Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. arwaker
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 4
    • Posts 32
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by arwaker

    • RE: 1942.2 House Rules

      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.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: 1942.2 House Rules

      Minor Indistrical Complex can build 2 units. Price of each unit can be up to 10. So 2 Fighters Jets are possible, or 2 Cruisers.
      The 5 unit limit is hard for Major Complex, especially for UK. They must either invest much in Airforce or navy, or get a lot of Minors somewhere.

      I can not tell about any systematics in this setup. We played it only once, and it was fun. Germany invaded London, Russia and Australia killed Japan, finally US took back Africa and won the game.

      The general intention was to get rid of well known standard stategy. We want to give the players a variety of different options (Russian Offensive in the East, Japan invading Australia, Germany invading UK, heck even Japan invading Western US etc). I am very sure this first try is far far away from perfect, even far away from good. There are sure a lot of tactics better than others. Unfortunately only with your help, we will be able to find them and even them up with the weaker ones.
      I hate these standard maneuvers, sinking this navy in G1, stacking up there in R1 etc … We want fresh and new games, with uncertain outcome. And we want navy. Thats why we added all those additional ships to the board. We had quite a long time to balance the UK indian ocean navy. But we suck, our game experience is small, we play all those other games as well.

      Nevertheless, we would be happy if some of you pros would try this set of house rules, and tell us the opinion, and things to make better.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • 1942.2 House Rules

      Lately we played a few games of 1942 second edition after a long while.
      We were not so happy with the very scripted decisions players are bound to, to do the perfect opening. Games always are played very similar. Not enough variety.

      We did some thinking, discussed a lot, and finally wrote down this set of rules that we hope improves our gaming experience. We played it once since then, and it was quite fun. Now, as we are far from being pros, we thought it would help to improve balancing, if we ask others about their opinion. Maybe they even like our ideas. And if not, they could at least tell us their opinion about the balance, and how we could improve it.

      Three groups of changes: Victory City, Setup, Units

      We are curious for your opinion. We enjoyed it a lot and will definitevely keep playing and improving it.
      1942.2_House_Rules_rev1.0.pdf

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Industrial omplexes with reduced production capacity

      Nope

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • Industrial omplexes with reduced production capacity

      Hi,

      at the moment i am experimenting with a new ruleset for industrial complexes, and i am curious of what you think about it. The version i use is 1942, 2ed. The reduced production capacity forces players to build more of them (the reduced cost of the complexes compensates this a bit). Small isolated territories (like Tokyo or London) are now easier to conquer as they cannot throw out hordes of cheap Infantry. With the cheap Minor Complex, it might be worth building one in territories that normally dont get one (like in Africa or China or Australia). I hope for some completely new strategies (Sea Lion is now possible) and new hotspots of war. It should also lead to some more costly navy units and greater sea battles.

      Minor Industrial Complex - 8 IPC
      Can be placed in any territory with at least 1 IPC. Produces up to 2 units. No Bombers, Carriers or Battleships.

      Major Industrial Complex - +12 IPC
      Must be upgraded from a minor complex already under your control. Only in territories with at least 3 IPC. Produces up to 5 units.

      Other changes:
      Cruiser 10 IPC
      Battleship 18 IPC

      Starting Setup:
      Major Industrial Complex: US East, US West, Germany, Great Britain, Moscow, Japan
      Minor Industrial Complex: Italy, Caucasus, India

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Introducing Tactical Bomber and an evolved Fighter in a 1942 third edition?

      The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
      I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

      However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Introducing Tactical Bomber and an evolved Fighter in a 1942 third edition?

      Even the 2-2-8 Destroyer outmatches the 20 IPC Battleship. No great change here. Changing the Destroyer from 2-2-8 to 3-3-10 is in fact a small nerf for it (use calculator to prove that).

      However, I would of course appreciate 18 IPC for a Battleship, as this is is better balanced with the other navy prices.

      Destroyer 3-3-10
      Cruiser - kicked due to lack of specific role (more room in the box for regular units)
      Battleship 4-4-18
      Industrial Complex 12 IPC
      No changes to any of the rules or to other units.

