Burma road rule extended

@skhande2

I my view, tanks, artillery, and infantry units don’t just represent those things, but rather their units. Most tank, artillery, and infantry units during World War 2 contained some organic AA guns. While there are obviously differences in the size of divisions between the powers (Soviet divisions and corps were smaller than Western ones, one reason they were able to rack up such large numbers), I think a unit represents X number of soldiers, tanks, AA guns, etc. (while actual AA gun units are for dedicated anti-aircraft units which exist semi-independently of other divisions).

I’ve heard suggestions of giving artillery anti-tank capabilities, similar to anti-aircraft artillery in Global 1940 (North Africa’s anti-tank gun piece has something similar too). I think different win rates between different units is mostly represented well (as I hope I’ve somewhat demonstrated above).

@magnum I’m not yet convinced that letting them pick what they want, and potentially the same thing, is a problem. If anything, this will give them the opportunity to try out different strategies, involving research, and see how they work.

Yep.
The first combat round only with 1:1 basis between TacB and Tank makes it more manageable.
After first combat round, there is no need to remember how many hits remains.
Seems fine and workable.

Since my little playtests showed me that less combined arms makes for faster combat, it is the limit I would go with TacB and Tank.

According to my own TcB A3 D2 houseruled, it acts like a Tankbuster because it allows to select any ground casualty (useful to get ride of enemy’s Tank). It works well too.

@der-kuenstler For some reason I’m just finding this thread now. I mostly agree with what others have said. The only thing I want to add is that if you want to play with more than the simplest of house rules, you should feel good about creating play aids to support those rules. Seriously, go out and print your new rules, in full color. Put some thought into how to design and lay out a chart or a cheat sheet that will help players remember and use your rules. Cut them out so they’re the right size, and then laminate them or print them on heavyweight cardstock. If your rules involve any special pieces, buy sculpts for those pieces or use some paint or something to convincingly alter the closest available piece; don’t just slap a chip underneath artillery and say “OK, now it’s a self-propelled artillery.”

If you’re not willing to put in that work to make things easier on your players, then why should they put in the work to test out your house rules? It can take 8+ hours for a single playtest; if you invite 3 friends over, that’s 24 hours of other people’s time. You should be willing to put in at least 10% of that (2 hours) on creating play aids to improve that experience. If you’re not, maybe that’s a sign that you’re having so much fun imagining new rules that tickle your fancy that you’re not really thinking hard about whether those rules will be fun to play with for others.

@Baron:

Do you mean there won’t have any Destroyer to buy, only the Classic units?

No artillery?

No, sorry, I mean use the Anniversary rule-set in the Classic game version (where appropriate). Just an idea really, and I was wondering if anyone has done something like that in order to make the transition from Classic to Anniversary easier.

Would Germany have much chance of sinking them with the Atlantic just a couple of SZs wide?

Give subs a first-strike capability and you may be talking, but this will not make USW worthwhile.

@orion-21:

I think air is the key to winning the war.

I’m thinking any rule(s) that makes it that decisive needs serious revision. Douhet was wrong.

wow, what can I say ?