I Don’t Need Your Damn Charity;

I Just Need the Axis and 40 IPCs

Caspian Sub Rules

Caspian Sub PP03, 2v0

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

_______________________________________________________

Paper Topic
Rules for enlightened Axis and Allies 4v0.
_______________________________________________________

Paper Summary
NOTE: There is a one-page version of the rules in the Zip file on the CSub
website.

Rule Changes
1. Thou shalt have a new technology take effect at the end of the turn on which it
was acquired.

2. Thou shalt not do more economic damage to an industrial complex than the
income value of the territory under attack. This is a per turn limit.

3. Thou shalt disallow any capital from being attacked with ground units until after
that power’s first turn. Bombing raids and strafing with air power are permitted.
4. Thou shalt use the Caspian Sub bid system (a “Name that Tune” system).
_______________________________________________________

Tournament Settings
1. Games will last for exactly six rounds of play.

2. Games will last no more than four hours.

3. If six rounds of play have not been completed in time, the slower team loses
automatically.

4. The game is decided by whoever controls the most IPCs of territory. Holding an
enemy capital at the end of play counts for a 20 IPC bonus.
_______________________________________________________

Rule Clarifications
1. AA guns fire at each plane individually.

2. Subs submerge before the decision to press a battle is made. You can not retreat
from a sea battle if the only enemy units left are submerged subs.

3. If a fighter spends all its movement points going to a sea battle, and the carrier
designated as its landing zone retreats, then the fighter is lost because it has no
landing place.

4. Sub abilities are operational any time an opposing destroyer is not on the battle
board.

5. In regard to transports, any "Combat movement" means ONLY combat

movement. The rule must be interpreted strictly. (see F.A.Q. 10 for examples)
_______________________________________________________

Details
What makes for a good set of rules?
A lot of arguments about how to play Axis and Allies sound like kids arguing over which
superhero is the strongest.

Jorge: “Superman’s the BEST.”

Oleg: “No, he’s totally gay. Green Lantern could make Kryptonite and rock his world!”
Gustav: “Marvel is WAY better than DC. DC is comics for kids, but Marvel is about a
group of sophisticated, individualized heroes with much more stylish costumes.”

Or it’s like when someone tells you figure skating is a sport. Now, I know for a fact that
if your outfit affects your score, then what you’re doing isn’t a sport. It may be athletic,
like ballet, but it ain’t a sport. Try having a rational debate about that with a girl,
however, and you’re likely to get stabbed with a skate.

These debates are real, but they are unlikely to resolve the issue in any meaningful way
because the issue is largely a matter of taste. So is the debate about how to play AA4 the
same kind of debate? Does the answer matter?

Well, if you study strategy, or you have a great, complicated plan you want to try, it
means you’ll be frustrated if the mechanics of the game keep changing. After all, who
wants to invest time studying a game where the rules change substantially every time it is
played? If every group has a different set of rules then the game play will suffer.

On the other hand, there are a few issues with AA4 as it comes out of the box. The sides
may not be perfectly balanced, the rules may be unclear or contradictory, and there are a
couple of rules that lead to major strategic exploitation. So let’s assume the game isn’t
perfect and some changes are necessary. What principles should guide the changes?
What constitutes a ‘necessary’ change? How can the changes be flexible enough to fix
the game without stifling new ways of playing the game?

We’re glad you asked. Here are the principles the renowned Caspian Sub uses. You will
find that these rules are wise, elegant, judicious, and damn sexy.
____

Rule Changing Principles

1. The Minimalist Principle: The minimalist principle says “Make the least changes
necessary to fix actual flaws in the game.” If someone who is good at the game with the
out-of-the-box rules becomes bad at the game using the new rules, you’ve changed the
game either too much, unnecessarily, or inappropriately. Part of this principle is that new
rules should follow the ‘spirit of the rules’ and not change basic game concepts.

2. The Market Principle: A bid system is the most precise game-balancing tool; a good
bidding market will result in a balancing remedy within 1 IPC of a perfect balance.

3. The Expertise Principle: Changes should encourage creativity and expertise, not just
reward brute force or simplicity. A good game balancer will add quality dimensions of
game play, not result in a Crane Kick* or empty rules with little strategic value.

*Crane Kick: If do right, no can defense. Mr. Miyagi said it, so it must be true.
____

The Minimalist Principle

1) Only fix what is truly broken.

I don’t like the neutral territory rules. In fact, I think they’re terrible. Why can a bomber
fly over 4 spaces of open ocean but not 1 space of the Sahara? And the first rule of
warfare in Europe is “Invade Belgium”. The current rules don’t allow those types of
activity. Likewise, I think many of the sub rules are needlessly complex. But you will
see that there is no mention of ‘fixing’ those rules in this document. That is because the
rules are not actually ‘broken’, meaning there is no major ambiguity in the rules, they
affect both sides equally, and there are no exploits that make the rules unusable. If it
ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

2) For general play, don’t pile on complexities for the sake of making the game more
‘real’ or just what you consider to be more ‘fun’.

When twelve-year-olds play chess, they always want to ‘fix’ the game by adding more
rules.

Eustace: Let’s give the knights lightsabers!

Boniface: SAWEET! And we should play on a multi-dimensional board.
Eustace: Of course. Wait, WAIT! What if the bishops were actually vampire
samurai that converted pieces instead of killing them?
Boniface: AWESOME! THIS GAME ROCKS!

Well, yes… In one sense I suppose it does, indeed, rock. But it’s no longer chess.
That’s one style of attempting to fix a game with needless complexity because the alleged
flaw is that the game should be more ‘fun’.

Another flaw occurs when people try to fix the game by making it more real, as in true-
to-life pieces. Subs are given (more) special abilities, destroyers are added and powered
up, new production rules are put in place, etc., all in the name of making the game ‘real’.
But here’s the thing: It’s a game. I shouldn’t have to know how to pilot a Russian Yak
just to move it on the board. Any game entails a level of abstraction, and it is very easy
to add more rules to the system that may seem more real in one sense, but which actually
violate the abstraction of the game.

Axis and Allies Pacific is a great example of rule proliferation with rules that are
ostensibly more fun and more real. It has been a few years since I played it, but off the
top of my head I remember rules like combat air patrol, naval bases, marines, the Burma
road, the winged monkey brigades, the Jim Neighbors Christmas Special, and on, and on,
and on. Sure, some of the rules may have manipulated the game to make it a bit more
‘real’, but is there still a strategy game under all that complexity? Not one I’d care to
play. Most of the changes are needlessly complex in terms of strategy. If the rule
doesn’t add depth of play, then the rule is a gimmick.

Of course, if you’re in the basement just playing with Boniface or Eustace, do whatever
you want. But if you want to be a tournament or club player, go with the Minimalist
Principle.

See Caspian Sub Policy Paper #06 on National Advantages for more on this topic.
The Market Principle
Let’s assume for the moment that people think one side has an advantage. How do you
determine which side is better, and then by how much? You could set up an internet poll
to get opinions, but they tend to be flaky – you may get a bad sample of users, you won’t
know which forum has the best participants, people may cheat in the poll, etc. In
addition, some groups of players will play styles that make the Axis look better; some
will play styles that make the Allies look better. And then, what if playing styles change?
You don’t want a rule change that will be out of date in 3 months.

But there is a system that can work independently of opinion: the bid. The bid is a
market system where you negotiate some advantage which will allow you to play the side
you think is disadvantaged. Here’s a sample:

[Jorge wins a die roll giving him the first bid]

Jorge: I can play as the Axis and win if you give me 30 IPCs.
Oleg: I can play as the Axis and win if you give me 17 IPCs.
Jorge: I can play as the Axis and win if you give me 14 IPCs.
Oleg: I can play as the Axis and win if you give me 13 IPCs.
Jorge: Fascist dog! You may have your accursed Axis with 13 IPCs!

