AARHE Player's Set Up Aids - IL… Need Your Help

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.

Just finished a game with the Europe only setup. Had to make a few modifications (changed the artillery piece in Paris to a tank and the artillery in Western Germany to a mech; pulled a few subs/tanks from my 1941 game) due to the Germany setup requiring more pieces than the game comes with. Other than that, had an absolute blast, definitely seemed balanced. Thanks.

@knp7765:

@Der:

We play where subs do not attack one another or have any effect on one another on the map or on the battleboard.

What if you have a naval battle involving two large fleets with subs on both sides?

You just say “subs can’t hit planes OR SUBS” and play it out. If there ends up being only subs left, the battle ends - put the subs back out on the map.

1945 February 6- The Royal Navy submarine Venturer became the only submarine to sink another submarine while they were both submerged when she sank U-864 off Norway. In all the naval action of the whole world war this only happened once! I think you could say realistically it shouldn’t happen on the scale od Axis and Allies.

As far as limiting the subs, IMO they should be limited. Their primary role historically was convoy raiding, and they now only cost 6 IPCs.

@Cmdr:

Yea, but I just dont see tanks having the ability to hit bombers and fighter/tbombers.  Maybe tanks can select any ground unit they want to hit, but then to rebalance, prohibit them from hitting aircraft.

Yes, my intent was to limit the targeting to ground units. The other units not directed by the general could hit aircraft in the first round if the defender does not have enough fodder. The planes could be hit in the second round of combat by anything as normal.

Thanks Tekkyy

I got to say that the introduction of the National Objectives concept, was a stroke of genius imho.
Now, the game, through the NO Bonus Incentives, push the players towards their historical aims.

Anyhow, as with any setup, I think that even with the NO setup, AA50 might go stale over time.
Also, not ALL historical strategies are being encouraged by the OOB NOs. What about the German Sub strat, for example? It is not shown in any NOs at least.

Therefore, I thought of the Variable NO concept. It runs like this :

We create a list of, say, 5-10 NO’s per Nation (not possible to create even THAT many for a nation like China, for example). Before the game starts, every nation rolls randomly to see what NO’s they get.

1 NO: China
2 NO’s each: Italy and Soviet Union
3 NO’s each: Germany, Japan, UK and US

I like the thought of China having their own NO/NOs, but of course, they could be incorporated into the US one.

What’s your thought? Or maybe you got some NO’s of your own?

@Sergente_nella_neve:

That’s all. What do you think about this?  :-D

its not good if defender chooses, its also not good if attacker chooses
your hybrid system should be fun to play

@Imperious:

which ones are outdated? i was talking about revised specifically and not Milton Bradley.

no.1 and no.5
no.1 - we got rid of the system that separates naval units into classes
no.5 - only targeted attack when undetected and 1st cycle only, replacing the old screening system yeah I know and I agree with you about the transport unit

no we don’t need LHTR, because they uses different victory conditions and has different takes because its tailored for Tournament games. Our rules superseed LHTR EXCEPT for issues that we don’t clarify, that document overrides.