San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)

@SuperbattleshipYamato I have played a few games and though the Axis can initially worry the Allies , (I thought I would lose ), I have always been able to keep the income gap and , as the game progresses, it opens up much more .
I don’t believe , The Allies don’t need help in this game, if the players are equal ability.

@Imperious-Leader
Hi IL,
I can see that some TTy in Siberia did not worth a real boost in economy.

Your suggestion made me think about a way to expand my first idea a little bit more, even if it is not truly accurate/realistic from a geo-economic POV.

When invading a Zero IPC island TTy with an amphibious assault, if winning get 2 IPCs.
If defending side won the battle, he get 1 IPC.

If it is a Zero IPC continental TTy, the invader gain 1 IPC.

It remains a bonus given through the result of a combat. No additional economic value to keep such islands on subsequent rounds.

That way, it is an incentive to fight over these TTys nonetheless.

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

About history I agree but my point is absolutely not to make many rule changes - In fact we hate house rules but sometime we “feel” obliged to introduce some very few. And we are really happy when some experienced players or our own experience shows us later that the official rules were better! Lesser and simpler the rules better the game!

If it were only about 2 hits against a fleet like 1xBB + 1xAC + 2xFighters > We wouldn’t need any house rule because 1xBB damage and 1xFighter destroyed stays a reasonable response … But …

When 2 hits against 2xBB + 1xAC + 2xFighters > We HATE the 1xBB + 1xBB damages for many reasons explained elsewhere. Worse with 3 BB (for ex. we experienced the 2 first Japan BBs surviving and regrouped with a third one) > That is a shield of 3 hits! And that’s what we want to change with a house rule as SIMPLE as possible …

Clarification for the vets like Elk: Total respect for your stats and very precise calculations - And if our house rule makes players buy less BB in the futur … Well … Let’s say it’s the historical decline of the BB that started in the middle of the WWII! (Remember we are in 42) … And be sure some newbies (like me) will keep on buying BBs sometime to time because we don’t play maths + to overawe our opponent and finally because WE JUST LOVE BBs lol!

To be said in the last example: With our rule the defender can choose 1xFighter destroyed + 1xBB damaged (because last hit) … But the next hit (if any) should be on the BB.

@toblerone77:

@knp7765:

I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”.

Well FWIW I don’t mind adding some firepower especially if everyone can do it. I’m working with using the bunkers from HBG to have major and minor bunker complexes that soak hits even on islands. It really just depends on how far you want to diverge from OOB rules and what other units are going to come in to play.

A simple rule could be that all surface warships no matter their type boost +1 on a 1:1 ratio with land units for one round, and tweak it to your liking from there.Â

Interesting extrapolation.
It could be used by cruiser and BB in addition to their basic bombardment.
We can even consider more boosting power toward BB.
Cool. :-)

I like this! Perhaps $1 for 102,3,8 as well?