Fortunes of Victory: Mr. Andersson's House Rules for Spring 1942 2nd Ed

[Young Grasshopper]

Hey Dreadnaught,

I would never accept a monetary profit for any of my axis and allies customizations.

[CWO Marc]

Good set of rules, and I like the card-back coding system.  I’ve provided a few suggestions below, if case they’re of any interest.

Powerful Torpedoes No of cards: 3 - Japan & Germany starts with one card each

Comment: “Powerful Torpedoes” is a little vague, so given that the advantage is limited to Japan and Germany, how about changing this to either Oxygen-Fueled Torpedoes (a technology which Japan might have shared with Germany) or Acoustic Torpedoes (a technology which Gremany might have shared with Japan)?

Human Wave Attack No of cards: 4

Comment: Technically this should only apply to Japan, since no other country (except perhaps arguably the USSR) used such tactics.

Underground Factory No of cards: 3

Comment: With the exception of the Mittelwerk slave-labour complex, I can’t think of any examples of large-scale underground factories.  “Camouflaged Factories” would be a better alternative: concealing an existing factory can be done much more cheaply than building a new one underground; the technique was actually used in WWII (notably in California, where the roofs of factory buildings were camouflaged to look innocuous from the air); and it would explain the reduced damage on the grounds that some of the bombs would have been improperly aimed.

Flying Ace No of cards: 4
Choose a friendly fighter during conduct combat phase that scores a miss and change it to a hit.

Comment: I think the phrase “Fighter Ace” is more commonly used and more precise.

[Dreadnaught]

@Young:

Hey Dreadnaught,

I would never accept a monetary profit for any of my axis and allies customizations.

Love you for that  8-)

Looking forward to see the cards then.

Mr. Andersson

[Young Grasshopper]

@Dreadnaught:

@Young:

Hey Dreadnaught,

I would never accept a monetary profit for any of my axis and allies customizations.

Love you for that  8-)

Looking forward to see the cards then.

Mr. Andersson

I hope there wasn’t a misunderstanding, I said that I would help design the cards meaning that I would advise or point someone in the right direction with computer program questions. I’m far to busy with my own Delta project to create your card deck myself, and I’m not really interested in 1942 A&A games.

[Zombie69]

I like the concept, but most of them are far too powerful for my taste, with the potential to completely alter the game with a single card. I might try them if I could seriously tone down about two thirds of the cards and play them with open hand to minimize surprises that can ruin the game.

I guess I like to have more strategy and less luck involved in my games.

[Dreadnaught]

@Zombie69:

I like the concept, but most of them are far too powerful for my taste, with the potential to completely alter the game with a single card…

I guess I like to have more strategy and less luck involved in my games.

If you think otherwise, based on experience, I guess it is easy to get rid of those cards. I can actually say that the cards and the mechanic make these rules very much balanced, even if some of the cards are more powerful than others. These rules have been play tested by very much the same people who play test other new games/rules for A&A. Me my self have more than 25 years experience from developing rules for A&A, some that are official today. What I am trying to say, try these rules and you will find out that these rules actually brings more strategy to the game than luck - a lot more.

Enjoy!

Game Master

[Dreadnaught]

@knp7765:

Cool idea. I would like to try these out. I usually play Global 40, but occasionally I pull out 1942.

By the way, I think you had a misprint on your Military Support fortune card. It should be:
1-2 : Free Artillery unit
3-4 : Free Anti Aircraft Artillery unit
5-6 : Free Tank unit

Fixed it now, thanks!

Game Master

[Dreadnaught]

When a player forgets to collect income some players count it is a loss to that player, but we play games were no one can “forget” to collect income but all players remind each others. It seems more fair, but we like the situation it sometimes brings to the game. Hence we have played around with a new tactics card that we call Siege. The Siege card means that you can stop an opponent 1 turn (no combat movements, but only noncombat movements) and cut 50% (round up) of the opponent’s IPC income that turn. Played during your collect income phase. Any thoughts? Impy, what do you say?

[CWO Marc]

@Dreadnaught:

The Siege card means that you can stop an opponent 1 turn (no combat movements, but only noncombat movements) and cut 50% (round up) of the opponent’s IPC income that turn. Played during your collect income phase. Any thoughts?

I assume this card is a “just for fun” concept that isn’t really meant to represent a realistic situation – but if that isn’t the case, what is the situation that the rule depicts and how can this situation be made to apply to every power on the board against which it might be used?  Sieges are localized affairs, not global ones.  The closest equivalent in realistic terms would be a blockade – let’s say, Britain being blockaded to such an extent that much of the wealth and resources being produced in its far-flung empire is being prevented from being shipped to the British Isles.  That’s something I can grasp conceptually, since in many ways it’s what the German U-boat campaign was trying to achieve.  But what happens in the case of a country like the US whose IPCs are largely generated within its own borders?  Blockading such a country (without occupying it) would primarily affect its ability to export stuff and (to the extent that they are needed) to import things, but it would have no effect on its domestic food production or on its ability to manufacture finished products from domestic raw materials.

[Dreadnaught]

We have played around with a new tactics card that we call Combined Bomber Offensive or Commerce Raiding to replace Human Wave Attack. Any thoughts?

Combined Bomber Offensive No of cards: 2
You may declare a joint bomber strike with a fellow player of your choice, on your conduct combat phase. Your bomber units may not conduct combat during your turn, but may move on your noncombat move phase. On your fellow player’s turn, the fellow player can move any of your bomber units during his or her combat move phase and conduct combat with them, as if they belonged to the fellow player, but weapons cards have no effect on these bomber units.

Human Wave Attack No of cards: 3
When you move only infantry into a contested territory during the combat move phase, all those infantry attack on a 2. You may not withdraw from the human wave attack. This special ability also applies to any amphibious assault were you may include offshore bombardment support.

Convoy Raiding No of cards: 3
Instead of engaging in combat, each battleship in an uncontested sea zone adjacent to an enemy territory may roll 1 die, the enemy power must surrender thatmany IPCs to the bank.

Game Master

[Dreadnaught]

Why do you think that this Fortune card would not be valid?
And what strategic elements do it put in play?

Supreme Excellence
When attacking with a fire power that is at least three times larger then the defending enemy’s you will breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. The attacker automatically wins the battle, but all defending units can fire once during the first round of combat before being destroyed.

[CWO Marc]

@Dreadnaught:

Why do you think that this Fortune card would not be valid?

Have a look at Lanchester’s Laws, a mathematical model of the effect of force ratios in combat.  The one which pertains to combat involving firearms doesn’t say that the attacker magically suffers zero casualties if he achieves a 3-to-1 ratio (or any other ratio) in combat; it simply says that the side with the most men will gradually gain the upper hand, and that the attritional effects increase in an exponential rather than in inear fashion.  Besides, the old rule of thumb which says that an attacker needs a 3-to-1 ratio to succeed exists precisely because it recognizes that a defender typically has the initial advantage over the attacker, and that the attacker will suffer more casualties initially.  Defenders are often in dug-in or fortified positions, whereas the attacker typically has to stand up and go out into the open in order to advance, which puts him in a more exposed position.

[Dreadnaught]

The interseting thing with the Supreme Excellence card is what it brings in for strategy, not so much about the numbers. If you attack and concentrate a force into one zone or territory, just to deplete an enemy on a stack of strategically interesting units, you might end up in trouble. What would happen if the defending player plays the Entrenchment or Signals Intelligence card! As you see, it will bring a second level thought to the strategy that we have never seen before. Make it more of a strategy game, and less luck, which is the opposite to what most people think at first sight. If you try these rules you will discover new insights about this second level thought in many other situations of the game play. Enjoy!

Mr. Andersson