination of 2 rules and a way to promote islands hopping:

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4222&start=48

Darby wrote:
All Amphibious Assaults
a) Are at -1 for land amphibious launched land units for the first two rounds.
b) Defenders fire at +1 for the first round.

Amphibious Assaults staged from an adj. tt with some land in it - negate one round of Offensive minuses, and negate the Defensive pluses.

I REALLY like that it still allows people to do the 3 move assaults, but makes it more difficult.

Here’s a few changes I suggest:

On all amphibious assaults, all attacking units in the land battle have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat and all defending units in the land battle have their defense value increased by 1 for the first round of combat (These include Shore Bombardments and Anti-Aircraft Guns). If all transports unloading units on the amphibious assault have moved one or less spaces this turn before unloading, all units attack and defend without these modifiers.

�A lie never lives to be old.� � Sophocles

mantlefan
Post subject: Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm

The Changes do well to clarify … but I’m still wondering if we want to reward coming from a bit of land that serves as a logistic staging base.
The way you have it worded – A fleet can wait in a sea zone for a turn before attacking – No benefit as compared to attacking Honolulu from The Marshalls or Japan from Iwo Jima
(Besides the benefit of course of being able to put you land units safely on the islands while waiting to attack rather then at risk on transports.)

Do we want to reward Island hopping as well as just slow assault speed ?

Also I don’t think all attacking units should be minus just ones from transports
a) planes should not really get a minus
b) units from adj. flanking land tts should not get minuses (eg. Landing in Normandy - support from Holland)
c) Shore Bombard should be at full if applicable
etc.

hat might work, but it still harms the UK in London more than it helps Japan IMO. I like the idea where you can still attack if you want, but your troops fight worse if it’s done long range. How about a fusion?

Land units unloading into a enemy territory from transports that have moved 3 spaces that turn have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat. Land units (including Anti-Aircraft guns) that are defending in an amphibious assault have their defense values increased by 1 for the first round of combat, as long as at least one of the Transports unloading into the territory has moved 3 spaces that turn

@userx:

@Baron:

I would rather prefer to limit them to their role of AA gun but, specialy for Germany, it seems they used a lot their 88mm AAA as antitank gun (El Alamein battle, i.e.).

I like that because you are correct, in Real Live, AA was just high-velocity ammo pointed at the sky, point it at a tank like the Germans did, it became an effective anti-tank.

I like the idea of taking out tank and/or armor for the pre-combat AA roll.

I don’t know if it would be unbalanced but I think I will try this next game

Thank you

I just learned that Germans put their Flak 88 on tracks and plates so it becomes the Tiger (Mark VI) and deliver them for the Battle of Kursk in 1943.
This gun seems quite an invention.

@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.