• '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Anyone feel like helping me to distill 94 pages of material in this section into a reference compendium that players can actually use?

    I’m interested in collecting HRs for use in the 4 A&A games still currently in print.

    Something like…

    1. Stated Rule, and the game it’s meant to cover. (G40, 1942.2, 1941, or 1914)

    2. Brief summary of its intended effects on the gameplay  (stress brief.)

    3. Link to threads with further discussions or analysis of the rule.

    This section is hard to navigate, even with a proper search function, and I think something like this might be helpful. There are many threads with great ideas, and a lot of interesting rules proposals, but it’s just not presented in a way that’s very easy to reference.

    I dont think I’m capable or qualified to take this task on alone. Basically I’d need a hand collecting worthwhile material. Stuff that people have actually tried, or more appropriately, stuff you’ve had some success in persuading others to try. This current thread could serve as a draft list, and once we have enough entries we could organize it into a document with a table of contents. Breaking the HRs down into different categories… Such as ease of implementation, overall scale/complexity, whether it requires outside materials to work etc. Or more generally by the basic type of rule, like…

    Bid systems or bid substitutes for game balance (to determine sides)
    Dice mods
    Set up card mods (for starting units, cash, or territory possession)
    Income collection mods
    Production mods
    Unit mods or New Units
    Objective mods
    Victory Condition mods
    Turn order mods
    Phase mods
    Comprehensive mods that try to integrate multiple such HRs at once.

    Things of that sort.

    Basically going on the hunt for the most interesting HRs you’ve seen in action. So we can then make a easy to use list that players could reference at a glance. Ideally we could then carve out 4 main HR threads, one for each of the boards currently in print.

    I feel certain we can find at least a couple dozen entries worth highlighting for each board. Probably many more.

    Not really looking for a discussion thread here, but rather a bunch of brief overviews, in bullet point form. If you have a cool rule or HR system you want to share, which can be explained briefly or linked, feel free to put it here.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Ok I’ll take a crack at the first house rule entry.

    Standard Descending Bid:
    For all A&A games
    (1940, 1942.2, 1941, 1914 etc)

    Rule: the side or team perceived to be at a disadvantage will be awarded additional IPCs to place extra units onto the gameboard before the match begins.

    Step 1: agree which player/team will open the bid. This can be done by a coin toss, dice roll, lottery, or simply by first acclamation.

    Step 2: the player/team who opens the bid, chooses an amount in IPCs that they would like to receive in order to play as a given side (example: “We will play Allies with + 25 ipcs.”) The opposing team may either accept this bid, or make a counter offer, proposing to play at a lower amount (example: “We will play Allies with +18 ipcs.”) This process continues, with descending IPC amounts, until one team or the other declines to make a counter offer. The team who “wins” the bid, is awarded the amount of IPCs determined by the final offer.

    Step 3: These IPCs (the bid) can be distributed among the various player nations however the winning team wishes, and are then used to purchase extra units according to the normal costs described in the game manual.

    Traditional Restrictions: (These are not universal, but fairly standard in most play groups.)

    -only 1 bid unit may be placed in a given territory or sz.

    -bid units may only be placed in a territory or sea zone that is already occupied by a starting unit of the same nation.

    -any remaining bid ipcs not used for unit purchase is either added to that nation’s starting cash, or returned to the bank (according the play group’s preference.)

    The purpose of this rule, which is used widely in home games and tournaments, is to provide a way to balance the game so that both sides/teams have a reasonable expectation of winning. Or more simply just to determine “who plays who.” Often times, if the same players want a rematch, they will switch sides at the same bid amount, and then play for best 2 out of 3. In some cases the total bid amount on offer is pre-determined at some set amount or for specific units. Technically when you play that way you are not actually “bidding,” but some may refer to any additional IPCs or starting unit modifications as a “bid” of such and such, as a kind of shorthand for anything extra not explicitly described in the game’s set up cards.

    There is currently no officially recommended standard for the opening bid amount, or the exact procedures or specific restrictions when bidding for any A&A game. There may be some generally agreed upon bid “ranges” to achieve a desired game balance for a given board, but these may be subject to change depending on various factors, such as player skill level.

    Although this kind of modification to the boxed game is accepted by many play groups and tournament organizers, it’s still technically a house rule, in that it’s described nowhere in the official manual. Hence it’s inclusion here as the first HR entry.

    Ps. Ok how’s that for a basic format? Maybe a little long for a normal entry, but bidding has a special status, so I wanted to cover the bases hehe. Now that that’s out of the way, I think we can open it up for whatever.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Here are a half dozen one-off house rules that I have used with varying success at different points. Plus a couple more recent HR proposals that I think might be promising.

    Victory City Income Bonus:
    For all games

    Rule: “Victory City Capture Bonus: A power controlling an original enemy territory which contains a Victory City is awarded a 5 IPC bonus during the Collect Income phase of that turn.
    Victory City Liberation Bonus: A power that liberates an allied Victory City is awarded a one time 5 IPC bonus during the Collect Income phase of that turn.”

    The purpose: this forumulation was proposed by Larry in response to community suggestions at one point, as a simplified form of objective bonus. Its basic aim is to introduce more cash into the game, and provide a stronger relationship between the stated Victory Conditions and the game’s internal economic gameplay drivers.

    Game Round Ascending Income Bonus:
    For all games

    Rule: For every game round, each player/nation receives a number of IPCs in bonus income equivalent to the number of the current game round. Example: Round 1 = +1 ipc, Round 2 = +2 ipcs, Round 3 = +3 ipcs and so on.

    The purpose: to introduce more cash into the game for all players as the game progresses, while also providing a simple tracking mechanism so that players know how long they’ve been playing.

    Battle Buck Income Bonus :
    for all games

    Rule: During the combat phase, if a Nation takes a land territory or liberates a land territory for their side, they will be awarded +1 ipc.

    The purpose: to introduce more cash into the game throughout, while encouraging players to engage in combat whenever possible.

    Scorched Earth Factories:
    for all games

    Rule: Players may damage their own facilities up to the maximum value (twice the operation threshold) at no cost. During the repair units phase, rather than repairing their units at a cost in IPCs, the player will instead be dismantling them (placing chips under their facilities/bases rather than removing chips.)

    The purpose: allows players to make a strategic withdrawal from their production centers, with less fear of their own factories/bases being used against them by the enemy.

    Free 1 ipc Factory:
    for 1942.2

    Rule: Each Nation gets 1 free factory to place at the outset, but the factory must be placed on a territory worth exactly 1 ipc!
    Players write down their chosen location before the game begins, and then all 1 ipc factories are revealed at the same time.

    Purpose: to introduce some novelty to the production spread for all nations.

