Axis and Allies Pacific and Europe: 1940 House Rules

[Imperious Leader]

I added to them. If you build one they can support adjacent land territories under attack on DEFENSE, whereas the rules only allow them to defend the sea zone out side the island chain.

I think this is enough, and fighters will be great because they can participate in many new ways.

[Admiral_Thrawn]

Thats a good idea. Why couldn’t fighters in India scramble to defend Burma and then move one space back to India in noncombat? If you can move one space to the sea to defend you should be able to do so on land. I will try that in one of my games as well as you have to have an airfield to land fighters on islands.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Thats a good idea. Why couldn’t fighters in India scramble to defend Burma and then move one space back to India in noncombat? If you can move one space to the sea to defend you should be able to do so on land. I will try that in one of my games as well as you have to have an airfield to land fighters on islands.

I think the idea is that the inland is already in the sea zone, so the fighters on inlands are not accualy moving to defend, because they are already in that sea zone.

I do find it wierd though that airfeild only provides aircraft with one extra space of movement.

[Imperious Leader]

I do find it wierd though that airfeild only provides aircraft with one extra space of movement.

but it allows them to intercept naval or in my case land units as well…on DEFENSE. this is important because essentially they can act twice each turn. That is huge.

[Flashman]

Capital ships should take two turns to build.  You pay half the cost when ordered, and you may delay the completion of the ship indefinitely.

Should incompleted hulls be eligible as casualties?  Clearly they have no combat ability, but are likely to be protected by the port rules described by IL.

And trains! Trains, trains, trains!

Land movement in A&A is a complete joke without them.

I favour defender retreats for any unit after a round of combat, but using the suggested rule allowing tanks and MI to retreat - shouldn’t this only apply if infantry is left in the territory to “cover” the retreat, perhaps on a 1:1 basis?

[Imperious Leader]

2 turn naval does not work i have playtested this for years and it causes too many problems. IN reality all units take more than 6 months to build from scratch, so it is not serving any purpose to allow some to be built and others not. Appeals to make the game more realistic do not always convey more fun and usually do the opposite and prove for more imbalance than before.

[Variable]

I’m liking the retreat rules IL. It helps boost the benefits of building MInf. I’m sure we’ll have more reason in E40, but I want to experiment with this stuff now.

To some of the others RE: airbases - The 5th MP for fighters is very handy. Everyone seems to think it’s no good without a 6th because you can’t go 3 out and 3 back. Try going 3 out and 2 back (especially as Japan!) Very handy for keeping the Americans at bay.

Also love the island airbase rule (needed to land on island).

[Imperious Leader]

Rules are obviously not complete. I have no played enough games to validate them entirely, but i know they remain excellent starting points.

[Guest]

How about adding a blockhouse rule?

[mike55]

Mechanized and motorized infantry were developed to be a combined arms force and to counteract infantry with AT guns and infantry held weapons like piats and bazookas.  What about giving the mech infantry in AAP40 +1 when paired with armour?  And to counteract the worry that artillery won’t be built, allow mech infantry to tow artillery, simulating the mounting of artillery on half-tracks and self-propelled artillery.  This would probably require a mech infantry cost of 5.  Any comments?

[Imperious Leader]

Currently they get a +1 with artillery, so your saying to change it to +1 with tanks?

I was thinking Tanks +1 with tactical bomber
Artillery still boosts Infantry
And fighters don’t boost tactical bombers on land, but perhaps we use the old rule of Tactical bombers +1 against naval with a fighter 1:1

[WILD BILL]

I like the way this is going, but some limits should be in place so things don’t get out of hand.

1. I agree air bases should be allowed to scramble to adjacent land tt or sz. If you allow unlimited scramble, you may be creating super stacks. How hard would it be to take Moscow if Russia and UK had 10 ftrs each protecting just 10 inf in front of them in multiple tt. Maybe only allow 3 air units (maybe even 6 w/upgrade or tech) to scramble from such tt. Instead of one AB being able to scramble say a dozen air units into multiple tt, you would need to invest in bases to get more air units into the air. If each ftr/tac represents say 50 units, that would be 150 planes, how many could they actually get up to def from one AB.

I’ve not liked the unlimited scramble from island bases (not realistic to be able to put that many units in the air IMO) but I could live w/2x the units for islands then for coastal/land AB. If you use some kind of cap then SBR could be worked in similar to minor IC’s and production.

2. Going back to UK/USA being allowed to move units onto Russian soil, I would like to see some kind of lend lease instead. Maybe allow limited allied air units to come and go to attack Euro axis or to def AB (maybe they must land only on tt w/AB), but no allied ground units on orig Red tt. You could either send ipc’s or do limited ground unit conversions. I prefer send $ or build red units at home (not from newly built IC) then send them.

