House Rules

1-1.png

My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.

Hmmm, How do I alter the topic title? It says 1942 as the year - that was a mistake - the darn thing took so long to type.

Played our first game of 1914 tonight and had a blast. Afterwards, we brainstormed some additional house rules (because gamers, I suppose), and one stuck out. Before I say this, let me note this is a very casual crowd.

Rule: A neutral minor power when attacked by one faction or the other sides with the one that did not attack it. If it is able to repel the invasion, it becomes a fully functioning member of the alliance it joined. It has IPCs, builds units, deploys them, and attacks.

Cause: Almost no reason not to attack some of these nations. Defeat means nothing- the scale of units involved means a small handful of units lost is not a true blow. The potential IPC gain outweighs the risk in all but a few instances. By making neutral powers a bigger threat, hopefully players will only attack those they deem important to a war winning strategy and not just as random acts of violence for IPC gain. This can lead to silliness with Switzerland and the Nordic countries along with Spain among others.

Mechanics: New factions get 6/8 IPCs plus whatever IPC total is on their territories. From this point we had some disagreement:
1- They are a fully active faction with no restrictions.
2- They can only attack the faction that attacked them and their territories.
3- They can only counter attack into the territories that the attack against them was launched

––
I posted this in the 1914 forum, then I saw the House Rules forum.  I believe that is the forum suited for the idea. I would message the mods to move this thread but their profiles indicate they’ve been gone for a while. I apologize for my faux paus.

I don’t think the US could be charged for passing through the Suez, since they’d have to be at war to get there.

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.

7. Life Tile [[i]Game of Life] - Whenever a player captures a Victory City or causes an opponent to retreat from attacking his Victory City, grab a Life Tile and read it aloud. Players may freely conjecture how saving Stalingrad helped to “Find a Cure for the Common Cold” and if the $40,000 payoff has any IPC value.

http://www.mediafire.com/?bhkzwdyen4x

most recent file update…

@timerover51:

Hmmm, that would be a reasonable approach as well.

I was merely making an observation that each bombardment ship supporting each infantry +1 on 1-to-1 basis…is the same as rolling one bombardment die per infantry at 1 and not preemptive

like you can arrange the rules to appear as only a minimal rule change, and then people are less resistive