    American Zero turn:
    for 1942.2

    Rule: America moves first in the turn order sequence with a “zero turn” = USA, Russia, Germany, UK, Japan, USA (back to Russia to start the next round.)

    Option: America is restricted to purchase, non-combat, and placement (without a combat phase.)

    Purpose: to invert the balance of the game, from Axis advantage to Allied advantage, allowing options for an Axis bid if desired.

    China First :
    for G40

    Rule: China now moves first in the turn order sequence = China, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA, UK/Pacific, Italy, Anzac, France (back to China to start the next round).

    Purpose: to re-balance the land war in China somewhat in favor of the Allies, while providing minimal changes elsewhere.

    Defenseless Strategic Bomber (SBR Only):
    for G40 and 1942.2

    Rule: The Strategic Bomber is now defenseless with the following stats…
    Attack 0, Defend 0, Move 6, Cost 5, SBR damage at 1d6, with no hitpoint in normal combat.
    These bombers are now used exclusively for strategic bombing raids, and no longer have a role in regular combat. Outside of SBR they are treated much like the defenseless transport, placed to the side of the battle board. Optional intercept rules recommended.

    Purpose: as corrective to the air umbrella or “dark skies” approach, where players use Strategic Bombers primarily in combat vs navies, and to streamline the SBR process to encourage more raids.

    Global implementation: in addition to the above, the Airbase unit’s movement bonus is increased to +2 total for all aircraft. This is intended to maintain a degree of mobility for combat aircraft, while simplifying the movement count for air units, and increasing the range of fighters and tactical bombers to support the strategic bombers on escort duty.

    Option. The AB+2 Movement bonus only applies to aircraft while on a raiding mission (only for sbr/escort, not combat.)

    The damage bonus for SBR is removed. Strategic Bombers now roll damage at 1d6 (not 1d6+2).

    Ok those are few quick house rules that I dig. Now how about the rest of the gang?

    Hit us with some of your favorite HRs if you get the chance! Hunt down those old threads and hook me up with some quick overviews, so we can try them out. Presumably this will go faster if people can track down what they remember from the materials they’ve posted to this section in the past, with the advantage of some hindsight too. What stuff do you still like? This way instead of scanning hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, people can come here for quick ideas, and follow internal links if they find something of interest.

  • '17 '16

    Attack 0, Defend 0, Move 6, Cost 8, SBR damage at 1d6, with no hitpoint in normal combat.

    You meant Cost 5, right? EDIT: Fine, now.
    And you should specify that Fg keeps A1 D1 in escort/intercept.
    TacBomber is still A1 damage D6 in SBR.

    Another kind of SBR was written here, but C5 A0 takes precedence.
    It includes a roster change and cost structure based on Argothair Fg A2 D3 C8

    Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR): an alternate mechanic for 1942.2 and G40
    From January 17, 2017, 11:38:42 am to Reply #36 on: February 21, 2017, 01:30:51 pm

    A first draft talking about a positive bonus if no Convoy SZ raided:

    Convoy Disruption for 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare

    A different punitive system (similar to OOB G40) with suggested SZs:
    Convoy Disruption for 1942.2, AA50 & G40 Submarine economic warfare

    National Convoy Disruption for 1941 Submarine economic warfare

    Baron’s Convoy Disruption House Rule 1942.2 OOB cost structure

  • Reply to Black_Elk’s starting post…

    I have found when searching to see if there is rule about a topic I want, I sort the the list of rules by Subject.
    (not the best, but something that gets me partially there).

    So with that in mind, for starters it just be nice if when a new topic is posted it has a standard format;
    ie.  GAME,RULETYPE,NEWMOD,TOPIC,SUBJECT  eg. 1940,GAMEPLAY,NEW,SHIPS,Marines on destroyers

    GAME = 1914, 1940, 1941, 1942, …
    TOPIC = MAP, SHIPS, LAND, IPC, RAIDS, … some single word that gives a hint to subject
    SUBJECT = Description of posting

    This might help as another kernel of thought on your project.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    In total agreement there Carolina!

    Also thanks Baron! I fixed the cost typo and added a link, was writing it from my phone. Also great links!

  • '17 '16

    I will use this post to add different versions of complete roster units and cost structure from most recent, with less issues, to older ones, with more issues.

    Baron’s HR units charts and set-up for 1941, 1942.2 and AA50
    nov 2015 to feb 2016

    Baron’s simplified TcB (less combined arms), Fg & 3-planes Carrier, full roster
    march 2015 to july 2015

    Baron M’s G40HR Roster: 3-planes carrier, 6 IPCs Fighter A2D2 & Sub A3D1C7
    January 27, 2015, 08:46:40 pm to February 10, 2015, 09:24:20 pm

    Baron Munchhausen’s Complete Roster for play-testing with 2-planes carrier
    January 20, 2015, 10:37:56 pm to Reply #9 on: March 31, 2015, 03:13:20 pm

  • '17 '16

    On 5 IPCs ground unit, except AAA:
    Mechanized Artillery or
    Self-Propelled Artillery
    Self-Propelled Gun or
    Assault Gun or
    Tank Destroyer or
    Anti-Tank Gun or
    Light Tank or
    Heavy Artillery

    Are Mechs Too Strong?
    February 04, 2016, 11:15:54 am to February 18, 2016, 12:00:49 pm

    Mech Infantry
    March 13, 2015, 09:31:04 am to Reply #32 on: November 27, 2015, 04:24:39 pm

    Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks
    February 13, 2015, 06:18:00 pm to Reply #81 on February 26, 2015, 11:19:21 pm

    The Missing Mechanized Unit: Assault Guns
    August 30, 2011, 06:31:17 am to February 23, 2014, 04:24:34 am

    A general post on cost per combat points:

    The core of a ground battle is between A@3 vs D@2 unit.
    With a Battlecalc, you get 50-50% chance of winning when 9 units @3 fight 11 units @2.
    This means that a real balance cost of unit should be:
    1 unit A3D3 should cost 5.5 IPCs and 1 unit A2D2 should cost 4.5 IPCs.

    That explain why Tank moving 2 at 5 IPCs was a bit OverPowered vs other units like Art at 4 IPCs with M1.

    Tank A3D3M2C6 compared to a A2D2M2C5 unit seems almost correct since both have a +.5 IPC over the balance level of 5.5  vs 4.5.

    Now, about a MechArt A2D2M2C5 unit getting +1 A/D when paired to a Tank, it will be straight on the mark:
    A6D6M2**C11 for 2 units, which is A3D3M2C5.5 for 1 unit**.
    2 Tanks A6D6M2C12 are actually 1 IPC over the mark and this slight unbalancing effect increase of .5 IPC with each additional Tank.

    You can see how good on defense is an Inf A1D2C3 being 1.5 under the line.
    Even the MechInf is still .5 below the cost on defense.
    (Not considering the offence, however. Which makes them less OP vs cost of A2D2 or A3D3.)