3a) I don’t think you should give mech a +1 when paired with a tank. You already get tacs +1 paired with tanks or ftrs. I like the Mech can tow an art 2 spaces. That would give both units more meaning (but shouldn’t be allowed w/def retreat).

3b) I would be on board w/art getting a pre-empt strike @ 2 against amphib, every round that it is paired with an inf. (enemy casualty doesn’t fire back) Many people like this house rule.

4. Def retreat is very intriguing. I hear some say only 2 move units or air should be allowed to retreat after the 1st round, and it makes sense. I also hear the plea that some inf could get out as well, but art would have a tough time. I’m not sure if I like the fact that the enemy (defender) could always save his more valuable units to set up a counter strike. If you allow these 2 move units to def ret, then you should allow the aggressor to retreat them (or attack on) from the front as well (maybe only if they still have one move point left).

For def ret why not role dice after the 1st round to see which units are eligible for def ret based on there def roles. Bmr would need a 1, mech inf, inf & art would need 2 or less (roll all at once, retreat in that order starting w/all mech etc…), tanks would need 3 or less (50/50), other air units would just be able to retreat or stay (no roll). I know it doesn’t save time, but at least you would not be allowed to save your $ units every time. You could roll just your 2 move units (rd#1), any inf or art would not get the option until rd #2 if they are still alive.

5a) I have not used any in port rules before. Your really talking about a sz (harbor) w/in a sz. I would think that ships considered in port would spend a movement point by coming out of port, but not going into port? If you need to repair a ship you just need to reach the sz w/port and declare you are now in port (maybe move the ship(s) to a named port card to distinguish). When you decide to leave the harbor you then use 1 movement point to get back to the (outer) sz w/port (on the playing board) so you can only move 2 more sz once you leave port in your turn. Of coarse if you are dislodged on your enemies turn, you should still get your 2 moves, unless one of your allies liberated the tt w/port before your turn comes around, then you would get your full 3 moves I would think.

5b) I would think that enemy ships should be allowed to come into your (inner) harbor sz and attack ships in port along w/air units, as long as they clear the (outer) part of the sz 1st. It would normally take two turns to do this if the power going into port left a DD in the (outer) sz, unless the enemy could arrange a can opener. Even then with allowing scramble from any AB you could still def yourself in both turns. I also think that if ships are attacked in port then the port itself should be allowed to fire at enemy ships each round at 2 (1 shot each round) shore gun. Any AA gun on the tt w/NB should also be able to fire at planes attacking ships in harbor (inner sz). The AA gun could not be used for both naval def & def of the land tt ground troops however. (maybe w2 AA guns you could do both?)

Edit: I see you have given NB ports AA cover in your orig post to cover your navy in port IL, so you have covered the last part of my post. I would still like to be able to attack ships in port w/navy once you have have cleared the outer part of the sz, in your next turn. You would still be able to def your self a little better in port if you allow shore guns. I know some would argue that ships in port would not be able to def them selves as well and should get their def rolls modified down. I could live with that I suppose. On the other side of the coin there should be a price to pay for enemy ships coming into your harbor as well, so maybe your ships def shouldn’t be nerfed?

[Imperious Leader]

Ports must be able if anything to protect ships from naval combat. One of the major problems is this idea of sending in a token fleet and all your air units to entirely destroy the enemy navy in one turn using cheap ships as fodder. Of course by air anything goes, but fighters British fighters didn’t have the range to escort bombers from England to Kiel canal.

I hope this will be the case in AAE40, because the global games always had this issue about them.

The idea that Germany entirely destroys or mostly wipes out the British fleet in 1942 on its first turn is also bogus concept and was never solved.

The game is not supposed to play scripted to history, but at the same time these concepts are always replayed in these games because its the best move. It sucks that AAP40 didn’t add these ideas.

The vanquished axis powers still had parts of their naval intact at the end of the war. In AA they are lucky to have anything even near the end.

[WILD BILL]

@Imperious:

Ports must be able if anything to protect ships from naval combat. One of the major problems is this idea of sending in a token fleet and all your air units to entirely destroy the enemy navy in one turn using cheap ships as fodder. Of course by air anything goes, but fighters British fighters didn’t have the range to escort bombers from England to Kiel canal.

I hope this will be the case in AAE40, because the global games always had this issue about them.

The idea that Germany entirely destroys or mostly wipes out the British fleet in 1942 on its first turn is also bogus concept and was never solved.

