AARHE: Rule files

@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.

I went lower at 15/23 because after J1 the Chinese lose 4 tt’s normally, and 15/23 just about doubles what happens from there. I think that 18/23 (and is still divisible by 3 for inf BTW) would be fine though, and most likely would work for the game your in now. I feel that they should at the very least should be able to help to liberate India (part of the Burma road, and I believe some Chinese divisions did end up retreating to India) if they have their own affairs in order first (18/23 does that IMO). It’s really what your comfortable with.

Yea thats where i started using a timer, The CD-Rom had it right. The low tech way is to buy an sand timer for like $1.50 that has a 3-4 minute sand reservoir. Of course i got plenty of Chess clocks of all types as well.

you have to build bombers to carry paratroopers and you only carry one of them and that can only be dropped 2 spaces away from friendly forces. The bomber commitment alone precludes the issue of “flying shock armies from buck rogers”.  Unfortunately some feel that you should be able to build and use them w/o bombers and i know 100% that this is a broken game, however, the OOB is somewhat balanced.

but if you feel its not balanced you can impose a “training cost” of 1 or more IPC every time you drop airborne, paid to model training of these elite specialists. Also, limit the build of one airborne per turn ( example: if you build 3 bombers in a turn you only can use 1 additional airborne drop the turn following placement and 1 each following turn for the next 3 turns)

This would preclude the really stupid and impossible idea of Germany building lots of bombers and thinking they will have an immediate Sealion because they didn’t buy anything for 5 turns and all of a sudden spurged on bombers as some kind of trick.

GAH!  I always forget the fine print about resorting to OOB/LHTR to clarify – thanks Tekkyy.

Ok that explaination makes more sence. Can you reword it in such a manner that it captures both the examples and the language of your description?

well kamikazi’s were hardly ever succussful so there has to be some realism in its effectiveness