    When comparing 2 units vs 2 units it is easier to see the slight unbalance:
    1MI+1Art= A4 D4 C8 vs 2 Tk A6 D6 C12
    MI+Art should cost 9 and 2 Tk, 11 so it is a direct -2 IPCs in favor of MI+Art.

    1 MechI+1MechArt A2 D2 M2 C5= A4 D4 M2 C9, it is right on the 4.5 IPCs/ A2 D2 unit.

    1 MechArt A2 D2 M2 C5 getting +1 A/D with Tk = A6 D6 M2 C11, it is right on the 5.5 IPC/ A3 D3 unit.

    Do you see now how this sole MechArt (doing both Assault Gun role) with the Tank Support could be an interesting and balance unit between MechInf C4 and Tank C6. For those who just want to add a single new sculpt on the board.
    It will increase the interest for both MechInf and Tank buying.
    Because, to optimize your M2 units, you get the best when paired.
    MI+MArt= 8 A/D pts for 9 IPCs. -1
    MArt+Tk= 12 A/D pts for 11 IPCs. +1
    MI+MArt+Tk= 16 pts for 15 IPCs. +1

    compared to M1 pairing:
    2Inf= 6 A/D pts for 6 IPCs. Even.
    Inf+Art= 8 A/D pts for 7 IPCs. +1
    MI+Art= 8 A/D pts for 8 IPCs. Even.

  • '17 '16

    A post on all AAA threads below:

    This thread introduce the idea to use AAA in offense against planes specifically, like AAA does in defense…
    AAA Should Be Permitted to Attack
    September 06, 2017, 11:00:35 am to  Reply #62 on: Today at 03:41:05 pm

    AAA first shot ability, how do you see it?
    May 28, 2016, 05:55:02 am to Reply #39 on: June 06, 2016, 08:50:28 pm

    About AA guns, here is the link to a thread which explains my most recent idea and showed many quotes from other people in various thread. Food for thought. 🙂
    Two simpler and balanced ways to handle AAA unit (Antiaircraft artillery)?
    July 27, 2015, 02:37:48 pm to Reply #5 on: July 28, 2015, 09:05:40 am

    Exploring cheaper & weaker AAA guns unit to promote much more buying
    February 27, 2014, 10:22:38 pm to Reply #58 on: December 17, 2016, 02:18:32 pm

    AA Guns
    October 08, 2012, 11:31:48 am to Reply #295 on: June 13, 2013, 03:40:18 pm

    Are Bombers broken? HR adjustment explorations continuating the Global tread
    June 11, 2013, 07:46:51 am to Reply #13 on: June 20, 2013, 07:38:30 am

  • '17 '16

    Threads which take wide discussion about a complete revision on many unpopular or not optimized units (mostly Cruiser, Battleship, Tactical Bomber and AAA).

    Piscolar wanted to change StBs function to be less Tactical oriented and gives a Convoy Raid capacity.
    Fixing Sea / Air Unit Issues (Strategic Bombers and Cruisers)
    December 04, 2016, 10:27:17 pm to Reply #35 on: December 09, 2016, 04:37:07 pm

    Below the OP to make your mind about the thread intents.
    Real value of units
    August 31, 2013, 02:35:36 am to Reply #190 on: March 02, 2014, 10:10:28 pm

    I have to make a comment about the value of units. From what i have played now i think that some units are too expensive, not too much but enough that they are so rarely bought that it does not help making a very fun and diversed game as it could be.

    AA gun 4 IPC / 5 IPC with extra abilities

    AA gun is rarely bought. It could either cost 4 IPC or 5 but then it should attack at 4 air units not 3.

    Tactical bomber 10 IPC / 11 IPC with extra abilities

    Tac is very rarely bought ( comparing to figters ). It should either cost 10 or having its bombardment skills upgraded or supporting artillery with one extra point so 3 for each artillery attacking with tac. In that case art could not support inf.

    Cruiser Very, very rarely bought. It should either cost 11 or having attack power of 4 and defence power of 2. Or 4-3 if it is not too much.

    Aircraft Carier Should cost 15 or 16 but in that case with the attack power of 1.

    Battleship Extremely rarely bought, indagered specie like Snow Leopard.  😮 It should either cost 17/18 or 20 but then it`s combine bombardment shot can not be retaliated by enemy infantry. So if it is a hit it is removed from the board immediately.

    Harbour It should cost 13 IPC. In that way it would be more harbours around the globe and much more interesting situations.

    Airfield 14 IPC.

    Minor IC The same price but maybe an increase to 4 units per IC.

    Major IC I know that the point of this game is not in stacking piles of units in one place but 30 IPC for a Major is simply to much. 25 would be proper.

    What do U think guys, any suggestions, ideas?

    Twelve works of Uncrustable famous thread.
    G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.
    October 31, 2013, 10:41:05 am to Reply #322 on: January 07, 2014, 12:39:48 pm

    I cannot refrain myself to add Regular Kid’s historical answer on warships carrying troops:


    There a few things I hate about Balanced Mod, all to do with Amphibious Assaults.

    1) Why on earth should you be able to assault from a Cruiser or Battleship? None of those ships would carry the assault boats needed. Indeed, even boarding or alighting as an NCM away from a naval base is dubious
    2) Why should Marines get to attack on a 2? The combined arms artillery bonus is pretty silly too in an amphibious assault. It doesn’t really reflect the real world IMO.

    Just thought I’d give that feedback. Maybe I’m wrong.

    Simon, there is significant historical precedent for warships carrying detachments of marines into combat. For starters, virtually all US battleships, during World War II, carried marine detachments (between 50 and 100 men), who, in addition to manning ship guns, served as ship expeditionary forces. See, e.g., http://seastories.battleshipnc.com/marines/

    Smaller warships also carried marines. For example, it was a group of ship-borne Royal Marines that proved decisive in the Battle for Madagascar. From the relevant wikipedia article:

    The French defence was highly effective in the beginning and the main Allied force was brought to a halt by the morning of 6 May. The deadlock was broken when the old destroyer HMS Anthony dashed straight past the harbour defences of Diego Suarez and landed 50 Royal Marines amidst the Vichy rear area. The Marines created “disturbance in the town out of all proportion to their numbers” and the Vichy defence was soon broken.”


    Also noteworthy, the Japanese’ made extensive use of cruisers, destroyers, and even battleships as troop transports throughout the war. A few examples:

    So, yah, the idea of cruisers and battleships transporting small land forces is not only fun and good for the game, its historically accurate! HF!