So now, presumably, both sides think the game is fair. If Jorge didn’t want to give Oleg
13 IPCs he could have bid lower. If Jorge thinks the game is balanced without the bid, he
could have started the bid at 0. Then Oleg could either accept the bid or have IPCs go to
the Allies saying, “I can play as the Axis and win and give the Allies 1 IPC.”

Bid Units
So now that we know we want a bid system, we need to determine what to bid. You
could use a bid of pieces, such as “I’ll take the Axis and 2 destroyers”, or 8 infantry,, etc.
and your opponent would then bid fewer numbers of whatever the bid unit is. But that is
a fairly clumsy tool. One major advantage of using an IPC bid market is that the
difference between the ‘perfect balance’ for the two players and the final bid is only 1
IPC. A bid unit other than IPCs is unlikely to resolve the discrepancy of balance
between the powers at a precision better than 1 IPC. Bidding rule changes such as
Russia Restricted or the National Advantages leads to a market where it is very difficult
to get a perfect or flexible balance. And if the players disagree how strong a rule change
would be, then one side is likely to be unhappy with the bid.

Now that the Market Principle has led us to a bid of IPCs, we must decide how those
IPCs are used. That leads us to:

The Expertise Principle

The expertise principle entails making the game about creative skill, not just dice and
brute force. So if the game allows a technology like rockets to be so strong that is it the
only realistic strategy to use, then the game requires less expertise; everyone just buys
rockets and throws dice.
Now apply that concept to the bid. There are a couple of ways you could use the bid
IPCs. You could force the winner to divide the money evenly between his teams; you
could ration the money and say that only 5IPCs of bid money can be spent per turn; etc.
Each system has pros and cons, but our basic principles will help indicate the form the
system should take.

Giving straight IPCs to the team’s powers is one option. But does that lead to greater
expertise? Likely not – the result would be that the player would probably keep doing
what he would do without the bid, he would just do more of it. That is a game balancer,
but it does not add a quality dimension of play.

What if the winner of the bid is allowed to buy units before the game starts and place
them on the board? Any money not spent could be given to any of the team’s powers.
This certainly adds an expert element to the game: 8 IPCs can buy an infantry and a tank,
a transport, 2inf and then 1IPC to each Axis power, etc. A player could customize his
placement based on his style. Does this violate the Minimalist Principle? Yes and no.
Yes, in that it will change the layout of the board. But because the bid will be used
efficiently (pieces start the game on the board instead of having to be purchased), it will
keep the bid lower, which would be in compliance with the Minimalist Principle.
Furthermore, if a bid winner is restricted to placing only one bid-unit per territory,
the system will encourage creativity without dramatically unbalancing one area of the
game.

Bid Format
You know you want a bid, what should it look like? There are many ways you could
settle on the bid. You could have each player pick the side and the bid. You could do
blind bids. You could settle on a bid amount and then assign teams randomly. Here is
the simple solution Caspian Sub recommends: use a “Name that Tune” format for
playing as the Axis. For those who are too young to remember (or had better things to
do with their time), Name that Tune was a game show in the 70’s. The host would give a
clue about a piece of music, and the contestants would bid for who could name the song
with the fewest notes being played from the start of the song. So if contestant Reginald
said, “I can name that tune in 8 notes”, and contestant Lucida said, “I can name that tune
in 7 notes”, and Reginald said, “I can name that tune in 6 notes”, and Lucida said, “Name
that Tune”, then Reginald would hear the first 6 notes of the song and then have to give
the song’s title. It’s a bid format that is familiar to many people and it requires little
explaining, so we recommend the “Name that Tune” format.

Since the Axis has been widely identified as the disadvantaged team, the bid should be to
see who can win as the Axis with the fewest extra dollars. Start the bid with “I can play
as the Axis and win with 20 IPCs” and work the number down until someone refuses to
go any lower.

Caspian Sub Bid Rules

Taking the basic principles above and a few options for the bid, here is the full bid
system:

1. Roll for high roll to see who gets the first bid. (In casual play, if players have played
before then the loser of the previous game gets the first bid.)
2. The player with the first bid says “I can play as the Axis and win with X IPCs.”, where
X is the number of IPCs the bidder receives to play as the Axis.
3. The other player either lets the first player have the bid or counters with a bid that is
smaller than the first bid such as, “I can win with the Axis and X-2 IPCs.”
4. Keep going until a bid is accepted. If the bid goes to zero, then the bid money starts to
go to the Allies. The bid becomes “I will play as the Axis and give the Allies X IPCs.”
Counter bids then become higher values given to the Allies. You are always bidding to
play as the Axis. Of course, if you think the Axis have an advantage, just start by saying
“I can win with the Axis and give the Allies 0”.
5. Once the bid is accepted there is a pre-game bid placement turn. Whoever is getting
the IPCs may buy units to place on the board or keep the cash in hand.
a) Unit costs are normal (i.e. 3 IPCs per inf, 5 IPCs per tnk)
b) Land units can be placed in any territory a power controls
c) Naval units can be placed with other naval units or in territories adjacent to a
power’s land
d) There is a limit of 1 bid piece per territory.
e) Powers cannot put their units in another power’s territory (i.e. no German
pieces start in Japanese territory)
f) IPCs do not have to be spent on units. IPCs not spent on units can be given to
any of the team’s powers.
6. Play starts as normal with the Soviets.
____

Other Rule Changes:

Technology Restriction
1. Thou shalt have a technological advance take effect at the end of the turn on
which it was acquired.

Technology is very cheap in AA4. In previous AA versions, much more luck was
involved since a tech could not be targeted for research. Going for tech was almost
always a desperation move, and the desired tech was almost always heavy bombers. But
since tech is cheap in AA4, and there are substantially more planes on the board, LRA is
much more potent. The upshot is that most of the games the Caspian Sub group played
were ending with a) one team getting LRA and sacking a capital or b) one team going for
LRA, not getting it, and having their game implode.

This is a lot of weight to put on one throw of the dice. You could argue that surprise is a
very natural element in war, and I’d say that is true. But is that level of surprise
something you want in a strategy game which takes several hours to play? If the winner
of the game is usually decided in the fourth round by a single throw of dice, then it’s a
game I’d not want to play much.
There are many remedies that could be proposed, but the Minimalist Principle change to
the game is to leave the techs unmodified but delay their implementation. Successfully
researched techs take effect at the end of the turn they were acquired. That prevents
surprise heavy bombing, surprise LRA, surprise destroyer bombardments, etc.

See Policy Paper #16 for more information.

____

Economic Damage Restriction

2. Thou shalt be limited to doing total economic damage to an industrial complex by
the value of the territory under attack. This is a per-turn limit.

The Box Rules are rather ambiguous on several points of economic damage. Suffice it to
say that if there is no limit on economic damage, then Europe should be a thicket of anti
aircraft guns and Germany shouldn’t collect a paycheck after rnd 3.

Again, there are several potential remedies (even such as arguing that Germany should
just get their own tech and hit Russia), but the fundamental character of the game is
changed by this rule exploit. If each territory with an industrial complex can only be
bombed and rocketed for a maximum of the territory’s value on a given turn, then this
exploit is greatly minimized without the economic damage factor being entirely removed.

Example: If you have 4 rocket attacks and 5 successful bombing raids on Berlin all
conducted during one UK turn, the maximum damage is 10 IPCs. The limit is per
territory, so 10 IPCs could be destroyed from Berlin, and separate attacks in Rome could
do up to 6 IPCs damage for a total of 16 IPC on one Ally’s turn. On one round of play
both the UK and the US could inflict this damage for a total of 32 IPCs.
____

Capital Restriction
3. Thou shalt disallow any capital from being attacked with ground units until after
that power’s first turn. Bombing raids and strafing with air power are permitted.

The reason for this rule is to fix a flaw in the game setup. Using out of the box rules,
Germany could take London on turn one a little more than 50% of the time. All Germany
would have to do is get LRA (Long Range Aircraft) – a 76% outcome with 8 tech rolls –
and then throw everything at London. That would win about 70% of the time for an
overall likelihood of about 52%.

