WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

@jkprince indeed 🙂

Thank you both for your interest!

@tomcoll67

Hello, I am interested in helping you create rules for such a scenario. To begin, I have some suggestions for unit and weapon rules.

D6 system

Land Units:

Infantry
cost-3 ipc A1/D2/M1 (A2 when supported 1 to 1 by artillery)

Mech Infantry
cost-4 ipc A/1/D2/M2 (A2 when supported 1 to 1 by artillery)

Artillery
cost-4 ipc A2/D2/M1 (first strike)

Self-propelled artillery
cost-5 ipc A2/D2/M2 (first strike)

Tank
cost-6 ipc A3/D3/M2 (can blitz)

Commando
cost-5 ipc A2/D2/M1 (target selection on a roll of 1)

Air Assault Infantry
cost-4 ipc A1/D2/M1 (M3 from airbase)

Surface to air missile
cost-6 ipc A2X3/D2X3/M1

Weapons:

Rockets

Cruise missile
cost-8 ipc M2 (launched from cruisers, destroyers, airbases and naval bases. Role 1 D6 for damage inflicted, 1-2= 1 hit, 3-4= 2 hits, 5-6= 3 hits.)

Anti-ship missile
cost-8 ipc M2 (launched from cruisers, destroyers and naval bases. Role 1 D6 for damage inflicted, 1-2= 1 hit, 3-4= 2 hits, 5-6= 3 hits.)

Sub launched ballistic missile
cost-12 ipc M2 (launched from subs. Role 1 D6 for damage inflicted.)

Intercontinental ballistic missile
cost-20 ipc M10 (launched from missile silos. Role 2 D6 for damage inflicted.)

Part Five:

Errata & Optional Rules: Discussion

Upon reviewing the rules a bit, naturally the ones that stick out and cause problems are the ones that don’t pertain to RISK’s core combat mechanics.

Indonesia

Let’s say the USSR attacks the Arab League: Indonesia is supposed to stay neutral in this case, but can NATO still influence them, somehow? Does WE have to be the one to do it, or could it be UK? The ‘quick and dirty’ solution would just be to reverse the rule treating Indonesia as a separate entity, and say that the territory sides with NATO, if the Arab League is attacked by the USSR. Since they are aligned with WE, their troops should be replaced with WE (blue) troops, if/when this happens.

An obvious optional rule in this situation might be that Arab League territories join WE but Indonesia joins the UK; chalk this up to representing Singapore, Malaya, etc. or just with the continent of Australia being aligned with UK, in this game.

The alternate solution is to clarify the rule to be “an attack on Indonesia is not treated as an attack on the Arab League, but an attack on the Arab League DOES count as an attack on Indonesia.” I think this probably most closely reflects the intention of the mechanics.

Possibly a better (albeit more complicated) solution would be to allow NATO to use their influence roll towards their affiliated neutral alliance OR towards Indonesia. If they successfully influence Indonesia, they would replace Indonesia’s troops with their own. This treats Indonesia more like a “minor neutral” such as they would be in E&W; the reason I don’t like this is that it creates a new set of rules around a single territory, instead of just conforming to the existing/general rules.

Since the USSR has the option to ATTACK Indonesia, they can always gain the territory that way; this rule would simply address the fact that NATO does not have such a mechanism to gain the territory.
I should probably mention in this space that allowing NATO to use its influence roll to gain Indonesia, would allow for the possibility of the US gaining the territory. This would be an interesting wrinkle, as I’ve often said that in classic E&W the US needs to be able to gain Thailand in the event that the USSR goes nuclear; this would sort of serve to simulate that scenario, of the US needing to use its influence to try and gain a base of operations on mainland Eurasia.

Influence

Since the opening-game balance is presupposed around the OAS being at +1 to US and China being at +1 to the USSR, the obvious optional rule to include would be one not allowing diplomacy until the 2nd round of play. This would reflect the mechanical realities in E&W, of everybody starting the game with no spies in play (barring the USSR spending their “round zero” mobilization cash on spies.)

The rule limiting NATO to influencing only their affiliated neutral could also be changed… Although it might have to be limited to “once you’re already receiving +2 from them” to prevent dogpiling.
The intention of the limitation is to keep the game simple and fast; it’s also meant to avoid some of the pitfalls of E&W’s system, whereby there’s really only one correct choice, so just hammer that option as early and often as possible.

Nukes vs. Capitols

An interesting thing with the mechanic of nuclear weapons being added to a RISK game, is that it creates the possibility of a territory being cleared of armies. Since armies are used to denote territory ownership (serving the function performed by control markers, in A&A-type games) it stands to reason that a territory with no armies on it is controlled by no one. But what if the territory has a capitol on it?

This is an interesting thing, because the existence of a capitol implies ownership of the territory, corresponding to a specific faction, without there being troops in the territory (i.e. which would be the normal way to denote ownership of the territory.)

Obviously, a territory with a city but no armies is not controlled by anyone; this makes targeting cities with nukes more appealing, since it doubles the loss in “income” – similar to how targeting Industrial Complexes with nukes in E&W effectively doubles the reduction in infantry production, on that territory.

So the questions seem to be:

Can you place troops on your capitol, if there are currently no troops there? Do you get credit for “controlling” your capitol, if there are no troops in its territory? Does your capitol allow you to get credit for “controlling” the territory it resides in (including the bonus for a city)?

I think my answers to these would be: yes, maybe, and no (respectively.)

If a nuke wipes all of the armies off of a territory without a capitol, my general assumption was that this works the same as if a nuke in E&W reduced the IPC value of the territory to zero – meaning it cannot produce any infantry. The question then is, do capitols provide some immunity to this? Does not providing this immunity make nuking capitols (exclusively) too powerful in the overall meta? Again, these would have to be born out with more playtesting.

@knp7765:

Hey 12doze12,
Here is a little sample pic I took when I first made some of these roundels.  I was using the smaller image roundels at the time.

Those look really good in the map but they are a bit weird compared to the other nation roundels maybe because of the color

Cards

sheet 1
http://www.mediafire.com/?gzydjjijzjr

Sheet 2
http://www.mediafire.com/?zmzut2rqn5n

Sheet 3
http://www.mediafire.com/?xj05mtmdyni

:-o
  I have several house rules, trying to get someone to agree to play them is usuallly the hard part.
      1. Armor can blitz into enemy territory in the non-combat phase, even if it causes a special," blitz combat phase"!
            Armor that have left over movement after their combat movement only.
      2." Combined Arms"; When there are Infantry+artillary+armor+air units combined in either attack or defense, all the units recieve a +1 in combat.
          So, if you have only three armor, then only they and three of each other troop type gains this bonus, irregardless of how many other troop types there are.
      3. Anti-Aircraft guns act as artillary too. Attack at a 3 and defend at a three. 88s’ were a bad ass gun.
                    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  More later++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

:roll:Crazy Ivan

Here is my changes to the rules for a free for all version.

[attachment deleted by admin]

When Hitler is successfuly assasinated Germany gets a permenant 5 IPC increase.

The Tech rules suck, I sugest you make your own or stick with the originals.