  • '17 '16

    Many threads on Cruiser and Battleship…

    This is an interesting analysis only Topic on BB compared to CA from Taamvan which was buried in G40 Forum.
    Hope it will get a second life and attracts more comments…
    Why Battleships are good and Cruisers are even more inferior than ever
    August 10, 2016, 10:31:33 am

    This Young Grasshopper thread is about increasing combat values of CA and BB on first round if any enemy’s plane is present.
    Prepared Strike
    February 02, 2017, 11:44:30 am to still active

    YG thread to increase +1 A/D/bombardment for both CA and BB.
    Cruiser and Battleship upgrades performed by naval bases
    May 17, 2016, 10:26:06 am to Reply #5 on: May 17, 2016, 06:57:01 pm

    YG thread exploring “1” anti-air for CA, BB and Carrier
    AA capabilities for big ships
    May 21, 2016, 10:39:23 am to reply #23 on: September 22, 2016, 12:36:28 pm

    Cruiser Rework
    January 22, 2016, 09:39:23 pm to Reply #27 on: August 21, 2016, 11:28:06

    A poll thread about little twist to fix Cruiser:  AAA like add on, Inf Transport capacity, M3-4, +NCM 1 move, etc.
    Cruiser add on
    December 05, 2015, 04:07:09 pm to Reply #74 on: February 08, 2016, 03:20:30 pm

    drummerinheat want to give Cruiser M3 and many talks about increasing her maneuverability.
    Cruiser Idea
    September 14, 2015, 07:00:35 pm to Reply #57 on: October 18, 2015, 08:49:28 am

    A certain kind of Blitz capacity for one’s own can-opener Cruiser was develop in this thread from Black Elk:
    Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order

    This allows Cruisers to attack DDs blockers and once the SZ is conquered, let other Naval units attack another SZ behind the first line blocker or simply NCM into an unoccupied SZ further away.

    Eliminating Cruisers from Global 1940- Advice needed! (updated with setup chart)
    March 02, 2015, 05:18:12 pm to Reply #7 March 03, 2015

    YG is making 1942.2 BB same as G40.2
    1942.2 Damaged Battleships
    March 29, 2015, 12:41:40 pm to Reply #3 on: March 30, 2015, 06:30:26 am

    Young Grasshopper is exploring combined arms with BB.
    Many others were suggested too, like Carrier-BB-CA to give a full AAA like defense.
    Cruisers - Combined Arms
    December 15, 2014, 10:35:25 am to Reply #105 on: December 22, 2014, 05:49:53 am
    House rule for Cruisers: Global 1940
    February 04, 2013, 07:57:52 am to Reply #38 on: March 20, 2013, 10:29:32 pm

    How to make battleships a more attractive purchase
    May 16, 2014, 10:46:04 pm to Reply #46 on: December 10, 2014, 01:24:30 pm

    Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
    October 10, 2013, 03:55:50 pm to Reply #74 on: February 10, 2015, 07:02:48 pm

    Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns
    May 15, 2013, 08:39:31 am to Reply #147 on: June 07, 2013, 10:16:14 am

    An exception because it talks about shore bombardment and can increase unbalanced vs Cruiser:
    [1942.2 & G40] Destroyers able to get a Shore Bombardment?
    March 05, 2013, 10:05:16 pm to Reply #41 on: March 17, 2014, 05:59:43 pm

    Uncrustable’s thread talking Cruiser is overpriced, has numbers and balance issues.
    Cruisers, whats the point?
    February 09, 2012, 12:16:54 pm to Reply #135 on: March 30, 2012, 10:49:50 pm

    January 02, 2010, 01:09:31 am to Reply #73 on: January 25, 2010, 08:14:49 am

    An interesting post on Cruiser price and cost calculation from Larry Harris buried in Anniversary threads.

    Larry’s response (posted on his site😞

    Hello Telamon. Thanks for your most kind posting. “Remained true to the original”!
    Cruiser. Hey I’m not a great player but not all that bad either. In fact there were times when I was the best player in the world for each of my games. It is when that world population exceeded 3 people that I noticed a decline in my standings.

    Cruiser. They have their purpose, heck at 12 IPCs they can come in handy in mid game when I’m usually fighting for my life. And with battleships costing 20 I usually can’t afford that kind of money.

    Buying a cruiser at 12 gives me 8 more IPCs to play with when compared to a BB purchase. For 19 IPCs I can buy something that the navy is really all about: a transport. I can’t really argue with a bunch of “good player” however. If they say cruisers are a good purchase at 11 and I say they are “an ok purchase” at 12$ ok I hear ya. I don’t always agree with this assumption, however. I’d like to give you some insights on how I see it. I look at the over all cost in IPCs for each unit’s ability to score a hit on the enemy.

    A sub costing 6 and having a combined attack and defense total of 3 (2 on attack plus 1 on defense) cost me 2 IPCs for each opportunity to hit my opponent. That’s funny, that’s the same price-per-opportunity to kill something as a destroyer has. They cost 8 and have a combat value of 4. (8/by 4 =2).

    Cruisers at 12 and divided by 6 (3/3) is also 2.

    A battleships with its price tag of 20 has a cost per potential hit at 2.5. Of course a battleship has two lives so its cost really is 1.25 IPCs per hit opportunity. Good deal! But it cost so damned many IPCs. In defense of the lover priced cruiser, I’d like to point out that it has the same cost/kill ability as a destroyer or a sub. So why pick on the cruiser.

    Yeah, I know DDs have a that special anti-sub thing and subs have their own special points of (I want to say: confusion) value. But a cruiser has a 50% chance of scoring a hit during a bombardment (its special ability). In any case, I assigned a value of 12 to the cruiser perhaps it should have been an 11. I could not always use this simple formula when assigning values to these various units.

    I also had to take into consideration my perception of what was fun but yet made the most sense. Kind of subjective don’t you think. Look at the bomber or the carrier for example. They have a cost of 2.4 and 2.33 per kill ability. Is that long range of a bomber worth that extra .4 and is the carrier worth that extra .33 because it can carry aircraft. I guess so, I mean I think so. Who knows for sure? You got to admit, however, that all the units are certainly in the ball park when it comes to cost.