Now, you could try to remedy this by saying the Russians would just have to land
fighters in London rnd 1, or that it may not be so bad if London falls because it might be
liberated by the US. Or Germany might fail in the tech roll and their game would fall
apart. It is a risk/reward problem.

But is that a good strategy game? The dice will dramatically decide the game before the
middle player (UK) even gets a turn. A game that is decided in less time than it takes
to set up the board is probably not worth playing.

Using the Technology Restriction Rule does minimize this problem substantially, but a
new result occurs: the bid would become capped at 15 IPCs. No one would let the
Germans put two transports in the water, so a relatively-low, artificial cap would be in
effect. It’s a Crane Kick. Notice that Berlin is theoretically threatened if the Soviets
receive a massive bid in the Baltic (extremely unlikely, but better to consider it), and
Washington DC could be hit by a big German bid in the Atlantic. This rule change will
make sure that no matter how crazy the bids may get, each player will have at least one
round to purchase units.

So there is an actual design flaw, or oversight if you prefer, that needs remedy. There are
a variety of ways to attempt to handle it, but the simplest way is to outlaw capturing a
capital before that power has a turn. A capital can be bombed and strafed with air power,
but it can’t be captured until that power has had a turn.
____

Tournament Rules
If you are playing one game of Axis in your basement, the rules listed above should give
you a good total domination game. Most of the core Caspian Sub editors love to play
total domination games with no time limit. You play until your opponent says, “Please
take your foot off my wind pipe.” But if you are playing with less time, such as in a
tournament where you need to get a certain number of games played in the weekend, then
you need rules to deal with time limits and victory conditions.

This is a tough issue, and, frankly, every method to resolve the time problem will have
some substantial flaw. This is the current favored option from Caspian Sub.

Tournament Rule 1. Games will have exactly 6 rounds of play.

Some of the major tournaments have a time limit on the game but no round limit. The
first problem with not having an exact round count is that it leads to an interesting
problem: if the Allies take time to ramp up their game, then a short game favors the Axis
and a long game favors the Allies. Players could play slow or fast depending on which
team they end up playing. While most gamers are pretty honest guys and won’t
intentionally abuse this rule, it is an unnecessary ambiguity. Setting a number of rounds
removes any temptation to try and influence the round count.

Second, some strategies and bids are good for a five round game while others are good
for a seven round game. I’m pretty sure that as an Allied player that I can crack W.
Europe in almost every seven round game I play. With a five round game it is
questionable. So how can I bid accurately if I don’t know how long the game will last?
Advanced play requires knowing the parameters of the game, not arbitrary use of the
clock.

Third, you can change the number of rounds from 6 to any number you want, but keep
these guidelines in mind:
A) Establish the number of rounds before the bids are made. 6 rounds is standard.
B) If you don’t have enough rounds in the game then there won’t be time for players to
differentiate themselves; most boards will look very similar after only two or three
rounds. In six rounds you should be able to see who knows what they are doing with
logistics and strategy.
C) If you try to play too many rounds in a set amount of time, the game won’t be much
fun; it won't be strategy, it will just be throwing dice without time to think.

Tournament Rule 2. Games will last no more than four hours.

That sets up a game where each full round lasts 40 minutes, so each power gets an 8
minute turn. That moves at a pretty good clip.

Again, while the standard game is four hours, you can change the four hour limit to be
whatever you want. Keep in mind, though, that if the time is too short the game will be
less skilled, and if the game is too long you will have people sitting around after a quick
victory.

Tournament Rule 3. If six rounds of play have not been completed by the end of the
allotted time, the slower team loses automatically.
This is not as hard to manage as it sounds. Here is the easy method:

You need one, basic digital clock for the tournament (only pay attention to minutes, not
seconds). Hang it where everyone can see it. (If it is a big tournament, either have a
couple of clocks around the room or have one of the players donate their watch for the
game.) Set the clock’s time to 12:00, and when the clock reaches 4:00, the game is
over.

