House rule suggestions



  • 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?

    1. Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.

    2. 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?

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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.


  • 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    You’ll find many of these problems addressed in the House Rule section.


  • 2017

    @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? I will comment on your points but from the perspective that I mostly agree with the OOB rules as is.

    1. Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.  I do not have not problem with this. But for the sake of discussion regarding “rationality,” keep in mind an amphibious assault represents a fight for a beachhead which could be a mile inland. Constant troops are coming ashore and fighting for an island or an area as deep as possible, think Sword or Juno Beach, not Omaha, plenty of room to direct or indirect artillery fire at enemy positions.

    2. 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? Destroyers are fairly fast moving and maneuverable ships. They had a better anti-sub capability than the others; Therefore, in a giant sea zone, several hundred if not thousands of square miles, it plausible that they could rise up and launch a few torpedoes, submerge and then retreat.

    3. It does not make much sense that scramblers are defenders, especially in some cases involving tac bombers. I don’t understand your reason?

    4. 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. That’s just part of the game as a way to give Japan one last ditch advantage to prevent a bombard. From a realism sense, the boats would all help support against the Kamikaze attack and still setup for a bombardments in between Kamikaze strikes.

    5. 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. You can. Fight for the control of the sea zone with a destroyer prior to the end of your turn.

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



  • @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?

    1. Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.

    2. 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?

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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
  • 10
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts