Heroes house rule

I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).

Sorry not smart enough to figure out how to post link directly on the forums, but over at Brian Wassom’s YouTube Channel, under the video discussing our House Rules, we have added a link to the Abandon Monitoring Station’s Integrated Rulebook and House Rules.  This combines two projects: (1) integrates the Europe and Pacific rulebooks into a more user friendly version with cross references back to the original rulebooks when rule debates break out; and (2) incorporates the house rules we used when playing games 11 & 12 of the series.

Would love some thought and comments on the rule variants.  We borrowed and modified a bunch that was available here and there and then play tested and modified some more.  Comments to date range from “great ideas” to “you suck and broke the game.”  We do think the OOB rules are Axis tilted and maybe its because we are bad, but these rules were really fun when we played with them and it opens a boatload of new strategies. Looking for input to improve these for the future.

Thanks

OMC

I recently played a game with a new group, and they had a few changes that altered the game dramatically. They edited units so that they “represent” real units during the war. For instance, they changed German tanks to Panzers and made them 4/4/2’s for 8 IPs. They gave Russia 2 free INF at the start of their turn to place at an IPC before mobilization. They made Japanese fighters into Zeros making them 3/3/4’s for 8 IPs. British AA guns hit is increased to 2 while in London. Lastly, American transports get to move one space after offloading, but cannot pickup or dropoff during this move. This was my first exposure to these rules. In my opinion, the US transport rule made shuck-shuck much faster. These rules clearly favor allies, but definitely changed the game. Give me your thoughts, changes, etc.  :mrgreen:

Moderator’s Edit: Added [Spring 1942] to title

Hey guys/girls,

First time posting on the forums, thus first time submitting my house rules, so bear with me. I created a stylized rule sheet, but as far as I understand I’m not allowed to post a hyperlink yet, so I will have to type them out here. I apologize for the lack of aesthetic.  :-P

It is important to remember that I have no idea if these rules are balanced or not. I have only had a couple of chances to test it out. That’s why I would love some feedback; any observations, improvements, and criticisms are encouraged and welcomed. Don’t hold back, folks.

HBG provides beautiful blue acrylic naval mine tokens that I use when implementing these rules. In essence, my naval mines act as ocean AAAs and the similarities can be easily discerned. This also helps in understanding their affect.

Naval Mines
Cost: 6 IPCs
Attack: N/A
Defense: 1
Movement: N/A

Unit Characteristics

Blocks Enemy Movement: Sea zones containing naval mines block the movement of enemy sea units. However, cruisers may bypass naval mines, as well as disarm them.

Sea Defence: A naval mine unit can defend only when enemy units enter the sea zone containing the naval mine. Naval mines defend only once, before the first round of combat. Naval mines may defend up to three times, but only once per attacking sea unit. For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one sea unit as a casualty. These casualties are removed immediately, and will not participate in the remainder of the battle.

Amphibious Assault Defence: In the event of an amphibious assault on a coastal territory with naval mines in the adjacent sea zone, transports must be chosen as casualties first. A die is rolled by the defender for each transport engaging in the amphibious assault, up to three times. For each “1” rolled, the attack chooses one transport as a casualty.

Limited Placement: Naval mines can only be placed in sea zones adjacent to coastal territories.

Cannot Hit Air Units: When defending, naval mines cannot hit air units.

When a coastal territory is captured by enemy land units, any naval mines in adjacent sea zones are destroyed.

The transports taken as casualties first may seem, “iffy” (for lack of a better term) but it is meant to emulate the real danger posed by naval mines. I am worried this might be imbalanced/overpowered, but I think it adds a whole new dimension to Amphibious Assaults.  
In addition to the Naval Mines, I sought to expand the role of cruisers. I think the general opinion is that Cruisers aren’t worth their cost (though I could be mistaken.) With this in mind, I decided to provide a specific foil for the Naval Mines, but merging the role of a Minesweeper/hunter with that of the Cruiser.

Cruiser/Minesweeper
Cost: 12 IPCs
Attack: 3
Defense: 3
Movement: 2

Unit Characteristics

Minesweeper: Cruisers are specially equipped for mine sweeping duties. When entering a sea zone containing naval mines, cruisers cancel the Sea Defence and Amphibious Assault Defense characteristics of the naval mine.

Minehunter: Cruisers can also attempt to disarm naval mines. After combat (if any) is resolved, cruisers can attempt to disarm any naval mines present. If a “4” or less is rolled, the naval mines are disarmed and removed from play. If a “5” or more was rolled, the naval mines were not disarmed, and the cruiser must wait until the next round to attempt to disarm them again.

Treat hostile Naval Mines as Friendly: Cruisers can move through a sea zone containing enemy mines. Their movement is not blocked by the Naval mines.

Any and all comments are appreciated. If you notice anything even just by reading these, share it. I’m also open for rule clarifications, in case there’s any confusion.

Thanks guys/girls.

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

@Flashman:

Remember too that the autumn rains bogged German tanks down in the mud, while the Russian tanks had wider tracks which coped much better with this.

Germany is hardly likely to blitz through Russia; perhaps tanks simply can’t move in winter (frozen fuel).

i think more of the autumn/spring rains that hurt the tanks and the winters that hurt the infantry.  certainly the fuel freezing was a winter thing, but the tanks could move at least when started, as compared to autumn when no one moved anywhere on the german side…

@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

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D