The game is not supposed to play scripted to history, but at the same time these concepts are always replayed in these games because its the best move. It sucks that AAP40 didn’t add these ideas.

The vanquished axis powers still had parts of their naval intact at the end of the war. In AA they are lucky to have anything even near the end.

I just don’t like when you can say my entire navy is in port, and you can’t touch them unless you wipe out your air force. Air supremacy is always key.  Plus any of your surviving capital ships will auto fix next on your turn because your in a port. There should be consequences for entering a hostel harbor with ships. Maybe the shore gun should be able to roll at 3 every round vs surface ships. Even if you take in a token force of SS and DD along with air power you are still loosing valuable units. Subs are much more important now w/new rules and convoy’s, and you never seem to have enough DD’s. You will be weakening other forces to go into a harbor w/fodder.

I hear what your saying about the Germans being able to keep a navy longer. In AA40E and global they should be able to. In one of Larry’s last Q & A he did say that the German navy in the Baltic would be out of range for the RAF to attack from the UK and return to UK. He alluded to the fact that UK would need some place else to land, or a closer base (maybe Norway). There will also be a straight rule (control of Denmark) to help def the Baltic (this will more or less be Germany’s harbor). If you also allow coastal AB to scramble to protect your fleet, I’m not even sure why you think we need a ships in port rule. How much help do you think the Germans will need.

I would like to avoid a scenario like if the US comes over with an equal size fleet to Jap, and Jap declares its in port. The US doesn’t have the air power to do the job w/o its ships. Now the US is a sitting duck if it comes over. We would have to rename the game AA Air Force, because that’s all anyone will buy. They can’t attack the enemy w/o major air power, and because of the scramble rules you need air power to def. Why would you ever buy a ship, other then a carrier?

[Imperious Leader]

IN that last case what you have is a blockade and the Americans would be defending since the japanese decided they wanted to stay in port. The pressure of that decision of the japanese would put them in a worse position, while the Americans would get stronger.  I see no need to be able to allow ships to enter port to fight.

[WILD BILL]

What blockade, how do you think the Americans will get stronger (they’re along way from home). They won’t be able to occupy the sz surrounding Jap, because they have no air cover (scramble). It would simply be a stall tactic for Jap to bring in more air units for def, or to get an attack advantage (which it will get quickly). If the US does move in then Japs magic fleet appears w/its own air units and destroys the American fleet (no air cover). If you try to attack the Jap fleet in port, you would most likely lose your air force and just cause minor damage to the Jap capital ships (which auto repair on Japs turn) along with some other fodder. The US fleet would be compromised, because even if it retreated it wouldn’t have the support of its lost air units.

I don’t mind adding what basically is an extra sz to the map (at virtually every NB), but lets face it, it will be a major boost to fleet def in a game that is already very def minded (especially with the new scramble rules). I think this will prolong the game. At the very least you should be able to bring in subs. I think it might also be warranted to allow the subs/air units to pick their targets (as they would) so it is worth attacking ships in harbor. Just allowing the enemy to soak up hits w/ capital ships and cheap fodder is something you said you wanted to avoid.

[Imperious Leader]

But your case is the same for anything. If German forces are too far away from Berlin, then by extrapolation they are weaker.

I think if the US had a blockade on Japan the first thing would be to surround the port and take everything that Japan owns and reduce her IPC to next to zero. Japan would be in no position to do much but either attack the ship blocking the port, while the Americans can scatter or take islands. Eventually the loss of IPC for Japan would not compensate the extra income that America was getting.

Its like that point where Germany owns most of Russia and has an equal stack to what is in Moscow. The income is going to eventually allow the Germans to overreach the difference and take the capital.

IN the original case the Americans are not going straight for Japan, but attacking the outside with increasing power. If they got to japan and had parity, Japan would be by that time is dire straights and in a fatal “bunker” position. This is a closed position and a dead game for Japan.

[WILD BILL]

Just for clarification, is the “in port” a separate sz, or is it part of the same sz.
Example: To attack ships in port in Japan, do your air units just have to reach sz 6, or do you have to go one more space to reach ships in port?

[Imperious Leader]

In terms of movement the port works the same as AAP, its not a new zone.

Under these rules the only way to get them out of port forcibly is by “dislodgement” by taking the territory by land, the naval units are put out to sea which will cause a naval battle on the following turn if enemy ships are blockading.

Also, i would limit air attacks at one round, with AA providing flak fire if present in the territory.

So under these rules the only time a port would be under attack is if you have like a single ship defending or overwhelming odds by air power knowing these planes will be loses