    Hmm, nice reasoning. BUT dear Larry Harris, you’re forgetting the most important value of a unit! In your view, a unit’s price is determined by “kill ability” and “special ability”. These are indeed 2 major factors, but you’re forgetting the most important one: “hit taking ability”. Let’s calculate that for each naval unit shall we? sub: 1 hit for 6 IPC’s = ~0.15 DD’s: 1/8= ~0.13 Cru: 1/12= ~0.8 BB: 2/20= ~0.1 (excluding the autorepair after each battle) Loaded carrier: 3/34= ~0.9. Well now, guess who’s coming out at the bottom, also having (imho) the worst “special ability” of all. It’s big plus should be the “kill ability”, so 11 for a Cru would still make it not so good a deal. Imho, 10 would be very defendable, subs would still be bought, DD’s would still be bought to counter subs and for cheap hits, and the cru would simply be good value for the money; yer basic sea unit taking over the role of core fleet unit, from the DD who isn’t made for this role in the first place! Sorry mr. Harris, but the logic you’re using to refute cheaper cruisers is wrong/incomplete, please consider to rethink this…

    So summarized: 1 inf extra in Egy, 2 in Yun, and a Cru of 11 (or 10?!). Please mr. Harris, make this the official LHTR for AA50, so I can convince my friends to play with these more balanced rules. Otherwise those shiny new Cruisers in AA 1942 will stay in the box too much  😐


    You’re spot on Holkann - hit taking ability is as important as hit giving ability.  That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60).  Extra hits.  It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet.  I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships.  At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships.  I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market. Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.


    Hold on a second….why are ships always getting AA guns?
    The vulnerability of the big ships was one of the top 5 lessons of WWII!
    Battle of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway, etc.

    No AA guns on boats, it doesn’t solve anything. It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.

    Cruisers are fine, a 3/3 for 10 is a fighter. A 3/3 for 5 Is a tank A 3/3 for 12 is a Cruiser.
    Small discrepancy, but its all relative. In the water a 3/3 for 12 is fine, considering the 2/2 is 8 (66% of cost) and the 2/2 on land is 80% of the cost of its 3/3 counterpart. Boats cost a lot of money folks, remember if you drop it low enough Russia might buy one and that’s pretty unhistorical. 12 makes it an investment, not a bargain.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    These are great Baron! I know I can always count on you to help hunt down good discussions! It’s very helpful to have a kind of road map which shows the development of these thought processes.

    This is an excellent first step to gather the info together in one place. I think to be truly usable for the more casual player who is interested in trying some HRs with their group, at some point we probably need a bit more in the way of editorial summary for some of these, like a final analysis with concrete suggestions. So for example, based on the discussions in a given thread, has any consensus developed? Or if no consensus, maybe we can at least find like the “top 3-5” ideas for a given unit.  So take the battleship or cruiser as an example, we have seen a number of different HRs in various threads that try to make this unit more attractive, so I wonder if we can make some generalizations? I can see two basic approaches here, when it comes to altering existing units.

    Modified cost but keep OOB abilities.
    Modified abilities but keep OOB cost.

    The first is fairly straightforward, for example with Battleships using the ‘shipyards’ model for a cost reduction.

    The second is more wide ranging, I’ve seen everything from adding aaafire, to combined arms, to limited transport capacity, to an increased movement rate etc.

    Some of these solutions were more popular than others, but when we put together a final draft list, it might be worthwhile to consider each unit in the roster independently. First giving a suggested cost modification for the OOB abilities, followed by the top 3-5 suggestions for adjusted abilities at the OOB cost.

    In addition to these approaches there are also suggestions for a total conversion of the unit roster, where adjustments to various OOB units might include changes to both cost and abilities, and which work best only when integrated together.

    Finally we have proposals for new units. These likewise might be intended for use with the OOB roster, or a total conversion roster.

    It’s a lot of ground to cover, no doubt, but it would be killer if we could organize all this material in a way that is easier for a “plug and play”, where players can run down the list and find the best option that fits what they’re trying to achieve. I think of all the HRs, unit mods are probably the least familiar for me, so I’d defer to your experience here, which is extensive, for suggestions about which individual unit mods are most interesting, which total conversion systems have the most promise, and where new units might best be added.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Just briefly I wanted to add a few more “one-off” House Rules that I think might prove interesting.

    3 Movement for Ships (M3):
    For all games

    Rule: the base movement rate for all ships is increased to 3.

    Purpose: to increase the range of all naval units, thereby decreasing the amount of time it takes to cross oceans and speeding up the play pace for naval powers. Opens up more shucks, and essentially resets the map from a naval perspective. This HR is largely untested at the moment, so it is difficult to say what the balance implications may be, but it has the advantage of a very simple implementation.

    M3 Transorts:
    For all games

    Rule: the transport unit now has a standard movement of 3.

    In this HR transports get a movement upgrade, while warships retain their normal movement at 2.

    Purpose: to make this defenseless unit a more strategically interesting purchase. To speed up the gameplay and put more VCs into contention.

    Shipyards for All (reduced cost for naval units):
    For G40

    Rule: all nations are awarded the “shipyard” tech advance for free.

    Purpose: to make naval purchases more attractive for all nations, and somewhat more appealing vs OOB aircraft for the cost.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    OK also I really wanted to include a section for production expansion. This would include stuff like the land base idea, and the 3 tiered production concept for ICs in G40 (multi tier production ideas in general). Some of these have undergone several permutations, so I sense a longer winded post is needed. But before that I just want to toss out a few of the simpler production expansion concepts that I’ve tried. Some of these I am remembering off the top of my head, so I’m struggling to find discussion links at the moment. Though I’m certain these subjects have been discussed at various points.
    Before talking about production expansions that require new materials beyond OOB (such as unit markers), I want to talk about ways to expand production purely via the rules. Here are a few that I’ve tried.

    All Industrial Complexes have built-in production +2:
    For 1942.2

    Rule: Every factory on the board (including newly purchased factories), may produce 2 additional units over the printed territory IPC value on the game map. This production bonus is also included in the Max damage for a given factory, which is also increased by 2.

    For example, under this HR, Karelia may produce 4 total units, Caucasus 6, Russia 10, India 5, Italy 5 etc. A newly purchased factory in Alaska could produce 4, Sinkiang or Hawaii could produce 3 total units etc.

    Purpose: to expand the production spread across the entire gamemap, allowing for more possible entry points in all theaters, while simultaneously increasing the number of viable targets and max thresholds for SBR damage.

    All Victory Cities may produce 1 extra infantry unit:
    for all games

    Rule: Any territory with a Victory City may support the placement of a single purchased infantry unit. In the case of VC territories with a factory, this infantry unit is in addition to the max production capacity of the territory.

    Purpose: mainly for novelty, as a way of making otherwise low value VC territories slightly more interesting. The effect overall is comparatively minor since it is limited to infantry, but may make certain VC territories more useful, or more significant for staging even without a factory in place.

    Bases may produce 1 extra unit of the associated type:
    for G40

    Rule: Operational Air Bases may spawn 1 purchased air unit at placement. Operational Naval Bases may spawn 1 purchased ship at placement.

    Purpose: to increase the value of these bases all around, particularly bases at zero ipc territories, which would otherwise have no production potential whatsoever. The main effect is to increase the strategic value of all starting bases in both theaters, and to make the purchase of new bases more attractive. It also encourages the purchase of otherwise unattractive units in some instances (such as cruisers or battleships) owing to the strict production limit of 1 unit per base. Although it is only a single unit per base, the impact on the game-play is potentially very significant, creating new entry points for aircraft and ships and new deployment strategies across the entire gamemap.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14


    Do you forgot to put links in your last post?

