AAP Rules for Axis and Allies
- by Sgt. Apone -
I've been kicking around an idea to make the Pacific count for something in this game.
The idea is this:
Play with 2 hit BB's.
Place a (unlimited production) IC and AA in Australia and make it an Allied capitol under the UK player's control. Capturing Australia counts toward the Axis victory conditions. When the UK player collects his income, it must be divided between Great Britain and Australia. Australia can only build at the Australia IC and can never build new ICs. Great Britain cannot build at the Australia IC. Australia and UK units move, attack and defend together. Once placed on the board there is no distinction between Great Britain's units and Australia's units.
The Allies choose one of their countries to receive a free IC to be placed in any territroy it controls during the 'place new units' phase of their first turn. (Australia cannot receive this IC - see above). This IC follows all the normal rules for new IC's. This IC does not count as a capitol.
Germany begins the game with Industrial Technology. Keep track of all SBR damage scored against German ICs. Once 20 IPCs of SBR damage have been accumulated against German ICs, Germany loses the IT. All SBR damage from any Allied country on any turn counts against this total.
The Axis scores 1 victory point for each 10 IPCs collected at the end of Germany and Japan's turns. If the Axis powers accumulate 50 victory points they win. If either Axis power fails to collect 1 victory point during their turn the Axis loses. For every 10 IPCs scored against an Axis IC during a single SBR the Axis powers lose 1 victory point.
Fighters can intercept and escort SBR's. (Use AAE rules).
During the first round of any combat, The Japanese player may declare before rolling that some, all, or, none of the Japanese fighters involved in the combat are going to make a Kamikaze attack. The Japanese player may use as few or as many fighters as they wish in this manner. The Japanese player must declare a target for each Kamikaze attack. Only surface ships are valid targets. If the fighter scores a hit in combat the hit must be scored against the target chosen by the Japanese player for that fighter's kamikaze attack. The fighter is removed from the game at the end of that combat round whether or not it scored a hit.
Russia receives one free Infantry for each IC they control at the beginning of their turn. These infantry must be placed at the Moscow IC. They are placed as new units at the end of Russia's turn.
US infantry attacks on a 2 when participating in an amphibious assault.
NOTE: If this sounds familiar, it's because a lot of it is inspired by AAP.
Sgt. Apone posted the following remarks:
Use the AAE/AAP battleship rules.
You could divide up Australia if you like. I didn't want to propose any map changes because I didn't think people would want to alter their gameboards.
My thinking is that the Commonwealth player divides up his income between UK and Australia as soon as he collects it at the end of his turn. My original idea was that the income could be split up any way the player chooses, however, I am now leaning toward the following: UK receives the IPC's for Great Britain and the Canadas. Australia receives the IPCs for Australia, India, and FBI. Africa IPCs and IPCs from captured territories can be assigned as the player sees fit.
Australia is not allowed to produce new ICs because I wanted Australia to be a distinct minor power and to play a major role in the Pacific. In this variant Australia's identity is achieved by making the UK player split up their income and spend it on opposite sides of the map. I didn't want Australia to build a new IC in India and start pumping units into Russia or Africa since Australia would lose any sense of distinction and would essentially become just another UK industrial complex.
The 20 IPC limit for the SBR's is just about right. I originally devised this idea as a balancing factor against the shuck-shuck (and most of the people on this forum trashed the idea as unworkable). 20 IPCs was chosen because it was high enough to force the Allies to spend some money on bombers early in the game to eliminate the IT but was low enough that a couple of lucky AA shots wouldn't clinch the game for Germany. It's tuned so that the Allies have a long-shot chance to eliminate Germany's IT on US 2 with an investment in bombers, and has very good odds of eliminating the IT by US 3. I felt that if Germany still had IT on Ger 4 that the Axis would probably win the game. Of course, that was in the absence of the other rules I proposed for this variant.
Yes, the free IC is a limited production IC. I don't think it favors the Allies too much. The Commonwealth player having to divide his income between UK and Australia and the US probably having to invest IPCs in the Pacific will really take some heat off of Germany, plus the German IT is a very potent. The free IC is intended to balance things out along with Japan hopefully sending less against Russia.
Germany and Japan earn victory points when they collect their income. So, if Germany collects 35 IPCs at the end of her turn Germany earns 3 VPs for the axis team. If Japan then collects 19 IPCs at the end of her turn Japan earns an additional 1 VP for the axis team.
If a Kamikaze scores a hit against a BB it is treated as any other combat hit. i.e. the BB would be crippled but not removed from the combat. The next combat hit scored against the BB during the same combat would destroy it. I think the fact that you have to pay 12 IPCs for the fighter will effectively limit the use of Kamikazes.
Think of the free Russian infantry units as representing the partisan troops Russia called up during the war. Did you see Enemy at the Gates? These are the poor schmucks Stalin plucked off the farm fields and threw directly into the front lines with little or no training and sometimes no weapons. Russia lost an incredible number of infantry fighting the Germans, yet always seemed to find replacements to fill the ranks. Of course, by the end of the war they were pressing women, old men, and 13 year olds into service. If you want to lower the free units attack and defense values you can, but I wanted to keep this variant down to a few fairly simple rules.
I think the US 'marines' are okay as far as game balance goes. Remember, Germany starts out with IT, the UK player has to split his income on opposite sides of the map, and the US will probably have to invest in a Pacific fleet. Think what this would do to a standard A&A game. The allies win through sheer economic advantage and most of the rules in this variant dilute the Allies economies by making them spend it on two different fronts instead of simply killing Germany first like they used to. This means fewer troops will be available to make the D-Day landing. I think the US needs this little bit of help to fight a two theatre war in A&A.
I tried not to introduce any rules or units to this variant that required new playing pieces. I wanted the variant to be able to be played using only the pieces that came with the game. If you have AAP or pieces from some other source you can use to represent the marines go ahead and use them. But in that case, why not go ahead and add in artillery and destroyers while you're at it? I won't stop you.
Giving the free IC to Russia would be a viable strategy. However, it might not be the best use of resources since it will probably have to be placed near Moscow to be safe and Russia doesn't have the economy to get the full production value out of it. Is one extra free infantry per turn better than giving the US a free IC in China or the UK an IC in India, Egypt, or South Africa? Remember, Australia has to be protected and the UK has to split up her income. The Allies might not get another chance to build an IC if they don't take the free one.
If I decided to give the free IC to Russia I would give serious thought to having Russia build yet another IC! With an extra 2 Infantry per turn it would sort of pay for itself in 2 and a half turns.
This rule first appeared in Don Rae's Axis and Allies Europe Forum: "New scenario to beef up the Pacific theatre" (May 2 2001).