Mixing 'Mechs with A&A?

Hey Young Grasshopper,

Can you say a few words about why you’re writing these house rules, who they’re for, or what you hope to accomplish with them? Hard to offer comments in a vacuum.

Because there are no neutral victory cities in Anniversary, I’m not sure your VP system changes anything beyond just counting up each victory city as one point. Any time I take a city, that means you lost a city, and vice versa. Normally, when I take a city, I gain +1 VP and you lose -1 VP, so the total VP swing per city is 2 points. Under your system, when I take a city, I gain +2 VP and you lose -1 VP, so the total VP swing per city is 3 points.

That’s it – you’re changing the swing from 2 points to 3 points, but it’s not like you can conquer half a victory city, so it really doesn’t matter if the swing per victory city is 2 points or 3 points or 50 points. I’m pretty sure it all works out the same in the end. No? I imagine you’re trying to reward players for being aggressive/proactive, but I don’t think your rule actually accomplishes that.

Also, to echo Baron Munchhausen’s concern, I don’t like the idea of allowing intercepts against bombers that only deal 1d6 damage, because then it virtually never makes sense to launch a bombing raid. It really doesn’t pay to launch more than 2 bombers against the same factory (you wind up wasting some of their power because the damage gets maxed out, but you still risk losing them to flak). So if I can defend my home factory with 2 or more fighters (really not that hard) then there is no point in bombing anything – between the 2 pips on the fighter and the 1 pip on the AAA gun, you have almost a 50% chance of losing your bomber on each run. 50% chance of dealing 3.5 damage vs. 50% chance of losing a 12 IPC bomber is a terrible trade-off. Sure, you could escort your bomber with fighters – but nobody in Anniversary has that kind of air power to spare. If you can spare 4 planes for a mediocre bombing raid, you should be using them to take territories. Just my two cents. If you’re going to import the interceptor rules, I’d like to see some kind of buff to the bombers.

@all-encompassing-goose Sounds good - hope you have lots of fun with it!

About Pacific islands NO.
Why not require 3 amongst 4 or 4 amongst 5 Island TTs?
That way this can be an incentive to fight for one more to get some buffer TT before loosing the NO.

Thanks YG.  Please keep the ideas coming.  I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.

I’m sure…bump! :mrgreen:

@adam.hall:

@skinny1:

I found a pack of these at a Dollar General store. They were on sale for 25% off so with tax the pack of 4 cost $.80. Thanks for the tip. I can’t wait to paint these and add them to my games.

Good to hear you tracked some down; are they exactly the same? Paint 'em up and post some photos.  :-)

Yeah, they are the same. Package was a little different but the pieces are the same.

JA 15:  Is this a persistent NA or only used once?

e.g., Capture India on Turn 3 - double Income for India Turn 4
      Capture Persia on Turn 4 - double Income for Peria Turn 5
      Capture Trans-Jordan on Turn 5 - double Income for Trans-Jordan Turn 6

–-------------only once per game. the first time Japan takes these places.

This is what I have come up with:

Rommel allows all panzer and infantry divisions in the same province to travel +1 and two divisions gain +1 attack.
Zhukov gains one free infantry division each turn in the province he is in.

Montgomery’s troops gain +1 defense and two or less tank divisions gain +1 attack.

Patton’s advantage is that three or less land units a battle gain +1 attack.

Yamamoto’s fleet can move +1 and airplanes on carries in his fleet can go on kamikaze missions with +1 attack. (In a kamikaze mission, the plane can go its full range and is lost after attacking.)

A general is dead if his unit is killed.