Sea Units House Rules

Sorry not smart enough to figure out how to post link directly on the forums, but over at Brian Wassom’s YouTube Channel, under the video discussing our House Rules, we have added a link to the Abandon Monitoring Station’s Integrated Rulebook and House Rules.  This combines two projects: (1) integrates the Europe and Pacific rulebooks into a more user friendly version with cross references back to the original rulebooks when rule debates break out; and (2) incorporates the house rules we used when playing games 11 & 12 of the series.

Would love some thought and comments on the rule variants.  We borrowed and modified a bunch that was available here and there and then play tested and modified some more.  Comments to date range from “great ideas” to “you suck and broke the game.”  We do think the OOB rules are Axis tilted and maybe its because we are bad, but these rules were really fun when we played with them and it opens a boatload of new strategies. Looking for input to improve these for the future.

Thanks

OMC

YG,

Could you please share with the community the Axis vs Allies win ratio when using your House Rules from your group? Obviously group dynamics effects game play, outcomes, and strategies. Currently on triplea live, it seems the allies are winning more lately and only with a small bid (being used against Japan now or no bid at all).

J1 attacks are failing more often now. And when doing a J1 attack, I’m more prevalent to stack FIC instead of concurrently hitting Yunnan. I run out of fodder too quick. I think the game has now gone full circle. Perhaps I’m way off? Anyways, the allies just shove everything. Japan may win a battle in one spot but they get overrun in the others.

My next table top G40 game won’t be until the 1st weekend of October (I’m jealous of you guys that have a G40 table top group). Â

Ichabod

If you can build rail centers, players get a risk/reward thing going on that develops player options. They buy something and it benefits them, the enemy can negate them and it costs them using as bomber which in turn costs the enemy the use for another purpose he did not intend.

If i did this “stop land units moving two spaces” you disrupt all currently known strategy…basically invalidate it with one sentence, then you make combat moves problematic because tanks are usually behind the front lines because they move two and they are protected behind the front lines ( in the case of the German-Russo conflict). With your idea the whole panzer army needs to be on the front line and have lost the options to move north or south two spaces, and just have to fight whats next to them. You with that rule ruined the game. thanks.

It appears you never played global 1940?

Just please stick to the actual rules and find a pretty idea that adds to what players can do in the game that was not already accounted for.

How about an idea regarding neutrals? or Tech changes to alter SBR raids ( perhaps jet fighters taken in as escorts fire at 2?)  ?  ?

Something from that mind, that generally smart mind you have…

@Young:

But you can use them in any battle you choose, so you can have 2 Admirals, or 2 Generals… why can’t we rewrite history like the game proposes?

Admirals and Generals are collectively known as Flag Officers, at least in some nations, so you could use that single term for both categories.

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

To some extent devastation is represented by the fact that contested tts yield no income, though we still have the absurdity that a tt might yet produce EIGHT TIMES the usual income if it changes hands often enough.

@Gargantua:

I like 1B, that’s not bad.

But it’ll make things like 8 transports 1 destroyer a HELL of a force to deal with. I’m not convinced…

Maybe they could operate like AA for eac 2 you have paired or something…

Well with 1B, then only the destroyer and 1 transport would get to defend, and the transport could only hit air units.

I see your point if your talking about 1A though.  So maybe 1B?  I just don’t think having transports have absolutely zero defensive capabilities whatsoever is neither historically accurate or fair.

For 2, i think I’ll leave them at 6.  It seems allies are a little bit behind in this version, and the 6ipc tank rule hurts germany more than anyone else.

Our 1939 World at war heavy bombers rules.

HB = special units.
Only UK and USA may produce HB. (Avro Lancaster & B29)

Germany may produce HB as tech. dev.

Cost = 18
Att = 4 (two dice for each industrial bombing attack).
Def = 2
Move = 8