New Russia

@Midnight_Reaper:

@SS:

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Imperious:

1 on Attack roll you pick the target with no return fire

Try it one of two ways:

what we call a “call shot” pick land unit as loss alternatively if you roll a one, defender chooses loss and that unit cant fire back

you will like one of these options

I would have to try them out before I could give a full opinion of them. My question to you is: why the emphasis on ‘pick the hit unit on 1’ rules? Is this a new addition to the meta of house rules here? Submarines have pretty much also fought this way, but I’ve previously seen proposed house rules for Tac Bombers to ‘pick their hit on 1’. Is this becoming a thing?

Should I start a new thread to ask about the popularity and usefulness of ‘pick your hit on 1’ critical strike rules?

-Midnight_Reaper

I have in my WW2 40 game Tac (Dive) bombers  D12   A7 D4 M4 C10 roll a 2 or less on A and D can pick target with no return shot for ground and naval. The 2 or less roll hit is for more of a accurate shot on a piece. So I use the Tac as a 2 different scenario.

Also in one of my 39 games there are Dive Bombers and Naval Figs that can pick the target on a 4 (Dive) or 1 (Fig) but the defender still gets a return shot while the attacker gets to pick the piece.
Pretty much these pieces are in just the 39 games and anybody that has housed ruled there game (G40 OOB) but just a few if any. From what I’ve seen posted on site anyway.

It must have been your Tac Bomber rules that I read. It just seems like the idea of “He shoots, he scores, he crits, he picks the casualty!” has become something I’ve noticed of late. As I’ve said before, I’m not a big fan of that idea in the abstract, but I will admit to really needing to try it out for real before I can truly say that I don’t like it at all.

-Midnight_Reaper

The main reason for Tac Bombers to have this call shot is for both ground and naval attacks plus it gets the Tac Bomber more involved in the game. There like the Cruiser. Nobody really buys them. Thats also why my Cruiser is (D12)  A7 D7 M2 C9. (but you need to lower your destroyers 1 value in A and D). So Destroyers would be A3 D3.  Its a good boost for Anzac, FEC and Italy. As I stated before you need to play test everything.

You could try with the defender at least gets a return shot if you have your doubts.

@Imperious:

My question to you is: why the emphasis on ‘pick the hit unit on 1’ rules?

This again is what we call : Call shot

Having something that breaks up the idea that the loser of the unit can choose whatever he wants as a combat loss is a good thing. The artillery units generally carpet bomb whole areas of the battlefield, and Heavy Artillery doing the most damage. Second having such a unit makes it very valuable in the game, by playing you will find out. Thirdly its really fun and i would further suggest the Battleship have this capability. Reason: because the BB has the guns of the greatest range and can shoot targets before they can fire back as they need to be closer to even have a chance.

Oh great IL. Now I got to add this to my Battleships in games !  :-D

Death Heads plays by me and he wanted the no return shot from Battleships and Cruisers  for 39 game and we played 2 games that way but the rest of guys in group didn’t want it. Go figure. I can at least see the Battleship Bombardment hit gets a no return shot. its like pulling teeth with some people but what it is is what it is.  :wink:

I personally like to keep with the idea of allowing each nation to have the possibility to access each of the new units, because Even Japan and Italy had some heavier tank designs and prototypes, but they just never had the production to actually put them into full production. With the research system proposed however it does accomplish your goal to an extent. Since each research would be 4 stages to progress through, if a country has no bonus to what stage they start on it can take quite a few turns and money to get some researches especially if one has to roll a 6 or a 5+ with one die to progress one stage. Italy does not have the money to spare, and Japan probably wants to spend more money on ships and taking islands and tank upgrades wont suit them unless they are trying to crush Russia. I could also add another research of mass production which the US, and probably Russia has a bonus in, and it will reduce the cost of all of their units by one IPC.

You can find some good light tank pieces on Historical Board Gaming, they are about 0.65 cents per piece

Thanks for the inputs I think I will go with the advanced mediums, and I am currently taking a look at the board to see how some of these could be included in the starting setup

@Young:

So the official military term used in WWII was “Supply Depot”?

I don’t know if it was official or not, but I’m pretty sure the term was used – and it certainly sounds clear and straightforward in its meaning.  Supply dump was another term that was used, but I think supply dump sounds a bit more improvised, whereas supply depot conveys (to my mind at least) the image of an organized and formal facility.

I really like limiting the Hawaii IC to two units max build.  I can understand the US getting an IC on Hawaii, but I always thought it was ludicrous that it had unlimited build.
The India getting an extra infantry each turn can make it pretty hard for Japan to take India.  That’s an interesting rule that those free infantry can not be moved.  So basically, those are strictly for defense of India.  That might be an interesting rule to incorporate for all capitals, and even in other games as well.  Ever play a game of A&A and mistakenly left your captial undefended?  Now you would always at least have some infantry there.
I am wondering about Rule #6b.  Why would you not let Japan build more than 3 subs per turn?  I take it that applys ONLY to building new subs, right?  Japan is allowed to have more than three subs on the board, right?

No not at all. Never felt that even once.

Just had to clarify the rules so when you play it’s done correctly.

These rules use the OOB maps for AA50 and 42. They are current files.

We have a new Tech  for AA 1942  The USAF has a new MOAB  ( mother of all bombs  )  It is a 21,000 pound MOAB  whish is replacing the 15,000 pound ( Daisy cutter ) which was used in Iraq and afghanistan.  I feel sorry for any that gets hit by this.  But remember  WAR IS UGLY

This can be a great asset to any world power that gets its hands on this baby.  this is truely a game ender

I have included a pic of the MOAB

Good luck all
MOAB.jpg

i think that the cargo unit should cost 3, move 2, capacity 5 i.p.c. with no defense.
i think that buying the unit’s would stop excessive funding of other national power’s, and the capacity would mean that even though the unit’s might be more numerous, they have a cost which would be factored into the descision to send them, the cargo can be distributed to a territory that has an i.c. and can be used at that i.c. until the cargo has all been spent. i.e. a territory with an i.p.c. value 2 get’s 15 i.p.c. worth of cargo, build’s 2 tank’s at the next purchase unit’s phase, save’s 5 i.p.c., which can then be used at the next purchase unit’s phase to buy 1 tank.