Factory Capture House Rules Ideas?

In my opinion, the ultimate expression of anti-aircraft cruiser was built too late for the war: the US Navy’s Worcester class cruisers. Six twin-gun 6" turrets, with semi-automatic loading. They were capable of launching 144 rounds a minute at maximum rate of fire (12 rounds / minute per barrel, 12 barrels). Or, put another way, each of those 144 shells weighed 105 to 130 lbs, for a mass of about 7 1/2 tons of steel and explosives launched in the air. Every minute. I mean, when you’re done messing with Kamikazes…

Just, not commissioned until 1948…

-Midnight_Reaper

(1) payment of (12) or two of (6).

-Japan uses them with the vast territory of China and Russia
-Germany to the front line in Russia
-Germany to Southern Itlay for transport to Africa
-UK, South Africa to Egypt

If you play with any of the varients, that have more territory , these can be more useful

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

Hmmm, How do I alter the topic title? It says 1942 as the year - that was a mistake - the darn thing took so long to type.

@knp7765:

That is a good idea about limiting the Japanese Kamikaze use until they are kind of pounded down to a low income. The Kamikaze was a weapon born out of desperation after all.

Yes, and in addition to the pressure of Japan being in such a desperate situation, there was another related factor at play: the more the war progressed, the fewer top-notch pilots Japan had at its disposal.  Japan’s training philosophy prior to the war had produced an elite corps of pilots, which gave Japan an initial advantage but left it in a worsening position as the years went by and their casualties mounted.  The US Navy, by contrast, figured out that training large numbers of competent pilots was a better investment than training a small number of superb ones (especially since the US could produce enough aircraft to take advantage of its abundant pilot supply).  When Japan’s situation became dire enough in late 1944 for it to consider extraordinary measures such as kamikaze tactics, one element which worked in favour of the kamizaze concept was that it required very little pilot training: the pilots basically just had to learn how to take off, how to fly to their targets and how to go into a steep dive.  This kind of rudimentary flight instruction was the opposite of the elite-oriented training philosophy Japan had followed prior to the war, so it would make sense to have a rule saying that Japan can only make kamikaze attacks late in the game once Japan is on the ropes.  Maybe this could even be seen as a kind of tech – a capability which isn’t available at the start of the game, but which becomes available later when certain conditions are met.  With a normal tech, you need to invest money to gain the new capability; in this case, kamikaze attacks (a kind of reverse tech because it reflects a training downdgrade) would become available when Japan’s economic and strategic situation drops below a certain threshold.

I really like limiting the Hawaii IC to two units max build.  I can understand the US getting an IC on Hawaii, but I always thought it was ludicrous that it had unlimited build.
The India getting an extra infantry each turn can make it pretty hard for Japan to take India.  That’s an interesting rule that those free infantry can not be moved.  So basically, those are strictly for defense of India.  That might be an interesting rule to incorporate for all capitals, and even in other games as well.  Ever play a game of A&A and mistakenly left your captial undefended?  Now you would always at least have some infantry there.
I am wondering about Rule #6b.  Why would you not let Japan build more than 3 subs per turn?  I take it that applys ONLY to building new subs, right?  Japan is allowed to have more than three subs on the board, right?

It should read:

4)  When a battleship has a damage marker its firepower is reduced by one i.e.
a)  A battleship with one damage marker, hits on a roll of 3
b)  A battleship with two damage markers, sinks
c)  An Aircraft carrier with a damage marker sinks
d)  A cruiser with one damage marker sinks

all ships thats take one hit sink is the rule

the BB can take 2 hits before it sinks.

If you want to make all the units take 2-3 hits, that will be a big change

no fractions. make it easy.