DK's Hybrid Axis and Allies Map and Rules

@Valladares

I used Tank as substitute for Artillery bonus on Infantry.

No need for more sculpts, just giving +1 Attack bonus when paired 1:1 with a Tank.

That way, you introduce a combined arms mechanics at no real cost. In addition, you make Inf+ Tank combo the best attacking land units compared to 3 Infantry by a small margin, for same cost.

@Eric-Poppleton well I tried it by myself some and it sorta worked. My goal was to get my buddies into the game and try it with them but we’re still in the learning phase-figured it’s only a valid test if they have developed strategies in the normal game

I’d rather have cheaper, defenseless transport planes myself.

I think that’s totally reasonable, Midnight_Reaper. You could introduce cheaper air transports into this roster without breaking anything important. My preference is for more expensive air transports because the extra price thematically represents (a) the up-front cost of developing the technology and tactics (nobody has to spend money on researching paratroopers for this roster), and (b) the relatively limited supply of air transport available during World War II. There’s a fun little article below about how most of the American Air Force’s transports were either hastily converted civilian planes, or wooden gliders manufactured in piano factories. If the Americans had to make do with makeshift equipment, you can only imagine what the Italians were using.

https://amcmuseum.org/history/world-war-ii-transport-and-troop-carrier/

Strategically, air transports provide a much deeper threat into enemy territory that requires a much larger garrison. E.g. if you put an assault boat in the English Channel, it threatens Normandy, Holland, Norway, Hanover, and Denmark. If you put an air transport in London, it threatens all of those plus Paris, Marseilles, Gibraltar, Morocco, Milan, Berlin, Poland, Finland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. It’s not that I expect anyone to fly many air transports into a battle to use as fodder; it’s just that spending 12 bucks on one air transport can force your opponent to spend more than 12 bucks on extra defending infantry.

In terms of rules simplicity, I have tried to eliminate the concept of the “defenseless unit” from my unit roster. I find automatic combat losses to be something of a downer, and I’d rather use that spot in the rulebook for a more interesting rule.

All of that said, again, this is mostly personal preference – if you want a $9 defenseless air transport with 4 movement, that’s almost certainly fine.

@all-encompassing-goose Sounds good - hope you have lots of fun with it!

Also, it looks like you’ve made submarines 1 IPC cheaper and given them a convoy raiding ability, without any real compensating disadvantages. You’ve changed the submerge ability, but on balance I think the submerge ability is still equally powerful. I think submarines are already a pretty good buy OOB at 6 IPCs, in part because they are the cheapest ship and therefore often the best available fodder.

One thing to know about Subs A2first strike A1 C5 is that loosing them on defense as fodder, is a pretty good news to the attacker. Because, if they submerge, they will gets a much better attack factor than DDs, and for 5 IPCs, pretty cheap to buy. Also, you cannot use them as fodder against other sub.
So, on offence, it is better to lose DDs because A2 first strike should be preserved.
On defense, it is better to use your Sub later, hence Submerging eventually.
And Subs cannot hit subs so you must pick DD as fodder instead.

Sounds interesting. How about just using “1 player/ turn” option, where if a player owns both UK and France, but none else, he can move with just those two in an attack? Not as extreme (or interesting), but a little more realistic in some ways.

@knp7765:

@Gamerman01:

Not everyone agrees the Allies need a bid

I agree with you. I don’t care for bids either. I think either side can win if played right with the setup as is.

That being said, Grasshopper’s list is very interesting. I think you should spice things up though. Make ONE of the dice rolls end up in a $15 bid for the Axis. Perhaps an extra German tank in Poland, an extra Italian tank in Tobruk and an extra Japanese infantry in Kwangsi.
The Allies still have a 5/6 chance of getting some padding for themselves. But now there is a 1/6 chance that the Allies will have to go without.

lol that’s insane.  It would be radical enough to have a 1/6 chance that the Allies get no bid, but to give 15 to the Axis?  Most players would give up before playing if they rolled that.

@theduke:

that sounds like 2nd or 3rd edition rules (i.e. “original” axis and allies), not 1st edition. are you sure? i’m taking about the very 1st edition… an edition basically no one plays anymore.

The 1st ed was w/ unlimited IC’s.  Even ones you purchased.

Very unbalanced b/c GBR would get an IC for Persia, and move all of the India units to Sinkiang to allow US to buy the IC on the first round.  Round 2 and beyond sees $ 60+/turn worth of allied armor pouring onto the Eurasia landmass to take everything over.