Axis and Allies Pacific and Europe: 1940 House Rules

[Emperor_Taiki]

You still havnt explained the mech infantry movement aswell as the armor/mechnanized retreat,

[Imperious Leader]

You still havnt explained the mech infantry movement aswell as the armor/mechnanized retreat,

I am not sure about how they move in NCM, but in the OOB they need a tank to move the second space in combat movement. I am just clarifying what the rule should be if it was different in NCM.

I really have favored all defenders to be able to retreat, but really the only units that are really needed to retreat are tanks ( now that they are at 6) and the mech because its a truck and these should at the very least be able to retreat as well.

Infantry get trapped in pockets and artillery are fixed positions. I want to make only minor changes and not start a new game built on the old one. AARHE is a dramatic change and these ideas came from it, but they are minor changes.

Units need to move more spaces because the game will take alot longer to play because more territories exist. I hate longer games, and rails are not addressed so you got to make something to fix that.

On the carrier issue…

I know know about the “damaged CV can only support one plane rule” that is old news and i have tried may ideas where damaged ships get altered combat ratings… the house rules have to be streamlined and to add all sorts of uber realistic ‘damaged state’ rules, bogs down the game. I know this from alot of experience.

I like to just have the same exact rules, except the thing takes 2 hits. Thats it. The 2 hit thing with all sorts of complications just does not work for the ‘fun factor’ and it makes the game imbalanced.

AARHE always had this “repair damaged ships in port or factory rule” and it makes sence that you don’t just repair in the middle of the ocean for free.

Also Carriers can be damaged many ways, It is not common that they are listing so they cant launch planes, but that they had fires or a portion of the flight deck was damaged, so planes have to be careful where to land. Damaged carriers could even represent plane loses not accounted by losing the plane “piece”, but modeled as a general fatigue of the ship and crew after battle, sustained by crew loses in the explosion or fire that was put out after combat.

I feel the rules regarding damaged carriers creates too many rules to support the various cases and its not helping the bottom line. it should be streamlined.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

Infantry get trapped in pockets and artillery are fixed positions. I want to make only minor changes and not start a new game built on the old one. AARHE is a dramatic change and these ideas came from it, but they are minor changes.

yes but when armored forces do engaged they tend to lose a higher percentage of their force comapred to infantry. It dosnt seem realistic that armor is so survivalbe when it when amored forces tend to more quicly lose their streagth in battle.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

I feel the rules regarding damaged carriers creates too many rules to support the various cases and its not helping the bottom line. it should be streamlined.

I think the game has to be played a few times before you can make that call.

[Imperious Leader]

yes but when armored forces do engaged they tend to lose a higher percentage of their force comapred to infantry. It dosnt seem realistic that armor is so survivalbe when it when amored forces tend to more quicly lose their streagth in battle.

Infantry are the ones that usually get surrounded, while armor find a way out. Also armor cost 6 and players will be less inclined to use them.

I introduce small steps on defender retreats, as you know AARHE has always advocated this over the years. People are not ready to accept this yet, but a small step in the right direction must begin sometime. Units that move 2 spaces get this: tanks at 6 and mech is too weak at 1-2-2-4… this makes them more viable now to have them retreat.

Thinking of allowing them both to move and attack one space, then attack a second to give them some blitzkreig value.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

Thinking of allowing them both to move and attack one space, then attack a second to give them some blitzkreig value.

thats a good idea.

@Imperious:

Also armor cost 6 and players will be less inclined to use them.

tanks at 6 and mech is too weak at 1-2-2-4… this makes them more viable now to have them retreat.

Well, in the pacific game i agree they are not going to be too particularly useful(except maybe in china), but that is just realistic.

I think we will have to see AAE40 before we can decided if the new mech infantry and armor rules need to be tweeked.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes the rules must not include exceptions for each game. So it may be the case where it may apply more for one over the other on the basis of historical realism.

[Admiral_Thrawn]

What would be good house rules for U.S. Marines like from the original AAP? The same?

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.

Should this be modified to make them a viable unit you may want to buy sometimes?

[Imperious Leader]

yes i will add that in.

