AA50 house rules ideas

Good to see you back. Thanks for reply. I do have what your talking about on old map and my new map. Axis control Belgian Congo receive 4 icps. Other 3 is from USA.
We don’t have the atom bomb but allies get to start game with these 4 icps but axis can get it too. Just a small house rule anyway.
97605C85-9FA0-46E4-A372-E0EC9899C0C6.jpeg C9D9ED4D-6642-42EB-BDC7-93A951074384.jpeg

These house rules are meant to make the game more realistic while staying as simple as possible.

Battleships cost 14 IPCs. They cost 1 IPC to repair.

Switzerland has an IPC value of 4.

The U.K. can only produce up to 4 units per turn in India. If India is captured by the Central Powers, the Central Powers cannot produce units there.

If a capital is captured, the IPCs are discarded and not taken by the capturing power.

Neutral territories that are not home territories still get units if invaded.

Sea units, except submarines, must end their movement when they enter a sea zone with enemy mines.

Units that retreat from a contested territory cannot move into another contested territory. They may move into any adjacent friendly territory.

There is a combat move and a non-combat move. During the combat move, units can move into neutral, contested, and enemy territories. The non-combat move comes after combat. During the non-combat move, units that did not move during the combat move and did not conduct combat can move into friendly territories. Land units can move an unlimited number of territories during the non-combat move within their original territories.

Optional Manpower Rule

Keep track of the infantry that are destroyed for each power. If a power has had 2x the number of their infantry destroyed as their starting IPC value (rounded up), they may only collect half of the total IPC value of their territories when they collect income (rounded up). If a power has had 4x the number of their infantry destroyed as their starting IPC value (rounded up), they may only collect the IPC value of their capital territory when they collect income.

Thanks, we might give it a go not to change anything.

Off topic: I’ve thought about Europe 1940, but it’s so many rules and exceptions. I’d rather underwhelm than overwhelm them  :-) If they like Spring '42, they can always ‘upgrade’ to Global/Europe 1940 later on. If they think Spring 42 is too complicated, then the game series just isn’t for them. If they think it’s too simple, I can spring my Global-1940-monstersized-board-trap  :lol: I just want them to have a good time, get used to the flow of the game and see what happens.

Mr. Piscolar;

the fortress idea is OK, but it seems OP when you can build them to defend key VC strongholds like Moscow.  Your point about inactivating them is interesting, but that’s not how the rules for Airbases work, you can’t disable them right before the scramble.  It is sort of interesting to imagine a fighter intercept/bomber part of that transaction, but at some point you simply need all your planes in order to overwhelm, you can’t split them off to wrack the forts first, or the defense becomes too favorable (because you have increased defensive power by +1 or reserved the planes for this task, either outcome increases the defense vs offense pretty dramatically).  When you are talking about potentially adding +1 defense to 40+ units, it becomes OP.

Actual fortresses are not realistic in WW2, as they were captured by paratroops, reduced by bombing, surrounded and besieged, or simply bypassed and ignored.

Your ANZAC idea is fun and interesting, but unless ANZAC takes the risk of moving its assets to Brazil, there wont be much coordination there.  Not sure why you would cleave off a second grey team.  Why not just clarify your original idea by making the ANZAC team better (by giving them Canada and 1-2 ships 1-2 units) at the expense of UK Atl.?  UK isn’t really a viable team at that point but neither is a 7 income independent team with split forces…

I like the special NOs from Balanced mod, but I’m not sure why you’ve added NOs that are active based on what teams already pretty much have or go for from the get-go.  NOs should draw the players into an unexpected alignment to incentivize new play, not reward them for doing what they were already going to do.

Adding German Units seems very odd since they are usually getting a bid of 20+ against them, now the required bid would be even higher.  You have offset some of the Axis advantage with other NOs, but I wouldn’t make the Germany start position even more advantageous its extremely powerful as is.

You also added several Axis NOs for just being Axis, these aren’t necessary to bolster their already dominating economic position and they aren’t dependent on what the Axis choose to do.  Giving Japan an NO for attacking allied zero $ islands or for Germany to attack Iceland are some examples of encouraging the player to do something that otherwise he would rarely or never choose to do.

the VC condition is messed up OOB, good effort on trying to change it

Tech/Cruisers/Bombers; these are similar to other suggestions, I think the tech doesn’t need new incentives to go after it, several of them are awesome and the rest are junk.  Unless you nerf the good ones and improve (all) the bad ones, making them easier to get doesn’t really balance anything.  Smart to reshuffle the Charts, but the “Land” one is packed with junk.

Crusiers are OP if they are 10 AND AAA.

Bombers are OP at 12, but if they cost 14, SB isn’t viable and buying them in bulk isn’t either.

These are just a ton of interesting extra rules, which are all fun and creative but they don’t seem to balance Axis vs Allies any better than standard rules.

I agree that it helps the Allies.

And there could be a malicious surrender: UKE surrenders, giving the African territories to Germany, and before Italy can react US starts blitzing through the south, ADDING ABOUT 15 IPC’S TO THEIR VALUE. Same could be done with France.

It really helps the Allies and screws the game balance.

@Adlertag:

Welcome to Håkan from neutral Sweden.

Some people say that making house rules is like insulting the game designer. But in this case I know Larry is OK with it. At least he should be used to it by now. Butt, when that is said, make som house rules that really make a difference, god dammit. Make a rule that allow attacks on neutral Sweden.

THE REAL HOUSE RULE:

Sweden is a 3 IPC territory. Sweden is controlled by Germany at the start. Anyone may attack, strategig bombard, looting and plunder Sweden any time, just for fun.

I’m Canadian so I wouldn’t loot and plunder……  I truly believe that Axis and Allies is one of those rare games that just scream for creative house rules, it’s only natural to want to improve this game with you’re own ideas and thats what makes it so addictive.

@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

Yeah, on that note, I may have voted for Game Balance, because what’s the point of playing if the scales are already tilted one way? But that’s mostly in reference to playing Traditional. Our standing house rule is basically, “Never play the way WWII actually went down. Switch up allies whenever a nation gets eliminated.” If you do it that way, versatility usually comes about of its own accord. :wink: