Various house rule pieces ( and where to find them)

Hello all.

It took some time but I finally came up with my guide to house rules and variants for AAA1914.

Unofficial-AAA1914-House-Rules-Variants.pdf

This guide contains a number of ideas for players to tweak their game in order to make it more fun and more replayable.

A series of successful unit value changes as well as a new set of major overhauls for the existing units.
A series of possible new units to add to the game.
And, for the most dedicated players, a series of 15 scenarios and variants, ranging from game mechanic changes to new starting conditions to geopolitical shifts that depict a series of interesting “what if” scenarios. From simple additions to complex ones, you’ll be guaranteed to find something that tickles your fancy for the next time you decide to square off with your friends in an epic battle for world domination !

The scale is the thing that most bedevils me.

I was recently watching some commentary on house rules from [b]Lion in the Trenches[/b], who was reacting to suggestions that he place an Austrian cruiser in the Sea Zone off Tsingtao in his Global 1914 customization. He made the point that a single Austrian cruiser doesn’t scale with the squadron or fleet implied by the corresponding game piece.

By my estimate, Global 1940 models ground units at the level of army corps, naval units at the level of fleets or task forces, and air forces at the level of wings. There are a handful of exceptions for colonial detachments, such as the two starting British Infantry in Kwangtung (Hong Kong), which stand in for about 14,500 defenders historically. India’s potential as a source of colonial manpower is significantly curtailed by the British Empire’s income problems, and Australia often explodes in production by the end game (win or lose) even when their national manpower pool and industrial capacity would never have allowed it.

In my opinion, scale should be balanced rigorously against the opportunity for fun gameplay. In my Global War games, I always add a French Infantry in Indochina, for example. There is also a clear movement in favor of bulking up the Dutch presence in the East Indies when games of Global War are played, and many players prefer to give the Italian fleet-in-being a fighting chance with set-up variants to blunt the Taranto Raid.

Hey guys/girls,

First time posting on the forums, thus first time submitting my house rules, so bear with me. I created a stylized rule sheet, but as far as I understand I’m not allowed to post a hyperlink yet, so I will have to type them out here. I apologize for the lack of aesthetic.  :-P

It is important to remember that I have no idea if these rules are balanced or not. I have only had a couple of chances to test it out. That’s why I would love some feedback; any observations, improvements, and criticisms are encouraged and welcomed. Don’t hold back, folks.

HBG provides beautiful blue acrylic naval mine tokens that I use when implementing these rules. In essence, my naval mines act as ocean AAAs and the similarities can be easily discerned. This also helps in understanding their affect.

Naval Mines
Cost: 6 IPCs
Attack: N/A
Defense: 1
Movement: N/A

Unit Characteristics

Blocks Enemy Movement: Sea zones containing naval mines block the movement of enemy sea units. However, cruisers may bypass naval mines, as well as disarm them.

Sea Defence: A naval mine unit can defend only when enemy units enter the sea zone containing the naval mine. Naval mines defend only once, before the first round of combat. Naval mines may defend up to three times, but only once per attacking sea unit. For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one sea unit as a casualty. These casualties are removed immediately, and will not participate in the remainder of the battle.

Amphibious Assault Defence: In the event of an amphibious assault on a coastal territory with naval mines in the adjacent sea zone, transports must be chosen as casualties first. A die is rolled by the defender for each transport engaging in the amphibious assault, up to three times. For each “1” rolled, the attack chooses one transport as a casualty.

Limited Placement: Naval mines can only be placed in sea zones adjacent to coastal territories.

Cannot Hit Air Units: When defending, naval mines cannot hit air units.

When a coastal territory is captured by enemy land units, any naval mines in adjacent sea zones are destroyed.

The transports taken as casualties first may seem, “iffy” (for lack of a better term) but it is meant to emulate the real danger posed by naval mines. I am worried this might be imbalanced/overpowered, but I think it adds a whole new dimension to Amphibious Assaults.  
In addition to the Naval Mines, I sought to expand the role of cruisers. I think the general opinion is that Cruisers aren’t worth their cost (though I could be mistaken.) With this in mind, I decided to provide a specific foil for the Naval Mines, but merging the role of a Minesweeper/hunter with that of the Cruiser.

Cruiser/Minesweeper
Cost: 12 IPCs
Attack: 3
Defense: 3
Movement: 2

Unit Characteristics

Minesweeper: Cruisers are specially equipped for mine sweeping duties. When entering a sea zone containing naval mines, cruisers cancel the Sea Defence and Amphibious Assault Defense characteristics of the naval mine.

Minehunter: Cruisers can also attempt to disarm naval mines. After combat (if any) is resolved, cruisers can attempt to disarm any naval mines present. If a “4” or less is rolled, the naval mines are disarmed and removed from play. If a “5” or more was rolled, the naval mines were not disarmed, and the cruiser must wait until the next round to attempt to disarm them again.

Treat hostile Naval Mines as Friendly: Cruisers can move through a sea zone containing enemy mines. Their movement is not blocked by the Naval mines.

Any and all comments are appreciated. If you notice anything even just by reading these, share it. I’m also open for rule clarifications, in case there’s any confusion.

Thanks guys/girls.

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.

You could use the same general rules for AA50, but you would have to pick one of the AA 50 setups (1941 or 1942) then add up the total cost of starting units to get the starting cash for each country. For one thing, I think there are less starting pieces for all the nations because AA 50 has a smaller map than the 1940 games so there are less pieces. Another thing is I think the prices are a little different in AA50 than in the 1940 games, plus you won’t have Tac Bombers or Mechanized Infantry as those units didn’t come out until the 1940 games.
Also, I’m not sure how you would handle China, since in AA50 they don’t actually get IPCs but rather 1 infantry for every 2 Chinese territories still under Chinese control at the beginning of their turn.
Other than a few small changes though, I think you could still adapt this idea to AA50.

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?

@Flashman:

Remember too that the autumn rains bogged German tanks down in the mud, while the Russian tanks had wider tracks which coped much better with this.

Germany is hardly likely to blitz through Russia; perhaps tanks simply can’t move in winter (frozen fuel).

i think more of the autumn/spring rains that hurt the tanks and the winters that hurt the infantry.  certainly the fuel freezing was a winter thing, but the tanks could move at least when started, as compared to autumn when no one moved anywhere on the german side…

@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