Hospitals/Hospital Ships *Video*

@CWO:

A&A is fundamentally a board game, and its relationship to more rigorous military-simulation wargames (both hobby-level and professional-grade) is roughly the relationship that the Monopoly board game has to the kinds of economic-simulation games that are detailed and accurate enough that they could be used as teaching tools in a management school curriculum.

I agree to the Monopoly comment, or maybe better said, without historical events and situations to use in conjunction with play, then A&A is just a glorified version of Risk.  But, I want some history and random events that change the play of the game.

My concern was not related to turn 1 or 2 but to later German turn:
9 additional Art for a Russian counterattack may cause a problem for Germany advancing to Belarus or Western Ukraine or one turn later to Bryansk, because Italy cannot take this area first (RU takes it back before the German turn) and therefore G cannot land their air on top of it’s army.
12 additional Inf may delay a G 6 attack on Russia (Simon33 was faster while I typed this post).

My concern was based on a game otherwise played without bid or only with a small bid (for example: balanced mod;  our group with other houesrules).
If you play OOB-rules with a bid around 30 IPC, then Gargantua’s idea is very fine (I already understood that he only wants to make one simple adjustment), the inherent bid goes to Russia and does not destroy the game in the MED (as usual IMO).
I will have to try it to see more effects.

GenHandGrenade, I applaud you for working on implementing a new unit. But of course not everyone is readily going to accept your HR idea.

I agree with Narvik in sentiment. I would play a HR described by him. Also, I think there should be no restrictions on the amount of units for purchase. No single unit should be so powerful that you have to put a restriction on the amount.

I think your HR over represents this type of unit and made it too powerful in retrospect to the representation of the size of the units in this strategic level board game.

I think the “SFU” should be: C5 / A1 /  D2 / M2 + Airborne attack movement up to 3 spaces from an air base (like the Airborne tech from OOB). Artillery pair up the SFU to +1 for attacks (not the other way around of SFU pairing up other units). 4 spaces is too far in this game I think and changes the game dynamics too much I think.

Combined Arms Explanation: Modern US Army Airborne Rangers call in artillery (or an A-10 Thunderbolt II) for support. So in the game, a “SFU” should be paired up by artillery, not it pairing up other units.

US Army Special Forces (SF as Soldiers say or “Green Berets” to the general public), Navy Seals, and Delta Force (off shoot of SF), usually don’t operate above a platoon sized element. Only Army Rangers operate up to a battalion level. Essentially, Rangers are just infantry, (bad ass elite infantry, but infantry nonetheless). Ranger units and Airborne Divisions were sized large enough in WW2 to “barely” be represented in this game as a single unit on the board.

Cost Explanation for 5 IPCs: 4 IPCs account for the 2 space movement ability like mech +1 more IPC to account for the cost of the airborne “transport” option from an air base. This way mech remain the main mobile infantry and tanks still roll overall better while being the justified higher 6 IPC cost.

Great posts Black_Elk. I’m trying to imagine any problems a 3 move non-combat rule would create.

On my map with this rule the USA could reach the shore of Japan from San Francisco in one move and vice versa. A US navy could reach Normandy from New York. But they could not actually do anything but sit there, as it would be non-combat movement. Nobody likes to leave loaded transports floating around, so I’m thinking attacks would still come from two zones away and the three zone moves would pretty much be limited to shuffling navies from one ocean to the other. Heck, if that’s true, everything could move 4 in non-combat, 2 in normal combat, and 3 in combat from naval bases. What would it hurt? I suppose it would all have to be game tested.

@Zombie69:

Even though I don’t like house rules in general, I like the OP house rule in conjunction with the HR that allows submerging after one round against DD. The first HR makes subs a little weaker (can’t be used as fodder against planes) while the second makes them stronger (by letting them survive more battles). All in all, I think it balances out. It also has the advantage of being elegant and easy to use.

Glad you see it that way.
A still more simplified HR could be that keeping all OOB DDs rules with Subs and planes, each sides which have Destroyers must say whether or not Subs will be targeted in priority by planes.
If not, then anything but subs must be selected as planes casualties (unless their is nothing else except transports) by the owning player.

Some treads treat this subject but I wanted a new start here in house rules.
I have summarize some ideas to make these two units:
No more than 1 type of unit/territory.
Allow up to 2 bunkers or pillboxes/territory (2IPs allow 1 additionnal hit).
Also allow up to 2 heavy weapons fortification: cost 1 IPC and give +1 def 1 Inf/Art.

Cost   Move  Att  Def              Special
Coastal fortifications: 10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Ship Gun
Inland fortifications:  10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Tank Gun
Coastal fortifications work only against amphibious assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by land.
Inland fortifications work only against land assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by amphibious assault.

Both share the same other traits:
Take 2 hits, repairs as BB/ 6 damage points, repair at 1pt/1 IPC
Give up to 3 (Inf or Art) +1 defense/
AA in-built against SBR from SBs & TBs/

3 coastal guns ASG each@1 pre-emptive against support ships during amphibious assault, in order BB/CA/DD: once hit a BB cannot bombard, must repair.
Or
3 Anti Tank Guns 3@1 (pre-emptive strikes vs Armors)
It must take 2 hits to be destroy, or the territory has been captured.

Even if the 3 defenders has been killed, but take only 1 hit, as long as the territory is not captured then it can be repaired at no cost, as BB. Except for a Strategic Bombing Raid:

Can be SBR (damage are cumulative, up to 6 points) but do not affect the number of hit that unit can absorbs:
1-3: no effect
4: -1 def 1 Inf or Art/ -1@1 ASG (2 coastal guns attack)/ATG (2 anti-tank attacks)
5: -1 def 2 Inf or Art/ -2@1 ASG (1 coastal gun attack)/ATG (1 anti-tank attack)
6: -1 def 3 Inf or Art/ no coastal gun attack / no ATG attack

Even after taking 6 points of damage, it can still take 2 hits before being destroyed.

Special features:
The bombers (SBs/TBs) can make their first shot an SBR against these complexes (before the amphibious assault/ or normal combat occurs) and makes normal attacks against any ground units after the first round.

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

@Zhukov_2003:

i have played this way

Who won? Was Karelia a dead zone?