[Admiral_Thrawn]

Has anyone considered changing the airfields with house rules? I love the idea of airfields in the game. The scrambling is a great idea based off CAP from AAP41. The new rules are improved though. The extra movement point with the new rules doesn’t seem to be much of an advantage. Adding one movement point doesn’t help much because you really need two movement points to make it usually worthwhile. Whats the point of moving 5 spaces most of the time? You need to land some where and you need 6 to go further. I also don’t really like the old airfields from AAP41 because they made the fighters move too far across the Pacific. I think a good house rule would be that you need a airfield to land on an island at all. That way strat bombing would really mean something. You damaged their airfield and they can’t take off until they fix it. Now, you would be able to land on the continents(Asia including Japan, North America, Australia) without one but, then it would give you a bonus move (5, or 7) for the advanced airfields in more industrial areas then some jungle island. I think the cost would have to change too. 15 is too high if you needed them to land planes. Maybe 6IPC? Still can damage them up to six and inoperable at 3 damage. I think this would add to the historical flavor of the game by capturing islands to build airbases on them.

[Imperious Leader]

I added to them. If you build one they can support adjacent land territories under attack on DEFENSE, whereas the rules only allow them to defend the sea zone out side the island chain.

I think this is enough, and fighters will be great because they can participate in many new ways.

[Admiral_Thrawn]

Thats a good idea. Why couldn’t fighters in India scramble to defend Burma and then move one space back to India in noncombat? If you can move one space to the sea to defend you should be able to do so on land. I will try that in one of my games as well as you have to have an airfield to land fighters on islands.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Thats a good idea. Why couldn’t fighters in India scramble to defend Burma and then move one space back to India in noncombat? If you can move one space to the sea to defend you should be able to do so on land. I will try that in one of my games as well as you have to have an airfield to land fighters on islands.

I think the idea is that the inland is already in the sea zone, so the fighters on inlands are not accualy moving to defend, because they are already in that sea zone.

I do find it wierd though that airfeild only provides aircraft with one extra space of movement.

[Imperious Leader]

I do find it wierd though that airfeild only provides aircraft with one extra space of movement.

but it allows them to intercept naval or in my case land units as well…on DEFENSE. this is important because essentially they can act twice each turn. That is huge.

[Flashman]

Capital ships should take two turns to build.  You pay half the cost when ordered, and you may delay the completion of the ship indefinitely.

Should incompleted hulls be eligible as casualties?  Clearly they have no combat ability, but are likely to be protected by the port rules described by IL.

And trains! Trains, trains, trains!

Land movement in A&A is a complete joke without them.

I favour defender retreats for any unit after a round of combat, but using the suggested rule allowing tanks and MI to retreat - shouldn’t this only apply if infantry is left in the territory to “cover” the retreat, perhaps on a 1:1 basis?

[Imperious Leader]

2 turn naval does not work i have playtested this for years and it causes too many problems. IN reality all units take more than 6 months to build from scratch, so it is not serving any purpose to allow some to be built and others not. Appeals to make the game more realistic do not always convey more fun and usually do the opposite and prove for more imbalance than before.

[Variable]

I’m liking the retreat rules IL. It helps boost the benefits of building MInf. I’m sure we’ll have more reason in E40, but I want to experiment with this stuff now.

To some of the others RE: airbases - The 5th MP for fighters is very handy. Everyone seems to think it’s no good without a 6th because you can’t go 3 out and 3 back. Try going 3 out and 2 back (especially as Japan!) Very handy for keeping the Americans at bay.

Also love the island airbase rule (needed to land on island).

[Imperious Leader]

Rules are obviously not complete. I have no played enough games to validate them entirely, but i know they remain excellent starting points.

[Guest]

How about adding a blockhouse rule?

[mike55]

Mechanized and motorized infantry were developed to be a combined arms force and to counteract infantry with AT guns and infantry held weapons like piats and bazookas.  What about giving the mech infantry in AAP40 +1 when paired with armour?  And to counteract the worry that artillery won’t be built, allow mech infantry to tow artillery, simulating the mounting of artillery on half-tracks and self-propelled artillery.  This would probably require a mech infantry cost of 5.  Any comments?