I actually made a killing using the Grey houses from some odd Monopoly Variant that had plastic houses which could stack on top of each other. I think I cornered the eBay market in gray houses.
Edit. Found it, U-Build Monopoly. Grey is the industrial buildings
So since we are in the same area, anyone ever tried to set up on a Saturday at the only game store in OKC?
Game HQ on SW 89th and Western
So after working this over in my head an trying to hash it out on paper the simplest answer seems to be a separate round.
Fighters must hit other fighters before they can select other casualties, dive bombers have to hit aa guns first before they can start taking out fighters, strat bombers are huge flying targets, only able to hit fighters with their rolls. If strat bombers survive then they either can sbr, or carpet bomb. I’m leaning toward rolling 2 d6, 3 d6 with expanded heavy bombers, and that amount of IPC’s in units must be removed from play before land based combat even starts. Dive bombers get a called shot first strike if they survive, and fighters get a first strike as well. So a carpet bombing Strat vs. no air defense could possibly remove 12 IPC’s worth of units, is that unfair?
So I was wondering if anyone else used a house rule for the concept of a sequence of combat that allows player to simulate control if the air. I’m trying to work my own set of rules down to an effective system that is simple as well.
What I’ve got so far.
Before beginning any combat air combat must be resolved, however if no defending fighters are presen then any other aircraft will participate in the combat, receiving the first strike ability. I’m also using the carpet bombing rule for strategic bombers so they don’t first strike. Tactical Bombers and Fighters are massive beneficiaries of attacking vulnerable land units.
Well, the Tech Trees actually happened because I had expanded the units to make things more interesting. So kind of a three prong trident. I switched to using D-20’s to help with the similarities between units and made units less effective against all types of units. So Heavy Battleships are the rulers of the sea, strategic bombers are the bane of facilities and unprotected land units, heavy tanks and self propelled artillery and the masters of the land, but each of those respective "Rulers must be supported and by the right supporting cast, and with a simple approach those units can even be negated, I gave cruisers an ability to function as a AA gun ( at the loss of that unit as a seaborne combatant) I’m using a pre combat round of air superiority to help decide the effectiveness of fighters and tac bombers. (Against units with no air support, fighters and tac bombers are a free pass to a win. I removed land units ability to attack air units, ships still can hit air units) Honestly the biggest struggle has been how ineffective and frustrating infantry is, because they roll so low, its a struggle to keep them effective. I’m also using the three headed power system (Democracy/Monarchy, Fascism, Communism) which allows the Russians to get free of the “Allies” and if they desire, hammer out a secret peace with the fascists to advance the greater goals of communism.
The simple idea I’ve had for the Victory Conditions is simple, the game is declared to end when one major power system falls. So the US/UK Commonwealth/France for the Democracy/Monarchy, Germany/Italy/Japan for the Fascists, and Russia/Chinese Communists for the Communists.
Each Faction has simple goals, with each one being a little different.
D/M want to liberate occupied countries, push back the tide of Fascism and keep Communism within borders
CCP want to control the homeland, spread communist influence, and gain control of strategic resources.
Axis want to dominate their hemisphere, eradicate old rivals, reestablish ancient empires.
So, the way it ends up working, is The Axis want to grab land and are rewarded for controlling large swathes of territory. The Allies want to fight the Axis into submission, all while keeping a weather eye of the subtle movements of communism. If the Allies and the Axis get over involved in the war with each other then the Communists will be able to snatch a win easily. The Axis must grab land, defend against the Allies and cut the head off the Communist dragon, the allies need to regain land, cut the head off of the Fascist dragon, and the Communists need the Fascists and the Democrats to maim each other.
my sample for the axis looks like this
10 VP - Greater Roman Empire (Control of all Territories bordering the Mediterranean)
7 VP - Unified Europe (Control of all mainland European Territories, minus Spain, Greece, Turkey, and any Russian territory)
5 VP - Fascist Spain (If Spain is controlled by either Fascist Spaniards, or occupied by Axis forces)
5 VP - Ukraine (Western, Eastern, Kiev, Taurida, Bessarabia)
16 VP - Eliminated Rivals (8 per defeated Communist Nation)
7 VP - Resource Control (Dutch East Indies)
5 VP - Rising Sun (Control of Chinese coastline)
1 VP - Influence (1 for every non original Major City, marked in red, and Capital controlled by the Fascists, total of 29 VP’s)
84-Total Possible VP’s
and communists
9 VP - Chinese Motherland (Control of all of mainland China, including Korea)
5 VP - Polish Serfs (Control of all 5 Polish territories)
8 VP - Greater Russian Empire (Control of Western Europe, minus north of the Baltic, and Spain)
1/2 of a VP - Strategic Resource Control ( 1 VP for every two Middle Eastern or East Indian Territory the Communists Control, total of 11 VP’s)
6 VP - Communist Spain
1/2 of a VP - Red Dawn (1 VP for every two North American Territories controlled, total of 15 VP’s)
1 VP - Communist Influence (1 for every non original Major City, marked in red, or Capital controlled by the Communists, total of 27 VP’s)
77 - Total of Possible VP’s
So once either the Communists fall, or the Democrats, then you would total the scores of the remaining powers to decide a victor.
