Sub-division of House Rules Forum

Well they would be counters for each nation in a cup that you draw randomly. say 1 inch wooden chits with a decal on it. Icons of say a tank or Battleship if the commander effects those. If you draw a chit and don’t own that piece, you just lost that advantage that turn. The next turn you draw another chit. The used chits stay out of the jar, so the design features will balance in total for both Axis and Allies…or not. Depends on the game played…

@Topmat

AxA has often been called a “beer and pretzels” wargame, I suppose because it is fairly simplistic and available—FOR a wargame. That’s not because AxA is elementary or easily mastered, its because other wargames tend to be even more rules-heavy and detailed, which makes some of them famously and notoriously unplayable. They may have an attractive theme or rules, but the “chit” game era (60s-80s) built up to a crescendo before it burst. PC Computer gaming was a major catalyst for this; the ASL/Avalon Hill/SSI style games BEGGED for a computer to handle some of the more complex calculations, setup, rules etc.

I think AxA has the general appeal and longevity it does precisely because it appeared after this “First Golden Age”, and is not married to overcomplex or overly realistic considerations, its a truly “abstract” wargame, where each step (building, conquering, purchasing, combat, movement) is fairly simple, but all together, they are complex enough to satisfy long-time players while only barely overwhelming the new ones.

And, the fact that AxA doesn’t try to simulate or do everything a wargame possibly COULD do is the very reason why there is enough room left in the game to add more, but that’s not necessarily desirable. If the game was already highly complex, rich and random, it would already have many of the things that people are trying to add to it—but its likely no-one would play it. I think most of the more complex house rules systems for AxA fall into this trap, by pushing the complexity/time investment level out of the Goldilocks zone.

I bought a “political” Avalon Hill chit game in 1992, Republic of Rome (4/4 difficulty rating). When I read the instruction manual, I was blown away-- I understood nothing of what i’d read… until I read it for nearly 2 years. We only played it in college 4 times, and the Republic consistently lost as a group. Its a great game, but its also an example of a highly complex simulation game with a narrow audience from the first era–very few people still play these games because they lack any general following or appeal in the internet age, and have been replaced by computer-style games, like the Total War and Europa Universalis series.

I don’t see an option to share the deck publicly on there site. I have the images saved. I could upload them or send them to you if you want them.

Yes, I was talking about those, I was also thinking about their role in sea battles (against Subs):

Unlike fighters, they don´t need to end their move in a territory with friendly Inf, but they can move max 3 spaces away from a territory with friendly Inf

If there is an Airship involved in sea battle then:
Enemy submarines can not submerge and they can not surprise attack
Airships roll one dice against enemy Sub, hitting it at die roll of 2.

@knp, 3D6 heavies have never been popular. Back in the early nineties we played off and on with them. It’s one of those things where if you have them, you love them if you don’t, well life is hell. I like the 2D6 and seems like most players can live with them especially on the Global scale and sheer number of units on the board.

Personally I liked it better when SBR came out of the player’s bank. People really hate that one and democracy usually rules most of the time when you have a regular group. I understand why people hated that one, however I liked it. It’s one of the things I like about disrupting convoys.

Honestly I love HBG, you can now add a lot of stuff to the game especially when it comes to tech. SPA and TDs are a must.

Anyway your thoughts on mech blitzing and both dice counting for heavies was spot on.

@knp7765:

@Der:

We play where subs do not attack one another or have any effect on one another on the map or on the battleboard.

What if you have a naval battle involving two large fleets with subs on both sides?

You just say “subs can’t hit planes OR SUBS” and play it out. If there ends up being only subs left, the battle ends - put the subs back out on the map.

1945 February 6- The Royal Navy submarine Venturer became the only submarine to sink another submarine while they were both submerged when she sank U-864 off Norway. In all the naval action of the whole world war this only happened once! I think you could say realistically it shouldn’t happen on the scale od Axis and Allies.

As far as limiting the subs, IMO they should be limited. Their primary role historically was convoy raiding, and they now only cost 6 IPCs.

You could use the same general rules for AA50, but you would have to pick one of the AA 50 setups (1941 or 1942) then add up the total cost of starting units to get the starting cash for each country. For one thing, I think there are less starting pieces for all the nations because AA 50 has a smaller map than the 1940 games so there are less pieces. Another thing is I think the prices are a little different in AA50 than in the 1940 games, plus you won’t have Tac Bombers or Mechanized Infantry as those units didn’t come out until the 1940 games.
Also, I’m not sure how you would handle China, since in AA50 they don’t actually get IPCs but rather 1 infantry for every 2 Chinese territories still under Chinese control at the beginning of their turn.
Other than a few small changes though, I think you could still adapt this idea to AA50.

@Bonus_Bonus:

I made many modifications and forced my friends to play test them.

regarding getting friends to playtest
creating theme depending on your friends tastes would make house rules more attractive

I made an accessory called the Cards of War.

by the way what were the cards of war?