Of course no one wants to do a ton of work, so here is how you easily record time: each
game has a game sheet (included in the ZIP file for this Paper). All you have to do is
officially end your turn by writing down the time shown on the main clock when you are
done. Then subtract the end time of the last turn played to calculate your turn length. It
takes all of two seconds. If you are a player that records IPCs on paper at the end of
each turn, then recording time will be quite simple.

Here is what the top of the game sheet looks like through Germany’s second turn. Text
in RED represents items written in by the players; black text is the text already filled in
for you.
______________________________________________________________

Game #03
Team One: Sihr Togg and Jessica Alba Playing as: Allies
Received bid: 0
Team Two: Squirecam and Bea Arthur Playing as: Axis
Received bid: 9
Bid use: 1inf Ukraine, 1tnk Kwangtung, 1IPC Germany

Est. Actual
Progress Time Time Turn Length
R1 12:08 12:06 6
G1 12:16 12:20 14
B1 12:24 12:25 5
J1 12:32 12:32 7
A1 12:40 12:41 9
R2 12:48 12:44 3
G2 12:56 12:54 10
B2 01:04
J2 01:12
Etc.
______________________________________________________________

So, from that sheet you can see if you are on pace to finish your game in four hours or
not. You also will know you are taking too long if you have too many turns that last
more than 8 minutes.

If the game still does not end on time, at that point the judges take the sheet, add up all
the Allied turns, all the Axis turns, and divide by the number of turns each team played.
Whoever has a higher number (slower play) loses. Ties are awarded to the Axis because
the Allies have 3 turns for every 2 Axis turns, so they have more control over the pace of
the game.

The goal, however, is to avoid ever having the game end by running out of time. Since
the estimated time is provided for you, you should know if you are on pace or not. If you
are behind the estimate, just make sure your turns are faster than your opponent’s until
you are back on pace.

The key to this system is to make sure that you finish your turn by writing your time
down on the time sheet. Good sports will remind their opponents to fill out the game
sheet, but it is each team’s responsibility to fill out the sheet in a timely manner.
Good tournament managers will announce reminders to fill out time sheets for the first
few turns. But if you forget to write down a time, the clock keeps running until you do
so; ultimately it is your own responsibility.

4. The game is decided by whoever controls the most IPCs of territory. Holding an
enemy capital at the end of play counts for a 20 IPC bonus.

When six rounds of play are complete, count up the territory of each team. Add 20 IPCs
in addition to the value of the capital for each enemy capital occupied by a team.
Whoever has a greater total wins the game. Ties go to the Axis since the Allies start
with more territory.
You know exactly when the game will end, so play to that end point. Don’t position your
troops to take Moscow on round seven and then complain that the game ended round six;
you knew when the game would end when you started, so play according to that deadline.
_______________________________________________________

FAQ
1. Why one piece per territory restriction in the bid?
Because of the minimalist principle. Placing 4 bid infantry in Ukraine would change the
fight to or from the Ukraine dramatically, whereas 4 bid infantry placed one each in
Ukraine, West Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans would change each of those
territories only slightly.

2. Why is the economic damage limit a per-turn limit instead of per-round

limit? I.e. Shouldn’t Japan and Germany only be able to bomb Russia for a
total of 8 between them instead of 8 each?
Minimalist Principle – We’re only trying to fix the rule exploit, not remove the economic
factor in the game. The other consideration is more practical: it would be little fun to
keep a running account of who-bombed-what-when. Sometimes pragmatism is the
principle that wins out.

3. Why is there the restriction on not placing bid German pieces in

Japanese territory?
Again, the minimalist principle applies. Cross-placing units would be a gimmicky game
balancer that a newbie would almost certainly never think of. Also, that would be unlike
anything else at the start of the game; the Minimalist Principle includes maintaining the
spirit of the game, and cross-placement is certainly unlike the game setup.

4. Why not use a Russia restricted option?

Because it violates everything we believe in. See Minimalist P., Creativity P, Market P.
That’s also an AA3 type of fix.

5. Why not use the National Advantages listed in the rules to balance the
game?
Because those rules suck with a mighty sucking power. See the Caspian Sub Policy
Paper #06 on National Advantages and you’ll never ask the question again.

