AARHE: Rule files

I am not a Axis & Allies player, but I play a lot with Conquest of Nerath. I like this zombie version.
I believe that can be improved.
These are my house rules
Deadnapper convoys revised . Add to existing rule: Shore zombie bombardment In a amphibious assault your transport can fire once against zombies: score an hit . Its attack value is (3).

Strong Neutrals: When a zombie card create an outbreak in a neutral territory add 6 zombie in 2 IPC territories (Turkey and Spain )and 3 in the other (1 IPC value) territories -(“call us neutral not zombies !”)

Zombie apocalypse revised (not so easy allies victory ).The side that controlls the greates number of zombie-free territories wins. In case of tie who controll the greatest IPC value of zombie-free territories win.
Different set up every game . Starting purchase : place everywhere pieces on the game board in territories/sea zones (example I have not text this )
add 4 IPC Russia
add 3 IPC Germany
and 6 IPC UK
add 8 IPC Japan. /
add - IPC to US
I try also to use Nerath deployment rules:

Moving New Pieces: Once you have placed your new pieces,they can immediately move from the space where you placed them to any friendly space they can reach with their Move. Doing this lets you position new troops to defend against enemy counterattack. New Warships carrying new land pieces can immediately move, carrying those pieces, and unload them in a friendly land space. However, you cannot move an existing Warship that you placed new land pieces on. Enemy Sea Spaces: You cannot place your new Warships and Storm Elementals in enemy sea spaces, even though they can move after you place them

If you have 14/16 Ipc to spent you can immediately reinforce a new conquered territory by boat or make a land invasion more easy.
It seems that this variant helps more the Allies
What you think about gameplay(forget realism,you are playing with zombie ;-) ) ?

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.

Sorry for the late reply. I told Seancb I would post his PDF for him. It got lost in my dice mailbox :)

A&A Global realism rules.pdf

Making oil barrels?

Why not just paint some capacitors?
That way, you can get them in any color and size you want, and they are really cheap :)

The oil concept seems cool will test it next time i have the chance….

@timerover51:

Hmmm, that would be a reasonable approach as well.

I was merely making an observation that each bombardment ship supporting each infantry +1 on 1-to-1 basis…is the same as rolling one bombardment die per infantry at 1 and not preemptive

like you can arrange the rules to appear as only a minimal rule change, and then people are less resistive

wow, what can I say ?

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D

yep