Let's try using tags in house rules and customizations

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I crossed out my eighteenth point because I’ve changed my mind and those rules do make sense. I still think the new damage and repair rules are flawed with regards to historical accuracy.

@Topmat

AxA has often been called a “beer and pretzels” wargame, I suppose because it is fairly simplistic and available—FOR a wargame. That’s not because AxA is elementary or easily mastered, its because other wargames tend to be even more rules-heavy and detailed, which makes some of them famously and notoriously unplayable. They may have an attractive theme or rules, but the “chit” game era (60s-80s) built up to a crescendo before it burst. PC Computer gaming was a major catalyst for this; the ASL/Avalon Hill/SSI style games BEGGED for a computer to handle some of the more complex calculations, setup, rules etc.

I think AxA has the general appeal and longevity it does precisely because it appeared after this “First Golden Age”, and is not married to overcomplex or overly realistic considerations, its a truly “abstract” wargame, where each step (building, conquering, purchasing, combat, movement) is fairly simple, but all together, they are complex enough to satisfy long-time players while only barely overwhelming the new ones.

And, the fact that AxA doesn’t try to simulate or do everything a wargame possibly COULD do is the very reason why there is enough room left in the game to add more, but that’s not necessarily desirable. If the game was already highly complex, rich and random, it would already have many of the things that people are trying to add to it—but its likely no-one would play it. I think most of the more complex house rules systems for AxA fall into this trap, by pushing the complexity/time investment level out of the Goldilocks zone.

I bought a “political” Avalon Hill chit game in 1992, Republic of Rome (4/4 difficulty rating). When I read the instruction manual, I was blown away-- I understood nothing of what i’d read… until I read it for nearly 2 years. We only played it in college 4 times, and the Republic consistently lost as a group. Its a great game, but its also an example of a highly complex simulation game with a narrow audience from the first era–very few people still play these games because they lack any general following or appeal in the internet age, and have been replaced by computer-style games, like the Total War and Europa Universalis series.

@TheAandAClassicDude:

Germany: The Waffen SS: Costs 4 IPCs. Attacks and Defends on 2 or less. Moves 1 (Use Germany�s Infantry pieces from Axis and Allies Classic to represent them.)

Could we leave out the Nazi unit? The last thing I want are people falsely thinking this is game and website is some kind of alt right meeting place.

Besides, Germany doesn’t need any HRs help when they can churn out 5 IPC tanks.

Example Prototypes

 Advanced Artillery

 Rockets

 Heavy Tanks

 Increased Factory Production
1 stack - Minor
2 stacks - Advanced Minor (Technology - Increased Factory Production)
3 stacks - Major
4 stacks - Adcanced Major (Technology - Increased Factory Production)

 War Bonds

 Improved Mechanized Infantry

 Super Submarines

 Jet Fighters

 Improved Shipyards

 Radar

 Long-Range Aircraft

 Heavy Bombers

@UltimateChaos:

Yea you are correct. I guess POWs would never really work in this game because unlike real war it does not matter how many men you lose

I’m not convinced the idea couldn’t work, only that the current idea of it wouldn’t work.

How about a situation where, for every 3-5 infantry you kill, you gain a PoW that can be placed anywhere. PoWs need to be protected from liberation and every PoW in a province over it’s IPC value costs you 1 IPC/turn in support.

Results:
You don’t muck with the balance around attack/counter attack and amphibious assaults.
You’ve got incentive to distribute the PoWs you capture and risk their liberation, rather than stock them in your capital.
The Axis, generally considered the stronger side, will take brunt of the downsides since they are killing large numbers of Russian and Chinese infantry. Might actually balance the game.

Every since A&A 1914 came out, everyone complained about how:

-Historically inaccurate it was (Italy is at war before Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia, ON THE ALLIED SIDE?)
-Lack of railway movement
-How bad Unrestricted Sub warfare was
-How unbalanced it was
-The problem with India
-No colonial fights
-The Cps seemed like a pushover after their initial forces are gone, unlike the epic struggle Germany would put up in other A&As
-Clearly not play tested a lot
-Rules felt icky (Mostly due to being changed from what we all know and love. in particular Russian revo, Air combat, Infantry for every army)

So i was just Curious about what you guys had to ‘fix’ (or add) these.

