EXECUTIVE ORDER: if you add 1 rule you have to remove 2 other rules

@SouthsideCH:

It seems every time we play there are certain things we just don’t understand. While we understand the rules sometimes they just do not seem rational.

Does anyone have house rules addressing the following?

Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.

If I move a sub or a destroyer-less navy into a convoy sea zone, forcing the enemy to submerge, why can they convoy me?

It does not make much sense that scramblers are defenders, especially in some cases involving tac bombers.

I get that Kamikaze attacks have to choose their target. But if I bring in 3 cruisers, 2 battleships and a carrier and they choose to hit the battleships, shouldn’t the cruisers get to bombard? They can’t take part in the defense against the Kamikaze.

Convoy Disruption seems easy. There are no ill effects to the disruptor. If you can intercept when facilities are being attacked it makes sense a navy in that sea zone should be able to do the same.

I would love to hear some input on these as well as any house rules ideas.

In terms of house rules, are you looking for balance or realism?

I always argue realism before balance so.

1:No, Artillery should not be able to support infantry during sea invasion, that’s why battleships should be used.

2:I argue they should. The sea territory is vase and submarines are loved during WWII because they are a pain to track down, they are basically the naval sniper.

3: I am not sure the exact issue. Fighters and Tacts can be used offensively and scramble protects your navy. I personally think all allied aircraft should scramble regardless of what nations navy is being attack as long as the nations allows it.

4: Kamikaze wings traditionally went after Battleships and Aircraft Carriers first because taking those out would give the IJN fairness as the IJN had a lot of smaller ships. I personally think Kamikaze wings should also be allowed to target transports.

5: So what’s the issue with Convoy Raids then? It makes you force yourself to deal with an enemy navy.

If you and/or your friend are really upset about the loss of the original MB A&A tech chart, pretty sure that method and chart are still 100% compatible with the current 1942.2 game if you really wanted it (I’m not talking about game-balance, but mechanically speaking, it would still work).

The old method was spend 5 IPCs per die you wanted to roll… if you spent 20 IPCs, that’s four die rolls. You’d roll the dice… each result of “6” was a breakthrough and you’d then reroll for each breakthrough and apply it to this chart:

Jet Power (fighters defend at 5) Rockets (1 rocket attack on enemy industry a turn for any AAA within 3 spaces of an enemy Plant… 1D6 IPC loss to enemy) Super Subs (subs attack at 3) Long Range aircraft (all aircraft have 2 more range) Industrial Technology (all units are 1 IPC less) Heavy Bombers (all bombers roll 3 dice instead of 1… note this essentially ended the game… lol).

If it’s really a big deal to you guys, all the above rules would work mechanically with A&A 1942.2… however, not all are balanced, especially Heavy Bombers, but that could be changed (maybe roll 3 dice and choose your favorite of the three).

There’s lots of custom rules for tech research… its not hard to either add the original rules, use someone elses posted on the forum, or just make up your own house rules. In any case, this is one of the easiest rules to add back into the game if you really miss it.

AandAtech.jpg

After a year break we played a game according to these rules yesterday.
Japan heavy navy focused getting Honolulu, Sydney, Rio de Janero and even San Francisco! Leading to a land war on the American continent.
Meanwhile Russia and Britain heavy focusing Germany, with conquering the whole of northern and eastern Europe (Oslo, Kiev).
But then, Germany seized an opportunity of taking London after Britain player overcomitted and did some bad rolls.
Axis win the game.

It was very confusing, and we did a lot of bad mistakes. But it was fun, and we really had a game with battles at totally new battlefields.

After Russia and Britain both starting very defensive, Germany and Japan player decided to play an altrenative strategy, attacking US. It worked at least partially. Germany forced to play defensive on land, losing total whole of east and north Europe (but defensive Russia took quite a while). Japan using heavy Navy and invading Australia, South America and finally even US west coast. Land war on the American continent between Japan West coast and US East coast (and Canada a bit). Few action in China at all…all players were turteling after the initial clashes. Money was needed elsewhere and infantry could hardly attack alone. Tank war in Africa between German Egypt and British South Africa. Both players had minor factories in africa, pumping tanks. Great navy clash in the northern Atlantic between US+Royal Navy and the German navy. To some bad rolls, British and US player losing atlantic fleet. Germany lost as well nearly whole fleet, but was able to invade exposed London and win the game. Maybe one turn later, the Russian steamroller would have taken Berlin.

The changes in Navy Balance (increase offensive power by chaper Battleship and Cruiser) as well as the alternative start setup allows for totally new strategies like “Kill US”. We are still not sure if this setup is balanced, we did only 3 games with this so far. I’d be happy about any feedback.

Yes, I was talking about those, I was also thinking about their role in sea battles (against Subs):

Unlike fighters, they don´t need to end their move in a territory with friendly Inf, but they can move max 3 spaces away from a territory with friendly Inf

If there is an Airship involved in sea battle then:
Enemy submarines can not submerge and they can not surprise attack
Airships roll one dice against enemy Sub, hitting it at die roll of 2.

Let me clarify my reasoning on point number 2:

Submarines defend at a zero because they are not firing back, they are battening the hatches, flooding the ballast tanks and adjusting the dive planes hoping to get below depth charge depth before being sunk. (Which is silly, I guess you should say destroyed not sunk, since they sink on purpose…)

Meanwhile, they attack at three because they quietly slip into range, hide in the waves, line up their shot just right and fire.  Since there is resistance to giving them called shot abilities (where they tell us who they aim for before firing, like Kaitens and Kamikazees did in AARe) I figure this is a solution that would work.

Also, it should be mentioned that I am assuming Super Submarines has been changed to Super Destroyers which would increase Destroyer Attack Power = to Submarine Power.

Submarines do not defend with a surface fleet, they travel solo usually way out ahead as scouts or raiding enemy shipping.  Treat them like transports if they are detected and defenseless.

ok lets talk about it in the setup thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8697.0

so far only change is FTR (fighter) on CV (aircraft carrier) is NAV (naval fighter)

Your right Guerrilla Guy, but they cant shoot out of the transport