Canadian Territories

@Imperious-Leader
Hi IL,
I can see that some TTy in Siberia did not worth a real boost in economy.

Your suggestion made me think about a way to expand my first idea a little bit more, even if it is not truly accurate/realistic from a geo-economic POV.

When invading a Zero IPC island TTy with an amphibious assault, if winning get 2 IPCs.
If defending side won the battle, he get 1 IPC.

If it is a Zero IPC continental TTy, the invader gain 1 IPC.

It remains a bonus given through the result of a combat. No additional economic value to keep such islands on subsequent rounds.

That way, it is an incentive to fight over these TTys nonetheless.

One problem with 1914 is warfare on the western front. It usually just dissolves into two giant stacks going at it in one territory, and the allies win that battle 90% of the time because they can get units there faster. One reason this happens is because people aren’t aggressive enough. Also, its too easy for people to combine their forces because flanking maneuvers aren’t very deadly in Axis and Allies. So I would make on slight adjustment to the moving out of contested territories rules:
When a unit moves out of a contested territory they may not battle. They may still move into contested territories containing units belonging to their power, but they may only reinforce not battle there. Also, I was really intrigued by @Arreghas idea about contested territories. You can see his forum here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34163/1914-contested-territories-an-interesting-tweak

@Arreghas I really love this idea!
One of the biggest problems I find in my games is stacking. Its not as fun when the game just comes down to two giant stacks on the western front, and the CPs can never win because they can never get enough guys there. However, I think this house rule combined with Economic and Political Collapse could fix that problem and give the game more of a trench warfare feel. Thank you for sharing and keep up the good work!

@barnee said in USSR and UK/USA sharing/liberating territories:

@CorporalClegg Hi Clegg
yea very few instances of allies and russia fighting together. Heard of some air units, but that’s all I can really remember. Cwo marc probably would know more.

Anyway, using the Global game, I like Black Elk’s " Sphere of Influence" house rule. Gives a minus 10 bucks if Russia has any allied units in russian controlled TTys and vice versa. Same for Germany/Italy and Japan.

Have to use it with some Russian boost rules too, but it gives a more historical game play pattern without eliminating the possibility of “what if”

Cheers Barnee I’ll check out Black Elk’s house rules and see what I think. I was hoping to avoid an IPC reduction for Russia but maybe that is simply the best way to go. I definitely want to allow for “what if” possibilities so perhaps banning movement of units through eachother’s territories isn’t ideal. Thanks for your contribution

@Narvik:

I guess the map designers made all this mistakes on purpose, just to start an extra conflict inside the original conflict, man. Dont tell me they made the map wrong seven times in a row just by accident, I dont buy that, man.

I love how Narvik says man after every sentence.  It carries with it an air of sincerity and character.
:-D

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914

@empireman:

did they go after UK? or after another country?

At the beginning of the game I bought a sub and another destroyer and went on a submarine hunt.
Then they helped reinforcing the british after being liberated by the USA. They captured Brasil and Invaded gibraltar and North-Africa alongside the Americans. In the end they were able to invade Norway. The allies claimed victory shorty after that. I found them fun to play with.

I’m thinking of just putting them in as a complete independent force from the beginning starting with the 7 IPC’s from Canada.

Either way they were an original addition to our game without interfering with balance issues. I gave them a spot going behind the UK but maybe it’s better for them to go behind Italy’s turn. That’s something I still have to tweek :)

I am not so sure if urban areas caused increased causalty rates, they did certainly slow down attackes and were hard to take hold of and were a contributing factor in 200 day hell that was stalingrad.

Perhaps you could try limitng attacks on “urban” territories to one round of combat. Attacker fires, defender fires, and if the attacker has not won he must retreat. This would certainly make it more difficult to take these territroies and if would require that the attacker brings alot of firepower with them, so they can kill everything of the first round.

When my group plays AA50, we often limit the combat rounds too one or two, it allows for alot of strategy aswell as making room for rules that better represent tank warfare.

If your playing this rule with A&AEurope, I would predict that this rule is going to make moscow(which often has 30+ infantry in it) aswell as Leniggrad and stalingrad very difficult to take, so to make sure the game does not become favor the allies too much i would increase the German additional setup money from 12 IPCs too 20-30 IPCs.