EDIT: Ahem, I just realized that there’s a subforum for house rules… can a mod move this there, or should I just repost?

I’ve been watching this forum for a while, but waited until today to create an account. After looking around on the internet for house rules for Guadalcanal, and only finding Krieghund’s submarine changes (I can’t post links at the moment, I guess), I decided to make my own. This isn’t some small change, this changes how the game is played completely.

These rules are in early development, and we have only just started our first game using these rules, but I wanted to see what feedback you guys can give.

Introduction:
Guadalcanal was the first Axis and Allies game that I ever played. My dad got it for me for Christmas one year because it was the cheapest version at the time. After playing a few games, we found that we didn�t like some of the major components in the game. We felt that the 15 victory point limit made for a short game that was hard to change the course of midway through. We also felt that, though important, airfields shouldn�t be what decide victory over defeat.

We made some changes to the rules, the major change was that the victory condition was total domination, a simple objective, but it more accurately reflected the true objective of the Solomon campaign. We also did small tweaks to units, including changing the armor mechanics for battleships and adding an entirely new unit: the transport plane. But, these rules encouraged building up each of your islands with an unbreakable force which caused neither side to make large offensives. Usually someone (normally me) would surrender while both sides still had three of the islands.

I realized that, while I didn�t want to go back to the original rules, our primitive house rules had to change. I searched for house rules that did anything more than altering submarine mechanics, but none (that I found) existed for Guadalcanal. I decided it was time to take matters into my own hands and do a major overhaul of how Guadalcanal plays. This was the result, and with a few more changes it should be close to perfection.

Rule Changes:

Mass Invasion: When one player lands at least six land units on an island controlled by the other player, they must declare a �mass invasion� on that island. Put a marker on that island to signify a �mass invasion�. The �mass invasion� ends when all of the attacker or defender�s units are killed or moved off of the island.

Note: If the attacker already has units on the island and declares a �mass invasion� those units become part of it, along with any units put on the island after the �mass invasion� has been declared.

Objective Changes:
It was difficult thinking of some middle ground between getting points for airfields and total domination. We decided to stick with the point system, but instead of just getting points for airfields, we added more objectives for the player to complete.

Note: The points gained from each objective are added at the same time during the �score victory points and check for victory� If both players reach 15 victory points in the same turn, the player with more points past 15 wins. In the case of a tie, play until one player has more points at the end of the turn.

Objectives:

Build Airfield: Build an airfield. (1 point)

Capture Airfield: Capture an island that has an airfield on it. (1 point for 1 airfield, 2 points for 2 airfields.)

Capture and Hold Island: Capture an island and still have control of it at the end of the next turn. (1 point)

Sink Capital Ship: Sink a battleship or aircraft carrier. (1 point)

Damage Airfield: Succeed in damaging an enemies airfield. (1 point)

Foil Invasion: As the defender, have control of the island at the end of a �mass invasion�. (2 points)
Unit Changes:

Submarine: There are two different types of submarines: Fleet submarines and Patrol submarines.

Submarines are fleet subs if they are in a sea zone with a friendly non-sub sea unit. They behave as submarines normally do.

Submarines are patrol subs when they are in a sea with no friendly sea units, besides friendly submarines. They may not be attacked unless they attacked that turn. After a patrol sub attacks, any surviving unit may fire back at the sub(s) during the Attack Sea Units phase at its anti-submarine power, which is shown below:

Artillery: 0
Infantry: 0
Submarine: 0
Destroyer: 2
Cruiser: 1
Aircraft Carrier: 0
Battleship: 0
Bomber: 2
Fighter: 1

Battleship: A battleship hit by a one on its first hit that survives the turn retains the damage and loses the �heavy armor� ability until repaired using a supply token that is at a friendly island during the Reinforce, Repair, and Deploy phase.

A battleship hit by a two on its first hit that survives the turn ignores the damage like normal.

Fighter: Instead of fighters moving two zones during movement and two zones during regroup, fighters can move a total of four zones, but they must have enough movement during the regroup phase to get them to a friendly airfield or aircraft carrier.

Bomber: Instead of bombers moving three zones during movement and three zones during regroup, bombers can move a total of six zones, but they must have enough movement during the regroup phase to get them to a friendly airfield.

no fractions. make it easy.