    As I mentioned above, those last 3 entires were just off the top of my head. Much as I wish I could point to discussion threads, I’m having trouble searching them out. It’s possible the first two ideas originated in AA50 discussions, though I think they work just as well in the more recent games. The last idea concerning bases, I’m sure I’ve brought up before (probably in the Halifax or Redesign sticky, or one of the valueless Pacific Islands threads) though I’m not sure if it actually prompted much discussion.

    Part of the reason I want to make a list, is because its so easy for these HR ideas to get burried or lost (especially the on-offs.) At this point I think its probably more important to get the actual rules written down. We can go on the hunt for origins posts later if need be, or create new threads to talk about individual proposals if we can’t locate the original post. If anyone has an interesting HR, even one that you haven’t seen mentioned before, by all means post the idea. If we can find a thread where similar topics were discussed at one point or another, we’ll try to find those as we can, and edit internal links for the final draft list.

    This thread is more for gathering material at the moment. At some point we’ll need to edit it into a comprehensive document that is somewhat more manageable to read/reference at a glance.
    I think it will be easier to categorize the HRs by basic type once we have enough in the list, but right now it’s sort of anything goes.

    Ps. Anyone want to take a crack at describing the dice mods?
    Low Luck comes to mind, or perhaps D12 systems. I don’t really play with either, so I don’t have a go to reference, but for the sake of completion it would be nice to have those in the reference doc as well. I’m definitely familiar with LL, but I’m probably not the right person to introduce the concept. I’m a dice masochist, so it would be better to find a player who really enjoys that style of play to present that HR dice system on the merits.

  • '17 '16

    Der Kunstler’s thread on changing Aircraft cost and values to get more on board and a more historical depiction due to TcBomber intro.
    Rethinking Air Units
    October 04, 2014, 09:44:08 am to Reply #81 on: October 27, 2014, 06:23:43 am

    An Aequitas et veritas’ thread exploring various TcB combat values and discussing which kind of planes it figures and how it was use in WWII tactics. A must to learn more about comparison between Fighter and Tactical Bomber.
    Tactical Bombers and their use
    March 11, 2014, 10:58:20 am to Reply #120 on: May 16, 2014, 11:18:26 pm

    On Tactical Bomber, a debate around YG critics of TcB loophole in SBR.
    Re: The Cliffside Bunker House Rules
    Reply #16 on: April 28, 2016, 06:05:24 pm  to  Reply #28 on: July 31, 2016, 10:53:21 am

  • '17 '16

    On air to air combat HRs, firsts thread of many to find:

    Another simplified dogfight with 3 planes-Carrier and SBR House Rule for 1942.2
    April 07, 2015, 07:25:28 pm

    4 ways to play aircrafts dogfighting inside G40 or 1942.2 ?
    November 26, 2014, 09:17:43 pm

    Many ways of figurating air-to-air combat in general combat
    October 07, 2014, 07:08:58 pm to Reply #2 on: October 08, 2014, 03:32:38 pm

    Up-to-date best version developped a simple roll “1” and hit a plane system for 1942.2
    Last post introduces variant: 3 planes Carrier Fg A2 D2 M4 C7, hit planes first.
    The thread also included some Charts to judge the worthiness of different SBR HRs values:
    A simplified dogfight and SBR House Rule for 1942 2nd Edition
    September 04, 2014, 04:56:57 pm to Reply #10 on: April 07, 2015, 07:16:46 pm

    Baron’s work in progress:
    The first post contains links to other same topic threads.
    Alternate 3 planes Carrier, Air oriented for G40 or 1942.2 with TacBs
    October 28, 2014, 06:44:42 pm to Reply #31 on: January 19, 2015, 08:14:33 am

    Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat: 2 planes carrier
    October 27, 2014, 06:04:56 am to Reply #8 on: March 10, 2015, 07:22:52 pm

    Alternate Air combat in OOB G40 with 2 planes Carrier, 1942.1 and 1942.2
    March 18, 2014, 04:14:56 pm to Reply #8 on: March 23, 2014, 04:36:37 pm

    Improved historicity of Fighters G40 SBR escort, interception & Night bombing
    March 15, 2014, 11:28:33 am to Reply #1 on: May 20, 2014, 11:13:06 pm

    Dogfighting in 1914 version of G40 & SBR escort and interception
    March 14, 2014, 02:29:19 pm to Reply #12 on: March 17, 2014, 07:01:27 pm

    Adapting A&A1914 rules for G40
    December 23, 2013, 07:46:00 am to Reply #72 on: March 15, 2014, 11:57:41 am

    An offspring from Uncrustable Enhanced Thread.
    Alternative way of integrating Air combat in regular combat- For Review
    November 08, 2013, 02:39:45 pm to Reply #46 on: November 20, 2013, 07:45:08 am

    And was grounded on these previous threads:
    Alternate 3 planes CV, more planes oriented A&A for G40 or 1942 HR with TacBs
    Alternate 3 planes CV, more Air oriented A&A for G40 or 1942 with TacBs

    Here are the principles I tried to put in this House Rule on Tactical Bombers and Fighters.

  • '17 '16

    A revision of warship cost, to increase Naval action and to tip balance toward Allies.

    Black Elk’s thread
    1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less
    July 09, 2015, 04:32:03 pm to Reply #14 on: July 18, 2015, 03:58:04 am

    EnoughSaid’s thread.
    1940 Cheaper Boats
    October 30, 2014, 12:27:13 pm to Reply #35 on: November 09, 2014, 09:29:46 am

    Historical Carriers, ASW and other vessels : 1942.1/1942.2/1940
    March 06, 2013, 05:16:03 pm to Reply #34 on: May 17, 2013, 01:14:18 am

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Oh good! I swear I was looking everywhere for that cheaper boats thread, but I kept searching ships rather than “boats” lol. Hang around this place long enough, and you’ll find a ton of solid HR proposals. They’ve just been buried under the avalanche of time hehe. I got about 20 pages deep into this section, and my eyes started glossing over. I probably missed an ace thread or two.

    I’m interested in the land bases, and proposals there like military outposts for just inf, or rail bases, and also the 3 tiered factory scheme in g40. Trying to locate the earliest discussions, or the most recent. But most of those systems require additional materials.

    Still just keeping with rules, another HR type worth mentioning is more about production restriction. I don’t know, maybe I just make one up as an example, to describe what I’m talking about haha.

    Factories only at VCs:

    Rule: All Victory Cities get a starting factory. Only VCs on the map get a starting factory. The factory unit is removed from the purchase roster.

