AARHE: Rule files

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

@Ichabod:

YG,

1. Did you update your house rules in this thread (modify your original post), if so, what are the HR’s that are no longer being used?

2. Heavy Bombers Tech…I think you and your team got the right happy medium there! The classic edit. of 3 dice was over kill. Even 2 dice is overkill. But rolling 2 dice, but only selecting the “1” dice with the best results ensures the concept of the “heavy bombers” tech as an almost more than likely good hit, but still not overkill.

I’m going to be playing in a table top tournament (42 setup) soon that’s a 3 day event. But for a side table game with no time rush where we can leave the table setup over night…ect, I’d like to try to get a G40 game with your house rules (if I can get people to go along with it). Anything really out of the ordinary that I should expect? Also, are your house rules designed to make it a balanced game, as in no bid for the allies?

Cheers!
Ichabod

Hey Ichabod,

I decided to unstick the thread with just my ideas, and leave up the thread which have my ideas that our group actually plays with. Here it is… http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38351.0

BTW… the R&D Heavy Bomber rule is an oob rule, and I agree that it’s better than the past editions. In the link I provided, all my changes to R&D breakthroughs are highlighted in red.

There are many things to talk about when it comes to how my rules change the game… but balance was the main driving force so yes, no bid required. The VOs give clear ways to win the game, the NOs just make sense, and the modified facilities clearly favor the Allies.

If you are planning a game, you can email me cliffsidebunker@outlook.com and we can find a way to talk over the phone.

So these house rules are geared for A&A 1914?

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

@Imperious:

MacArthur.

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

I added various links and made some changes to the first three parts of the rules, technology, and units.

well it is KISS.

just have defenders fire first in every round and remove loses then attackers fire.

for more realism…

You can also limit the number of units landing each round limited by the IPC value… so in france you can land 6 units 1st round, 12 second, 18 third.

The attackers cant get all the pieces on the beach in one load.

also cost the attacking player one IPC for each land unit used for this purpose. ( this is not a picnic son)

Another thing is to roll a die for sea conditions. 1-3 you can land, 4-6 you cant. Its not like "hey lets invade today… hows the weather?.. why do you ask?.. isn’t it enough that we just decide we are gonna land 1 million men today with no care in the world?.. To me this is asinine that they don’t have something in the rules to cover this.

replace
“its income cannot be spent in other territories.
That income and only that income can be spent in its IC or VC during purchase units phase this turn.
That income is forfeited if not spent this turn.”

with
“The blockaded territory’s income can only be spent in its own VC or IC. Income from other territories may not be spent in the blockaded territory’s VC or IC.
If the blockade territory’s income is not spent this turn it is forfeited.”