AARHE: Rule files

@Imperious-Leader https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34909/1942-second-edition-house-rules-for-a-more-interesting-game/44

Here is my latest file I know that it was seen before but anyone looking at this post for rules may be interested.

Guys, I’ve wanted to take down the Halifax Rules thread as a sticky for some time now, but members have protested in the past against it. The fact that I started the thread, the fact that I was the last to comment on it almost 2 years ago, and that there is another thread with over 100 pages that can easily act as a replacement… I feel that it’s time to unsticky it.

It will always be in the data bank if you want to search it…

Cheers.

YG

Hi guys, I was wondering if someone could give me some insight into changing some stuff in triple A. I am wanting to make a 2 turn game where all the axis can move at once then all of Allies.(UK being one economy). Also changing a few of the PU placements etc.

Cheers, TDS

It depend on the kind of restricting rule. For example a rule forbidding subs to fire on subs – since there is only one case in which a submerged sub sunk an other submerged – is far more easier to employ as a restriction in production.  :-)

Good implications for Battle of Britain etc.  At $10 it would basically take hits from 3 tactical or 2 strategic bombers to destroy a base (after AA).  The best part is it could kill some very gamey phoney baloney moves involving gratuitous bases.  For example:

J1 Japan takes Chahar
J2 Japan builds airbase in Chahar and lands bombers there
UK2 UK pacific bombs Chahar airbase
USSR3 Russia bombs it a second time, destroying it
J3 no Japanese SBR of Moscow

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

@Imperious:

MacArthur.

After reading it I had this image of a game piece with him holding his pipe :)

Someone voted please tell me your reasoning(rakeman most likly)