My new house rules…for AA Pacific

@mhal21 I don’t play poison gas warfare for one simple reason. Poison gas was not as much of a thing as people think it was in WWI. Yes it was terrifying and it made the headlines when it happened, but the estimates are that around 150 000 casualties happened due to gas, which is something like 2-3 days of a huge battle on the Western front.
I know some people have dabbled with it so there is stuff out there. You might want to hop on the Axis and Allies Facebook page to ask your question !

Just some thoughts on how I might implement a TSRR rule in our Global game. I feel this may help out in the bidding process. If Russia can get it’s troops back to Moscow, the Allies may not need such a high bid.

A -The Trans-Siberian Railroad was made to bring mass troops from all over Russia. Therefore, ALL troops gathered along the Trans-Siberian Railroad countries may move freely from one end to the end on Russia’s NON-COMBAT move. This move may only go ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! There was only one rail and it took 8 days from end to the other. This railway may ONLY be used by Russian troops. The route exists along Russia to Samara, Samara to Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk to Tunguska, Tunguska to Yenisey, Yenisey to Yakut SSR, SSR to Buryatia, Buryatia to Amur.

B - Exceptions: If Axis controls any country of The Trans-Siberian Railroad, it is then sabotaged and no longer functions until Allies liberates. It then can be used on its FOLLOWING non-combat move.

C - The Trans Siberian Railroad may bombed by Tac/Strat Bombers the same as Naval and Air Bases. (See Rule Book)

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

I wonder what the difference is in :
Battles fought in Winter / Casualties    - VS -    Battles fought in Summer / Casualties

Cheers,
Starlight Sniper

@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.

Yes, I am quite insane  :-D

As for how I got it all to fit, I typed it into a Word document, and then copied and pasted.

I plan to playtest these rules and modify them as needed.  I was trying for as much historical accuracy as I could with the starting forces, while making the minimum number of changes to the official rules.  I got the idea from World in Flames, which is a great game, but, practically speaking, unplayable.  Even if you read and understand all the rules, finding one or more opponents who also have read and understand the rules is pretty much impossible.  You can, however, play Axis and Allies while you’re drunk (Been there.  Done that.  Got the T-shirt.)  But I like the idea of having the same basic problems, options, starting forces, and deployments the real military and political leaders of the time had to face.

Now, I’ll admit that the Vichy France rules are a bit more detailed than most A&A players prefer, and I understand why the game disigners decided to just leave them out.  But, if I was going to give the French a realistic starting fleet, I had to have the Vichy option to keep the combined French and British fleets from blowing the Italians out of the water on turn one.  It also gives the Allies the same uncertainty about what the Vichy French forces would do if their territories were invaded.  Historically, it was a major concern for the British.  Remember that they actually bombed the Vichy French fleet in port in North Africa, killing, IIRC, a couple of thousand French sailers , because they were afraid of having it fall into Axis hands.

@WILD:

So as the defender you bring in 2 reinf 2nd wave. The attacker doesn’t like the odds and has no eligible units to reinf so he retreats. The defender would then have to pull his 2 reinf units back and they would be idle for 1 complete round? Sounds like a good bluff and you might hold on to the country. Keeping track of idle units might be hard, because you could end up with several nations with idle units causing some confusion. Don’t get me wrong I like the idea of the defender having options for reinforcements or retreat. I think its silly to think the defender would just sit there and let the enemy dictate the battle with out using all his resources. Maybe someone else will chime in with an idea or two.

yeah hopefuly