Looking for Triple A Modder to Help with Proof-of-Concepts for Board Game

@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.

Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.

I agree on 2nd version - very doubtful.  As to the tourney rules, I have found the 2 movement factor rule to greatly change how the game is played - not a fan.

@CWO:

Should I give this some thought to see if I can come up with something that would work along those lines?

I would be interested in it  - if the answer is simple enough…overcomplication kills most house rules for me…

I would highly, highly recommend going “Three-Turns per Round”.

Axis Powers go first.

Then, Russia & China go.

Finally, Allies go.

If you have 8 players that know what they’re doing, this makes a very intense G40 game happen in about 7 or 8 hours.

Axis and Allied forces can attack together.  Russia may not attack with Allied forces.  China also may not attack together with Allied forces.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9531

Due to the nature of the game, that more often than not results in Germany and Japan playing two different games, I had an idea for an house rule to speed up a live game.

This idea requires quite few changes to the mechanics of the game, and requires at least 4 live players.

The turn order is:

Germany AND Japan
Russia
United States European Command AND United States Pacific Command
UK London AND Uk Pacific
Italy
France AND Australia

So basically, while Germany do G1, the Japanese players sets up J1 too.
USA is split in two nations, in the same manner that UK is, with two different economies.
The two USA commands are played by two different players, as the two UK economies are played by two different players.

So for example, let’s say we’re playing a game between LARRY, KRIEG, NOLL, OZTEA and KAUF.

LARRY plays GERMANY and ITALY.
KRIEG plays SOVIET RUSSIA
NOLL plays JAPAN
OZTEA plays USA EUROPEAN COMMAND, UK LONDON, FRANCE
KAUF plays USA PACIFIC COMMAND, CHINA, UK PACIFIC, ANZAC

During turn1 Larry sets up G1, meanwhile Noll sets up J1.
When both players are done, Krieg plays R1.
After Krieg is done with R1, Oztea and Kauf plays an independant game, they both go from USA to UK turn independently. Kauf plays also ANZAC.
At this point Larry plays Italy.
Then Oztea plays France and a new turn starts.

In order to make this work, these house rules have to be implemented:

USA economies is split, but not on a map basis.
European USA command has 20 IPCs income prior to war.
Pacific USA command has 32 IPCs income prior to war.

The regular NO are discarded, instead you get a war bonus economy like in the original game.

After war is declared:
European USA command has +10 IPCs income (30 Total).
Pacific USA command has +20 IPCs income (52 Total).

During NON-COM if USA wishes to do so, he can move units from EURO to PACIFIC map and vice-versa. These units will be in control of the other USA command starting from next turn.

Same rules apply to UK.

The special case of Russia: In order to avoid annoying Russian can-openers due to the turn order change, there’s a change on the relation between Japan and Russia:

Russia and Japan may NOT declare war between each others unless one of these criteria are fulfilled:

If there are less than 18 infantries split between the Russian Pacific territories of Amur, Sakha, Yakut, Siberia, Soviet Far East, Japan can declare war on Russia anytime.

If Russia production is 50 or more IPCs, Russia can declare war on Japan anytime.

If Berlin is in Allies hands, Russia can declare war on Japan anytime.

Probably quite a bit, since heavy stacks of infantry can be nuked out of existance instead of slowely killed through attrition.

Along the lines of what you have proposed:
I am not sure about the suitability of having ports have any defense, but rather coming up with a unit that can adress a number of characteristics of a fortified territory (think maginot defenses).

REPAIR DAMAGED BATTLESHIPS
Battleships are powerful units. A damaged battleship may be repaired if it is in a sea zone adjacent to a territory with an IC controlled by its country. The repair costs are equal to the roll of one d6. The battleship may not move or participate in combat during the turn of repair. The repair is complete at the end of the players turn.

Fortresses
These units can be added to any controlled territory for the cost of 10 IP and can defend only with two rolls each combat round with a defense value of 3/3.They “protect” the defending units from direct attack. The units inside the fortress cannot be affected by attacking combat rolls until the fortress is destroyed by a roll of 1 only. Once built they cannot move and if destroyed cannot be reused by enemy forces. The maximum number of fortresses is limited to the IP value of the territory and in the case of China is limited to one.

You mean bells of war?