I agree that playing the 36 map leads to a very different mindset when developing tactics. That is actually one of the reasons I enjoy the earlier start so much. As Japan I am able to hold my islands as staging point t before I make a major offensive. My last play through I was actually able to build a defensive fleet to counter forays by The Aussies and then used a massive invasion force to wreck Calcutta and establish a strong foothold across the middle east. The US got really unlucky as far as die rolls were concerned and were unable to get into the war as early as they may have liked. The other rules and expansion have some flexibility or are optional. I’m actually working over a revised set of victory objectives for the three factions to help each one be viable to play. I’d love to be able to extend gameplay into the early stages of the cold war. I find the game becomes less about crushing a specific group or nation and more about advancing your politcal agenda via war.
I’m pretty much in the same boat as Jinx. I love the sandbox feel of a tactically based boardgame. One of my major struggles with the base game and with many of the alternates is that they force you to repeat history. I love the 36 map and rules because the allow so much flexibility and tactical consideration. Certainly the Axis is encouraged and rewarded when they follow history. My gaming group has only experienced my sandbox variant and honestly when we tried to roll with the original rules the gameplay was terribly slow and boring.
Necro, I know, just don’t like making another topic for the same city. Looking for A&A in OKC
not to totally bandwagon, but I actually love the terrain features of the Global '36 map. as far as the victory cities go, I know traditionally they are simply starred or bullet pointed, if you really like an artsy feel, maybe do a silhouette of a major landmark behind the name on the map?
my setup is so beefy I can’t even take it to a local shoppe, so it all has to be in house. Excited to hear how the rules are working for you. tempted to whip up a set of cards for my own super modified variant and see if it helps streamline the spreadsheets and custom printed rulesets. Judging from the pics you are using some later form of Illustrator edit* photoshop, doh right?
Just so I’m clear, where does everyone find this beautiful silhouettes for their unit charts?
Man, sb. You have really upped the ante with these. I loved the idea of using cards, but the graphic work on these is intense. Why the unusual size and shape? You doing all your own printing?
I just wrapped up mounting my map, I really like it. (4x8 1936 HBG). I’m less of a specialized wargamer, and more of an all around game guy, so I needed my game table to be cleared when I wasn’t playing Global. So I build a frame, similar to a canvas stretcher and then topped it with rigid cardboard and then mounted the map on top of that, rolled the trim edges around to give it that “pop off the wall” art look. Now I have a nice map for my A&A sessions and when we are done, it returns to being board game room decor.
I’d actually be interested to hash out a set of rules to use strat bombers for railway attacks, since more rail markers are indicative of a larger rail network.
Personally I actually like the lettered, with wheels behind. but I’m odd!
These are both really sweet. I really enjoy a lot of the things on the map. Keep up the good work!
I would post links but I’m limited from doing so, due to my lack of posts. Let me hit you a private message!
No offense SS, but we are talking about AA Global, its not like we are playing Uno or Phase Ten, a little complexity (as long as it is done right) can improve a simple, but convoluted system.
For me playing a game like this has to strike the fine balance of being accurate to some extent, but also allow flexibility for the leaders of each nation to enact their own spin on how their empires and nations choose to advance. I’m sure that die-hard re-enactors look at a game like this as a joke. My tech system is designed to help each leader truly explore the "what ifs’ of each nation. What if Hitler had stopped obsessing over heavy armor and scary rockets and allowed jet fighters and effective armored units carry his troops to victory? The only part of the wargame I have not embraced is superweapons, be it toxic gas or atomic weapons. I enjoy the simple battle, and like to live in my own alternate reality where the Los Alamos, V-2’s and Nerve gas all were wretched failures.
I fall into the “Other” Category
My “extremely house” House Rule for research is simple. Each Major Power receives a Research Facility but must place it at a major city they control. This facility generates 1 Research point per turn, use it or lose it. Then I also have unique Tech Trees for each nation with tiered upgrades for each type of unit. So Tier 1 of Armor gives the player access to an upgraded Armored Unit (they are still able to produce the older stuff as well), and also access to Tier 2 in the armor Tree. The catch is that Tier 2 reqires 2 research points, and since it is a use it or lose it, the research oriented player must buy (15 IPP) more facilities. They can be SBR’d and are also able to be captured.