    Purpose: to anchor the fighting around these territories and underscore the importance of the VC.

    This is another one I recall from AA50, or maybe Larry Boards, but which could potentially work in 1942.2. It would be a dramatic shift for the production spread (introducing France, Kiangsu, Philippines, and Hawaii into the mix), so probably needs to be attended by another rule or large bid for balance. But it would result in a major incentive for Germany to stay oriented towards the west, possibly with a strong naval game. Might work with an American Zero turn order (full turn?). Anyway the basic idea is that you have a set number of select factories in the game, and no more, then adjust the balance from there. Something similar might work for G40. I believe some of YGs rules call for factories that cannot be purchased, or restored to full capacity once captured. That recalls to mind another production restriction concept which I feel certain has been mentioned before. The idea of factories that can be permanently removed from the board, like auto-destroyed upon capture. This is a bit like scorched earth, but more extreme. Something basic would be along the lines of…

    Factory destruction:

    Rule: when an IC is taken by the enemy it is automatically destroyed.

    Purpose: prevents the quick turn-around of production from a captured enemy territory. Now the conqueror must build the factory anew if they want to exploit it. Slows down the Axis, since it means that territories like Karelia, Caucasus, and Moscow don’t provide an immediate production boon when conquered.

    Requires more money from the Axis if they want to hold the center. Similarly it opens up alternative territories as candidates for new production, with less fear that they will be used by the enemy. Rules like this one in a game such as 1942.2 would seem to recommend a cheaper factory unit at 12, but that could just be me. Again something like this might work in G40 as well. I’m sure its been discussed endlessly somewhere.

    Oh one more before I forget about it again.

    Standard Playing Cards (52 deck) income bonus:
    for 1942.2

    Rule: Players use a standard deck of cards, and draw during the collect income phase for a bonus in ipcs.

    Aces high =15, Jack =11, Queen=12, King=13
    All numbered cards (deuce-ten):  
    Diamond =7, Clubs = 8, Hearts = 9, Spades =10
    Joker =20

    Purpose: to introduce more cash, and randomize each game round by purchase. Every nation has more average income per round, but Allies have more draws over all, so their economic advantage is built in as the game proceeds (at least until Axis can destroy one of them).

    More units in play at the outset, potentially prolongs the endgame, or encourages early resolution, depending on the luck of the draw in a given turn. For a more wild swing you can assign the bonus to numbered cards by their printed value rather than by suit. But I like the way it works with the floor at 7 ipcs, just for overall economic parity. Cursed diamonds hehe! But even those are a whole lot better than nothing. Another method is to split the deck into Black and Red suits and give one pile to each side Axis or Allies with Joker. Facecards at the values above. For all numbered cards: minor suit (diamonds/clubs) =9 ipcs, major suit (hearts, aces) =10 ipcs. This is slightly higher income, but also ensures both sides have an equal chance at drawing the same number of facecards.

    IPCs here could be assigned different values for the cards too, depending on player preference. Deuces Wild, Crazy 8s, whatever. But the basic idea is that your group assigns an ipc value to the cards in a standard deck, and then draw against each other for a bonus each turn. Similarly you can use a scheme like the above to award bonus units rather than cash, if that seems more interesting.

    Those are a bit long winded. Still trying to summarize, since the og post is eluding me, but we can trim it down later with internal links.

  • '17 '16


    Oh good! I swear I was looking everywhere for that cheaper boats thread, but I kept searching ships rather than “boats” lol. Hang around this place long enough, and you’ll find a ton of solid HR proposals. They’ve just been buried under the avalanche of time hehe. I got about 20 pages deep into this section, and my eyes started glossing over. I probably missed an ace thread or two.

    Those are a bit long winded. Still trying to summarize, since the og post is eluding me, but we can trim it down later with internal links.

    😄 😄 😄

    If you want to put friends together, quote my post and copy the link and comment within your own post.
    Then, I will erase mine. It will spare some room and keep things thematically together. If you wish.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    The best part is that it was right under my nose, in a link that I linked earlier, but I just blew right past it while searching around lol. Totally how I would opperate, wasting time with google, when I could have just followed the bread crumbs haha. For now I don’t mind some reduplication. Any links are good. This thread is helping me to necro some of the oldies, and get my head back in the game. One way or another, we’ll get this info to read at glance at some point.

  • '17 '16

    This post is about Defenseless Transport and ways to give some escorting defense value point.
    Some simply want to get back to Classic Transport (TP A0 D1 C8, 1 hit), or a weaker variant by keeping the taken last mechanic.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER: if you add 1 rule you have to remove 2 other rules
    January 30, 2017, 12:05:49 pm to still active…

    In this thread Black Elk and Baron had some input on TP as discussing 1942.2 ways to balance it.
    Game unbalanced?
    January 07, 2015, 09:15:18 pm to Reply #61 on: April 01, 2015, 09:26:09 am

    New Transport Defense
    September 13, 2017, 07:30:03 am to Reply #74 on: Today at 05:10:22 pm

    Der Kuenstler famous thread OP which contains many, many possible variants
    The aberration of the defenseless transport
    March 29, 2013, 10:24:39 am to Reply #433 on: July 16, 2016, 08:59:50 pm

    Let me start this off first with a quote:

    “All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward” - Glasgow

    For six editions and the first 24 years of AA history, the transport has cost 8 IPCs and defended @1. Starting with AA Guadalcanal, transports became defenseless (the unit pricing scheme was all different). In the 50th Ann edition, transports became defenseless and cheaper, costing 7 IPCs.

    I understand new rules create sales, so from a business standpoint, changing things is good. But IMO changing the transport rules hurt the overall game and here’s why:

    1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.

    Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.

    2. The 7 IPC rule makes amphibious assaults easier and cheaper.

    Honestly, this rule seems to have been added only because transorts were made weaker by the first rule. To me this is going in the opposite direction of the way it should. It’s already too easy to take islands like Okinawa and such with bombardment. Amphibious assults ought to be hard and EXPENSIVE - that’s why it took the allies so long to achieve one in Europe.

    OBJECTION: Transports defending @1 is unrealistic!
    ANSWER: how often in WWII were transports left completely alone? To me this defense value reflects smaller DD escorts, PT boats, AA batteries and such that would normally be in the vicinity of transports. Plus some transport vessels were lightly armed.

    VERDICT: I say they should have left transports the way they were!

  • '17 '16

    This post contains link to threads aiming at simplify aircrafts, Submarines, Destroyer and Transport interactions. Mainly, no need to bring DD to allow aircraft to hit Subs.