      This would be my proposal for an imaginary 1942 .3rd Edition.
      (and of course some minor changes to the map and the initial setup)

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Baron Munchhausen's Complete Roster for play-testing with 2-planes carrier

      Above the other changes you made (which im not so cofident with) I’m interested in your decision to INcrease the cost of a transport.
      I think this hurts the Allies a bit more than the Axis power.

      A positive effect would surely be, that attacking islands (with only one territory) is easier (decreased cost of air and bombard), but it reduces player’s ability to do large seaborn invasions wich is a significant disadvantage for mainly the USA in Europe. Japan is not that much affected, as they can compensate the increased costs for Transports by industrial complexes.
      I dont like the fact that it even decreases th ability to try a Sealion operation.

      I think these changes have, all in all, the result that the amount of different strategies availible to players is decreased. It will result in a game that is more focused on Germany vs Russia and UK+USA vs Japan.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Cheapest but still balance warships and planes? Advanced Shipyard & Aircraft HR

      I can understand this “dogfight” thing, but I dont agree with you that such a rule would make fighters less useful. As it is both, an advantage and a disadvantage of fighters, I think a price of 10 is still appropriate. Air is so versatile, and reducing its costs would lead to people making even more of them.

      The introduction of a dogfight rule should not change any costs at all (except for the cruiser and battleship, both costs should be reduced by 2 anyway)

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Introducing Tactical Bomber and an evolved Fighter in a 1942 third edition?

      Imho 2 air is enough. I’d rather kick the cruiser (not having a unique role) and make the destroyer a3 d3 cost10 (with anti sub vessel). Back to the roots as in Revised.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Small setup modification G40

      What about giving the French IPC to Italy? All formerly French territories go to Italy, independent of who conquers them.
      However, one should keep in mind, that any IPC transferred from Germany to Italy is a small disadvantgae for the Axis Power, as Italy is significantly later in the turn oder (especially after UK).

      Therefore, another possibility to buff Italy would be to let them have their turn earlier.
      For example:
      1. Germany
      2. Soviet Union
      3. United States
      4. Italy
      5. United Kingdom
      6. France
      However, as this is a great advantage to the Axis, it should be adjusted by additional british navy in the med.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Victory condition for short games

      We also had (1942 2.ed) some test games with different victory conditions, and it was rather funny:
      A power needs 25 victory points to win the game. Victory cities come with 3, 2 or 1 victory points each.

      3 Victory Points:

      Eastern United States - Washington
      United Kingdom - London
      Russia - Moscow
      Germany - Berlin
      Japan - Tokyo

      2 Victory Points:

      France - Paris
      Italy - Rome
      Karelia S.S.R. - Leningrad
      India - Calcutta
      Kiangsu - Shanghai
      Philippine Islands - Manila
      Western United States - San Francisco

      1 Victory Point:

      Eastern Canada - Ottawa
      Brazil - Sao Paolo
      Norway - Oslo
      Ukraine - Kiev
      Caucasus - Stalingrad
      Egypt - Cairo
      Union of South Africa - Cape Town
      Manchuria - Beijing
      East Indies - Jakarta
      Eastern Australia - Sydney
      Hawaiian Islands - Honolulu

      Starting Victory Points:

      Axis Power: 18 VP
      Germany: 9 VP
      Japan: 9 VP

      Allies Power: 22 VP
      United States: 7 VP
      United Kingdom: 9 VP
      Soviet Union: 6 VP

      The Allies Power has at the beginning an advantage of 4 VP and only need 3 more VP to win. This opens up some new strategic possibilities to overwhelm unwary Axis players and end the game rather quickly. However, the capital cities like Berlin or Tokyo should be rather impossible to conquer (getting one of them would be sufficient) but some of the 1 VPC’s are quite exposed and easy to get, like Kiev or Jakarta.

      The Axis Power needs additional 7 VP (4 more than the Allies), which might look really imbalanced, but some of the Allies� Victory Cities are really simple to get (eg. Cairo, Honolulu). In this version the Allies players do not only have to defend Moscow and London, but also the rest of the world, which is totally different to normal games. Instead of the ordinary great battle in Europe, now the Axis also can strike at new areas. For example getting India, Karelia, Egypt, Australia and Hawaii is enough to win.