6. If I think the Axis have the advantage, how do I reflect that in the bid?
A) You are wrong and you should be beaten with a terrible rain of blows.
B) You can always start with a bid like “I can play with the Axis and win with 5 IPCs”
to see if your opponent goes for it. Keep bidding lower until you get what you want.
You might as well see if you can gain an advantage rather than giving the advantage
away immediately.
C) If you are a pure believer in the Axis might and you refuse to start with high bids,
start with the bid-to-Allies bid style, “I can win with the Axis and give the Allies 3 IPCs.”
7. Why not use the Victory Cities (VC) win conditions?
There are a couple of problems with VC wins. The first issue is that it creates a game
that looks really different from a domination game. Suddenly India becomes the
equivalent of a fourth Allied capital. Manila alone could win the game. The VCs don’t
really give an accurate picture of the whole game.

Second, what makes VC wins better than an economic win? Do the VCs really indicate
how well a side is doing? For instance, what is a better indicator of game status: who
controls India or who controls Novosibirsk? An argument could be made by the
minimalist principle that VCs are in the rules so they should be used. However, if you
are attempting to run a game that looks like a total domination game, then VCs actually
skew the game more than represent a domination win. Economic status is a closer
indicator of the game.

Third, and most importantly, a VC count won’t fix the problem of having long games.
Here’s why: the bid by nature is self balancing; if one side can get 9VCs easier than the
other, the bid will adjust until both sides have an equal chance at winning. Thus the
game will be no shorter.

8. Why don’t you just use the Larry Harris Tournament Rules (LHTR)?
Larry made some changes that we think are pretty decent and he’s certainly making
strides to improve the game. However, most of the changes seem somewhat arbitrary and
there is no guiding theme behind his changes. Caspian Sub Rules strive to be as close to
the box rules as you can be while still fixing actual flaws in the game. Our goal was to
have simple, effective changes, not to rewrite the game. All our changes fit easily on one
page (see the Files section for the one-pager).

9. Why do subs get to submerge before the attacker can retreat?

If the attacker gets to retreat before the subs submerge then the attacker gets to make two
“attack actions” before the defender gets one. Here is an easy way to think of the
sequence:
1. Attacker initiates an attack round (by combat movement or by deciding to stay another
round) or the attacker retreats.
2. The combat round (dice throwing and casualties) is resolved.
3. Subs submerge.
4. Repeat.

10. What do you mean by any "combat movement" is ONLY combat

movement in the rules clarification?
This has to do with how transports work. If a unit is loaded onto a transport, and the
transport goes to a battle in open water with no amphibious landing point, then the land
unit is not doing "combat movement" when it is loaded on to the transport. Therefore the
loading was illegal during combat movement.

A similar argument is made for retreating from an amphibious assault when the naval
territory is not cleared; the ground troops are stuck on the transports after the retreat
because unloading would be non-combat movement but the units already were involved
in a combat movement.

You have to really apply the concept of combat movement and non-combat movement
very strictly to play the rules correctly.
_______________________________________________________

Version and Unresolved Issues

2v0 Date: 8/1/06
Notes: Addressed time-limited problem. Deleted appendix on time-limited options. Add
a couple of rule clarifications.
1v0 Date: 3/9/05
_______________________________________________________

