Ships in Port

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

The increased IPC values in the Pacific Theatre (which reflects both strategic importance as well as oil resources - see Topic that describes the Expanded Pacific Theatre) makes this Battlefield crucial for both sides - in order to turn the tide of War to their own favor.

The Increased Ship Building rule helps both sides to perform major offensives and create multiple Naval Task Forces.

G40 Increased Ship Building.pdf

Ships are less vulnerable when they are immobile in a port?  Most ships that were “protected” in that way ended up never leaving their berths again…

That doesn’t make any sense, examples include;  Taranto Pearl Harbor Tirpitz Operation Catapult, every Italian naval battle in the early war…

Both Hospitals and Ships are off limits to enemy fire. They can move in either the combat or non combat movement phase but not in both. You could move your hospital out of an enemy occupied territory and keep moving once per turn until you have it where you want it. They never are lost. For example, when China has lost it’s last man simply move the hospital down to India or the Middle East where your Ally can use it.

Those particular 12 sided dice work perfectly because of the symbol on them to mark a 12. It looks like a red cross symbol. You can get a set of them here;
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Amerika-Custom-Dice-D12-x6_p_2142.html

The reason I started the game with hospitals already is because they would have had these heading into a war, not waiting until someone got shot to think of buying some bandages. Also, I didn’t want to take any money away from the game that could be spent on weapons. I thought that most players wouldn’t bother buying them because either they couldn’t afford it ( like China) or they would just rather buy tanks so it would be a waste of time to make the rule and buy the pieces.

Great posts Black_Elk. I’m trying to imagine any problems a 3 move non-combat rule would create.

On my map with this rule the USA could reach the shore of Japan from San Francisco in one move and vice versa. A US navy could reach Normandy from New York. But they could not actually do anything but sit there, as it would be non-combat movement. Nobody likes to leave loaded transports floating around, so I’m thinking attacks would still come from two zones away and the three zone moves would pretty much be limited to shuffling navies from one ocean to the other. Heck, if that’s true, everything could move 4 in non-combat, 2 in normal combat, and 3 in combat from naval bases. What would it hurt? I suppose it would all have to be game tested.

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

I just bought some mini’s from Panzerschiffe and thought I’d paint them a flat, consistent AA color to use them to experiment with some ship-variation house rules.  Does anyone know what the best colors for matching the current AA country colors are?  Also, since the Panzerschiffe mini’s are in some sort of epoxy, what sort of paint should I use?  (Something easily sprayable would be ideal, if it works, as I’m no artist, and not concerned with detailing, only consistency and making them look like they “fit” in with the other pieces.)

I don’t think I would like doubling a tt production 1/2 for ground/air & 1/2 for sea. This is a step backwards when IC’s had no limits. Uk being able to drop an entire fleet in the med is bad for game play, as the axis already have a hard time keeping its ships in the Med & Atlantic. If you were to do it maybe only at capitols & W US or original IC’s. If you want more units/ships build more IC’s. As it is they have already nerfed imp fact tech because it raises production on these smaller IC’s 100%-200% or you can’t damage them enough to shut them down. Although I think these 2 ipc tt should get a boost (+1 overall w/imp fact tech) I think a 400% increase is way to much.

I agree BB & AC should have AA ability. The AA50 game I’m in right now we house ruled it in from the beginning (you don’t need a tech). Only one can fire in any given sz, but with both having the ability it allows you to split your fleet. I would be ok with just BB’s having it.
As for DD bomb/trans 1 inf, it would like to keep as well. Its useful getting inf around.

@Imperious:

Yes yes quite right, but if you want people in the ocean you just lower the cost of naval units so they will buy them, and add rules regarding modeling submarine warfare where the subs can attack IPC of nations.

What i saw was one problem that was related to the “double income collection problem” and offered a solution that would seem less painful than the cure that proposed.

That is what I’m sugesting.  I think all naval cost would have to be lowered and new sub rules implemented.  No air only attacks sub detection etc. then subs would be able to target transports with raw materiels in them.  You are right about the double income and I started playing that way after I got my copy of The War Game.  I think a big aspect of the war was moving materiels and this would be a fun option.

another thing this does is eliminate the need for income tracking.  and I also would agree that the cash would have to be dispersed once per round.  I’m not sure if this is and advantage for any one player, I will have to think about it some more.