      Edit: Damn, i can’t find a proper color for UK…

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Boots On The Ground: A New Condition For Victory Version 1.0

      At least Italy seems to be rather correct:

      (Wikipedia) 42.994.000 (1936)

      This fact surprises me. I did expect less.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Boots On The Ground: A New Condition For Victory Version 1.0

      Italy more than France?
      Australia 7 Millions?
      China 0.8 Million?

      Those number don’t sound realistic to me.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: IPC Sea Zones

      I think that a shipping industrial production stuff needs a SZ to be free of enemy ships, not the presence of own ones. Therefore i think the convoy rules do a more realistic work.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Adjusting IPC income on 1941 map

      @Chiclet:

      One more thing:

      Aircraft carriers should not cost 12.  They are essentially worthless without a fighter or two so to make a them worth while you would need to spend a minimum of 22 IPC. way too much.

      I’d bump it down to 9.

      Dont think so. Imho they are already to cheap at 12. I don’t know why they reduced the price, as it was 14 before. Reducing this even more would make other naval units like battleships totally unnecessary.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Cruisers - Combined Arms

      Changing the costs of units are house rules afaik.
      The easiest “house rule” to get them on board would be: Cruiser 10 IPC, Battleship 18 IPC.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Cruisers - Combined Arms

      @Young:

      No offence taken… The reason I don’t like changing cost is because the oob costs for all units is engrained in our heads and players may think $12 no matter how many times you tell them their now $10. As for giving cruisers AAA capabilities, I can’t get around the idea of giving it to cruisers and not AC Carriers or Battleships.

      Well erm, the costs of specific units changed like about 10 times in the past editions. Therefore I can’t see a problem with changing some of them once more.
      Changing the gameplay rules of units is more of a problem, as it changes the setup. You get completely new possibilities to open the game (however, even if it sounds interesting, the more conservative players would never accept it). If you change for example the battleship rules from for “bad” to “good”, those battleships will totally turn around the first turns of the game. Maybe you will even change the overall balance of the game.
      The charming thing with only changing unit’s costs, is that it will in no way ever change anything with the starting setup of the game.

      Well, I’m not totally against changing the rules, but i like it as simple as possible, and I simply can’t understand your opinion on changing costs. Imho costs is the first thing one should consider to change, and only if this can’t give the specific unit its own niche, one should consider changing the rules.

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Cruisers - Combined Arms

      Have you considered, that improved shore bombardment helps the allies a lot more than the axis?

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • RE: Cruisers - Combined Arms

      I got a new idea considering the Battleship/Cruiser problem:
      I also dont like those complicated unit combination stuff rules. How could one make the Cruiser AND the Battleship worthwhile buys, and giving ANY sea unit it’s specific role, without too much complicated new rules?

      Cruisers should outfight destroyers. Without any change of the rules of cruisers and destroyers and keeping destroyer’s price the same (8). How much do cruisers need to cost to outfight a 8 IPC Destroyer? I did some simulations, and 9 IPC for Cruisers is the solution. Then it is a worthy buy as anti air platform AND as anti submarine ship (in combination with at least one Destroyer).

      Cruisers are now a rather useful allround warship, being able to rather face any threat.

      What are Battleships good in? Killing other surface ships. What are Battleships bad in? Moneuverability. How are Submarines destroyed? Throwing waterbombs on them. What is necessary for that? Moneuverability! => Battleships can’t shoot at submarines. Like Aircraft Carriers should also not be able to (unlike the fighters, they can drop waterbombs).

      Therefore, one can make Battleships the strongest over water unit at all, with the disadvantage of not being able to shoot Submarines. At a price of 18 IPC Battleships outfight Cruisers (costing 9 IPC) and any other surface warship, except submarines.

      After that, one can go like this:

      Submarines : No change
      Transports : No change
      Destroyers : No change
      Cruisers : Price dropped to 9 IPC
      Aircraft Carriers : Can’t shoot Submarines
      Battleships : Price dropped to 18 IPC; can’t shoot submarines

      What are your thpoughts about that? Would it make Battleships too stong vs air?

      posted in House Rules
      arwakerA
      arwaker
    • 1
    • 2
    • 1 / 2