New Pieces/Rules on a Throwback Board.

Here is 8 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

My suggested rules add new units to the game. Some powers have never produced a certain type of unit. These optional rules add a fee to the cost for these units the first time those powers produce units never seen before on their roster.

If a country does not start the game with a certain type of unit in their possession (e.g. the Soviet Union and Battleships, Germany and Aircraft Carriers) then that country is considered to be unable to make any of that type of unit. If a country wants to make a unit that it unable to do so, then that country must make a one-time payment to the back in order to build the capacity to make that type of unit. The payment is 6 IPC. Once this payment is made the country in question will be able to make that type of unit as if it had started play with that type of unit. Payment is made for each type of unit (Aircraft Carrier, Battleship) desired. Units may be made on the same turn as the payment to build the ability is made to the bank.

-Midnight_Reaper

Wild Bill wrote,

“Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).”

Would you be willing to test the Russian NO before simply scrapping the idea? I think both ideas, the Russian NO and the Lend Lease idea might be a way to end the Allies “bidding.” By the time an Allied landing can stick, its usually too late for the Axis to really dislodge them anyways. This might help to end a game that really takes too long. However, it might result in quicker landings that actually fail, (resulting in no NO for Russia), and then actually make Germany stronger, because they secured “fortress” Europe.

In another thread by YG, he asked about changing the turn order to let the US go last. That might also be a good way to end the bidding process. Also, it sounds historical since the US was the last major country to enter the war.

All 3 Iranian tts are pro-Axis.

the cost of building bombers to deliver 1 infantry to a battle is too much to suatain during the early rounds, unless a game would go for around 20 rounds or more i could not entertain the logistics, the longest game that i played went on for 9 rounds top’s

AARHE didn’t have fuel. AARHE 1939 map had though.

To save you the trouble here’s that list.

Balkans, Caucasus, Kazakh, Saudi Arabia, Persia, East Indies, Borneo, Venezuela, Eastern United States, Central United States.

yeah smaller territories with the World at War variant

starting with OOB you actually want to WEAKEN SBR rules
you can make German bleed in a way thats too powerful for both gameplay balance and realism

hitting things during production is a great idea
it doesn’t make sense to be able to destroy IPC at an unused IC
but I wouldn’t make it actual units but remain as IPCs

its not easy to make a nice rule for OOB though
the income and production is all messed up by the USSR,Germany,UK,Japan,US play order

Skytrex has no legit US supplier… it has to be be ordered direct from UK.

@Loki:

I heard someone mention the idea sometime of allowing tanks to take their second move after combat if they had one left. That might be interesting because in essence it would allow tanks to strafe like fighters can do. Maybe it would suck, I don’t know.

Its fun playing like this, definetely makes Germany better, but also helps the Soviets repel the Japs and Nazis after they move into one of their territories and it keeps Tanks with a def of 2, which means the enemy will probably use their fighters to bomb them when the bulk of your infantry is in the next territory blocking the enemy from hitting your tanks. I dont see tanks as a 3/3 unless they’re the heavier versions that appeared towards the end of the war (tigers/IS-2’s etc…)