AARHE: Rule files

If there’s an Axis & Allies game that needs solid house rules… it’s definitely 1914.

Hey Folks,

has anyone of you ever tried HBG “Battle Shapes (3D)” rules (fortifications, rockets, etc.) in your 1940-Global games? (www. historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Shapes-3D-printed_c_425.html)
If ‘yes’, what are you’re experiences with them? Are they a great imrpovement? Or to expensive, unbalanced or simply unrealistic?

Very cool idea. I like it a lot.

:-D

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.

@Dijitz:

In my rules supplement I’ve added this rule, and I am using the very same tokens for it.

IPC Lend-Lease
IPCs can be converted to raw materials (represented by tokens from AA Battle of the Bulge). These tokens can be transported by transport, cargo plane, and/or mechanical infantry.  Transports and cargo planes can carry up to 10 IPCs and mechanical infantry can carry up to 5. The raw materials can be moved to a team player as either a loan or gift (based on verbal agreement). These raw materials are produced at industrial complexes. Production of 3 raw materials at an industry only counts against 1 production cap. (E.g. A major industry could produce 30 raw materials in one turn) No IPCs can be “pirated,” they are destroyed along with the units carrying them with the exception of those that are carried over land. Mechanical infantry transporting raw materials cannot attack, but defend normally.

That help?

It does give me an idea to play around with, thanks!

Well, it’s not realist to see a lot of japanese tank division because japan didn’t have the capacity to do it. So if a japanese player wants more tank, he must pay the price!

Japanese tank was not bad.In fact most of them were used as infantry tank.
So now if you introduce a tank with a cost of 4 and defend at 1.
Well I will buy more infantry,plane and artillery!

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.

OK TBB, ther are a few sights that offer tactical insight. Do an axis and allies search to find these. Look for Don Rae’s essays if you have some time on your hands. Silex offers a good map. Also look in the games section of this site to see how some experienced people play. Some of the posts in player help and axis and allies could be useful. Have fun!