DK's Hybrid Axis and Allies Map and Rules

You have some interesting house rules. Thank you for the suggestion.

Here is a saved game “rough draft” edit of the China set up above, for use with TripleA. Right now it uses the standard turn order, but that can altered if desired. All edits to achieve the set up are logged in the game history.

Note how China is no longer a separate nation but instead placed under direct USA control.
Check the stats column for the total Money, Production, and TUV for the United States.

Burma units may be edited into the appropriate territories per the rules above.

There are no co-located units here, all roundel substitutions in play according to the rules above, including for the Commonwealth (represented here in the save edit by ANZAC at 20, Eire south Africa etc.

It is up to the player to enforce the production rules via the edit mode, or to adjust territory possession as necessary (in the case of liberated territories). Example if Japan takes Hunan, and the Americans then liberate it, the game will show Hunan as Chinese, edit possession back to United states. The same thing for the Commonwealth, or if UK pacific territories reappear after conquest/liberation, edit them back to the appropriate power. Otherwise it works as normal, just remember to enforce the factories at 10, 5, 3.

Edit any Soviet Japan Nap conditions you wish.

If no DoW is desired, then you can have all Axis declare in the first round.

VC or Combat bonuses may be edited into the IPC totals at the end of the turn to augment or replace NOs if desired.

Savegame attached below… the next step would be to create an xml gamefile reflecting the new production units, and the Commonwealth faction (while removing UK pacific and China). Eliminate the politics phase, and create a simple NO option on the VCs. Adjust the turn order to the one outlined above.

Halifax china mod no-colocation.jpg
G40 Halifax 2 China to USA.tsvg

@Der:

Hi Marc -

I put in the possibility of removal of the chips in case the player was faced with a huge attacking force and wanted to withdraw everything but did not want the enemy to capture and use all of his entrenchment. (kind of a scorched earth thing)

I put some entrenchment in the Causasus because on my map Stalingrad is located there. I didn’t put any in Hitler’s Atlantic wall because my map starts in 1942 and the player can always add some later. Plus the German player gets an automatic 3 entrenchment anyway when the Allies try to land from the sea.    Â

Okay, thanks for the clarifications.  About the scorched earth thing, the ideal technique (and I’m just kidding here) would be to wait until the attacking enemy infantry falls into the abandoned entrenchments, then to fill in the trenches by blasting their walls with pre-set charges of TNT.  Sort of killing two birds with one stone.  :-D  In fairness, U.S. troops sometimes used a variation of this technique in the Pacific.  When confronted with a particularly tough dug-in Japanese position that would cost a lot of American casulties to clear by conventional assault methods, the troops would simply use a bulldozer to fill it in or collapse it.

@oztea

Hi! Sorry to disturb you, but just to clarify (sorry for the stupid question), Japan is supposed to be at war with the UK, ANZAC, and the Dutch in this setup, right? I’m asking because the TripleA map doesn’t have the UK and Japan at war and I’m not sure whether that’s an error or not. Thank you!

No I was going to play tonight, but I just got TOI for my b day so I probably will be playing that to night instead.

Sign ups have begun.

http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=423

Good gaming!  :-) :-)

I will need to play first to give a true assessment.
My gut thought is one of curious excitement at the new combat system/dice.
It’s natural evolution for this kind of change to come to the game.
If it always stayed the same it would become just another “Revised” edition.
I hope that it’s a well received game as I’d love to see more battle specific games come to be!
Peter
Thoes426 :evil:

Thats not too hard to model.
Just let fighters defend SBRs.

We’ll already made production capacity more realistic but limiting IPCs spent at an IC rather than no. of units.
So maybe SBR should destroy IPCs as well as reduce production capacitiy.

Actually, what if we purchase at the END of your turn, and pick which ICs to build them with. At the beginning of your turn some of the units may be destroyed while building and you never got to use them.  :-D Thats pretty cool on the timeline.