Appendix A - Jorge and Oleg Part I

House Rules
Oleg: Alright, let’s get the game on. Do you guys use any house rules around here?
Jorge: Well, pretty much just the basic rule changes with a couple of modifications.
Oleg: Let’s hear it.
Jorge: Do you use Smith’s ‘Paratrooper Rules’?
Oleg: Sure.
Jorge: Ok, we do too. We also put a little twist on it. If all of Germany’s planes are
destroyed then they are able to build the ‘Visigoth Catapult’. It allows one infantry to be
launched up to 3 spaces away. They fire for a round and then die.
Oleg: Oh, kind of like Kaiten Torpedoes.
Jorge: Kind of, only this is cooler. This is the ‘Visigoth Catapult’.
Oleg: Ok. Anything else?
Jorge: Yes. We didn’t think there were enough spaces in the board once the Allies get to
Germany so we use the Holy Roman Empire expansion map.
Oleg: Fiefdoms of 1157AD or fiefdoms of 1036AD?
Jorge: Man, around here you won’t find ANYONE using the fiefdoms of 1157. That
map is retarded.
Oleg: [Under his breath] You’re retarded! That map is sweet…
Oleg: Good enough. What else?
Jorge: Once per game the German player may call upon the Dread Lord Cthulhu and a
Shroud of Darkness descends on Europe. The SOD imparts a spiritual malaise to the
whole region.
Oleg: Shroud of Darkness. Check.
Jorge: When the SOD is in place the Allied player can only roll using the black dice.
Oleg: Is there anything special about the black dice?
Jorge: Yes. They’re black.
Oleg: …
Oleg: …
Oleg: …
Oleg: …
Oleg: ...ok.
Jorge: The SOD can be lifted only when a Russian Orthodox Priest enters into battle
bearing the Bane of Orem B’Shamba.
Oleg: Bane of Orem B’Shamba. Got it.
Jorge: Other than that we just use the standard rule mods.
Oleg: ‘Return of Merlin’?
Jorge: Yup.
Oleg: ‘Prester John’s Hip Hop Kingdom’?
Jorge: Yup. There’s no other way to get Rhodesia into the game. What about ‘Benito
Mussolini: Lord of the Dance’ and ‘Hermann Goering’s Pilonidal Cyst’?
Oleg: Both of them, sure. I hear that Avalon Hill and Sony are going to come out with a
game for PS2 called ‘Il Duce’s Dance Dance Revolution’.
Jorge: I’d buy that for sure! What about Team Leyner rules like ‘Boutros Boutros
Boutros Boutros’ and ‘Honey, I Shrunk the Children of a Lesser God’?
Oleg: We usually skip that rule set. It’s a little too much Milli and not enough Vanili, if
you know what I mean.
Jorge: Um… yeah. Yeah, totally. I get your point. Waaaay too much Milli.
Oleg: Do you do anything with the convoy rules? Like the mod ‘Das Booty Call’?
Jorge: Not really.
Oleg: Ok, I can live without it.
Jorge: What about ‘Ninja Guy’? Do you guys use ‘Ninja Guy’?
Oleg: Oh yeah! We love ‘Ninja Guy’! Who do you know that doesn’t use ‘Ninja Guy’?
Jorge: My cousin, Eustace.
Oleg: Dude’s confused.
Jorge: Dude’s name is Eustace. Not using ‘Ninja Guy’ is the least of his problems.
Oleg: True that.
Jorge: Ok, what about ‘Billy Joel: Panzer Commander’?
Oleg: Yes, and ‘Liza Live: Can’t Stop that Freedom!’.
Jorge: Lately we’ve been using ‘The Preincarnation of the Village People’, where a
singing cowboy, construction worker, Indian chief, sailor, policeman, and leather guy all
travel back in time to fight Hitler, armed only with luxurious mustachios and funkitude’.
Oleg: I’m cool with that one. How about ‘It’s the Third Reich, Charlie Brown’?
Jorge: We only use it if we’re also using ‘The Muppets Take Manila’ and ‘Willy Wonka
at War: Oompa Loompa Factory’.
Oleg: I’m good with that. What about ‘Run DMC versus Tojo’ and ‘Turn your Head
and Cough, Dwight Eisenhower’?
Jorge: Always. And also ‘Yentl Ends Auschwitz’.
Oleg: Fine. What about ‘Let the Machines Hear us Dance!’, wherein we learn that all of
WWII was nothing but a sim run inside the Matrix by Neo and Morpheus just before the
rave in Zion?
Jorge: YES! YES! I love that mod! That’s my favorite mod!
Oleg: Well, it sounds like we have a game. Let’s set up the board.
Jorge: Yeah, I’ll explain the other rules as we go along.
Oleg: Cool.
Jorge: Alright, I forget, how many infantry start in Ukraine?
Oleg: Four.
Jorge: Thanks.