    This one works with OOB cost and includes related OOB rules from rulebook with visible changes from original rules.
    Introductory steps to use TPs, Subs, Destroyers and planes: simpler interactions
    July 01, 2016, 04:14:43 pm to  Reply #4 on July 04, 2016, 09:26:14 pm

    Inside this thread there is also many try at different cost structures.
    Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes
    September 14, 2014, 11:38:21 am to Reply #156 on: March 31, 2015, 10:52:53 pm

    This Der Kuenstler’s thread is about a balance issue on Destroyer blocking abilty against Submarine.
    Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
    August 28, 2014, 03:06:53 pm to Reply #91 on: February 05, 2015, 08:54:33 pm

    This thread explore which ratio should be better than 1 DD block all Subs.
    Also, contains a long list of all threads on Submarines in various forums.
    Alternative to OOB aircrafts, destroyers and submarine warfare in G40 and 1942
    March 31, 2014, 07:25:59 am to Reply #9 on: April 02, 2014, 06:03:21 pm

    Contains the many variations on Submarine’s rules. Main focus is on planes need DD or not to hit Sub.
    History of the introduction of the actual G40 OOB Subs rules
    March 24, 2014, 05:29:19 pm to  Reply #13 on: April 01, 2014, 09:18:58 am

    Earlier draft of Baron’s Submarine houserules to solve Sub padding fleet issue.
    Lasts posts contain many links to Youtube Documentaries on ATO DDs attacking Subs and Wolfpack.
    Sub vs planes w/w out DD: HR to limit subs-fodder and to keep equity
    January 16, 2014, 10:56:24 pm to Reply #36 on: July 08, 2014, 06:11:15 pm

    Basic principles of a new Sub Warfare House Rule (nSWHR), for review
    October 29, 2013, 09:23:32 pm to Reply #14 on: January 09, 2014, 12:29:47 pm

  • '17 '16

    I found this one, not exclusively on Cruiser.
    Maybe you were looking for it?
    You can place it with corresponding posts theme.
    Not enough time to seek into it but don’t want to loose either.

    Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order

    I’d like to start a general thread discussing this relationship in Axis and Allies: how blitz units can be used to exploit the turn order.

    Having explored various concepts on the G40 map, such as a variable turn order, and a totally collapsed turn order by side, and “same time” G40 where all nations move at once… it has become abundantly clear to me that the only way to come up with a workable system to vary turn order, or collapse the turn order, is to first come up with a way for players to make their own can-openers, rather than relying on their Allies to do so. What do you think about the way can openers are used in A&A?  And what do you think about how it effects the aesthetics, creating that checkerboard map? You know, where say Italy moves into a territory, then Germany moves to hold this space with infantry and fighters, while blitzing on through to the next space with their armor and mech… Gray, Brown, Gray, Brown etc. It seems to me that this is a huge part of Axis and Allies. Basically the rules about landing aircraft in newly conquered territories (prohibiting it), and the rules that describe the abilities of blitz units, combine to create this feature of the game. I think this is a metagame exploit that the turn order and the blitz rules encourage, but which is so foundational to the game going back to Classic, that everyone accepts it as just built in.

    What if the blitz rules were changed? So that turn order didn’t matter for game balance?
    Then you could actually explore different ways to approach turn order generally, like variable turn, or collapsed turn, or same time. Think about how Italian ground units can-open for Germany OOB. Or how German air can-open for Japan on the water. Or how America or China can-open for the UK. The turn order exploit is all over the place right now, and is built into the overall balance. To ever get beyond this, step one would be to eliminate the “ally can-opener”, and replace it with a “self can-opener” that you can run on your own combat turn, using your own armor. So for example, right now OOB, Italy takes Baltic States and then Germany blitzes through to take Leningrad, but what we need is for a way for Germany to blitz both by itself. Basically there is enough special stuff going on in G40, that I think you could justify having an entire phase or battle phase round called “Special Combat.” Then put Blitzing into that, in something similar to “sub surprise strike, or scramble, or sbr/intercept” some way for tanks and mech to “advance” out of the combat, and into an adjacent territory.

    The Blitz move would then feel more like a true blitz, and it would better capture the blitz concept, of rushing units forward in a kind of double combat, rather than having the action separated by a round of gameplay, and interjecting an ally into the equation. What do you think of the idea of allowing for “self can-openers” with Tanks? Also if you like the idea of the self can-opening Tank, what do you think about adding additional Blitz units?

    For example, it might be possible to allow such a blitz play with 1 unit type from each category: Land, Air, and Sea…

    Land: Armor = Land Blitz
    Air: Tactical Bomber = Air Blitz
    Sea: Cruiser = Naval Blitz

    In this final case with the cruiser, the naval blitz ability could make up for its cost relative to the destroyer, and would give it more of a reason to exist in the unit roster. The self can-opening blitz unit. If this could be done, then A&A could function under other turn order conditions, such as variable sequence of nations, or collapsed turn order by side, or same time play for all nations. These are all possible if new ways can be thought of to handle the Blitz/can opener. Right now I am curious to hear any general thoughts about how the can opener effects your G40 game/experience.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Now there’s a blast from the past, I hadn’t thought of in a while! Haha nice one.

    Guess I should put this link in here as well, since the blitz topic above mentions it.
    This idea was a total conversion of A&A to create “Same Time” combat conditions.


    In it we discussed the differences between Same Time, and a similar type of total conversion which has been proposed at various times (by Imperius Leader and others) for 2 turn game, All Axis vs All Allies. Same Time is rather more involved than All Axis vs All Alies, but some may find the idea worth exploring.

    At some point when I have a bit more time, I will organize all the turn order HRs into a single section. Right now I can think of 4 broad categories, based on how extreme the proposed HR change is to the concept of the normal game “turn.”

    1. Adjusted standard Turn order sequence, with otherwise OOB rules. Example: China First for G40, or American Zero Turn for 1942.2.

    2. Randomized start to the standard Turn order sequence. This would be all those HRs I’ve mentioned at various times, where the turn order for a given game is unique and determined by an initial roll. Not sure how much time I’d want to dedicate on this one, since so far the only one interested in the concept seems to be me haha.

    3. Collapsed turn order by sides, All Axis vs All Allies. This has been proposed a few times, so probably worth formalizing.

    4. And finally Same Time, ie no turn order, players conduct each phase simultaneously.

    I’ll edit in links when I find them, and try to summarize those rules for anyone who might be interested. Other Total Conversion ideas, not totally unrelated to the first idea of an adjusted turn order would include things like YG’s UK Pacific economy or Halifax ruleset.  Or any mods which take a ground up approach to redesign, introducing changes to both the rules and the proposed unit set up for a given board. Some of these have introduced a new standard turn order in the process. But I think the category there should probably be broader, like HRs for “creating new player nations” on a given board. Commonwealth or Vichy or Minor Axis etc could come under that umbrella

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 13
  • 11
  • 1
  • 18
  • 4
  • 7
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys