OK i have restored the vitality of this thread and removed anything that could be considered to impede the threads progress.
From now on Flashman:
No more questions with your sence of humor thrown in. If you comment on it only do so with the context of what you deem a valid question rather than a “disagreement” of some subjective nature ( the Soviet icon is round and it “SHOULD” be this and such)
I will not indulge you with any further taunts to the extent that your answer will include something more than its answer.
Craig:
Stay away from any threads unless you want to add to the discussion.
ok now get back to discussion-
I gave Craig the boot. I don’t let people just “show up and crash parties anymore” Craig didn’t bother to post anything about what he thinks about the game but rather to facilitate problems akin to adding salt to wounds. The party was as much yours as it was mine and everybody who posts in it. I don’t think our differences really meant much anyway. I just grow a little tired of some of these “questions”
Craig added nothing but additional baggage and problems to an otherwise decent thread.
don’t worry and lets move forward. 8-)
BTW: If i was you id get rid of having my name below your picture.
@Imperious:
I gave Craig the boot. I don’t let people just “show up and crash parties anymore” The party was as much yours as it was mine. I dont think our differences really meant much anyway. I just grow a little tired of some of these “questions”
Craig added nothing but additional baggage and problems to an otherwise decent thread.
don’t worry and lets move forward. 8-)
BTW: If i was you id get rid of having my name below your picture.
thats a bit abusive of your powers isn’t it?
No not really. The thread is more important for others ( not only us). Moderators need to constantly put threads back in order to keep them on track and avoid them turning into popcorn. You have posted in PD haven’t you?
can you can flashman just get a life. both of you make maps differently. you can’t change the other’s opion so please stop bickering you two. just be the better person and ignore the other.
That is what were doing. Did you read my other post?
okay sorry
F;ashman posts:
For this post I’ll refrain from commenting on the map, except to ask why Eire has a Union flag printed on it?
MINUS POINTS
(Note that these are not all criticisms, just a comparison with how I’d do things.)
China added as independent power. Can’t buy the idea of China building battleships. Even if we use the fiction of a United China, it was far from an industrial power. I much prefer the idea of rival Chinese factions controlled by the USSR and USA respectively.
As you now know they don’t have any ships except the one destroyer and transport that comes with the game . They dont start with any and if they even decided to build a ship it would be blown up by Japan
No Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is essential if you want a game playing out anything like WWII.
This is the same as revised. But incidentally they only stipulation of that agreement in a historical perspective was to stay clear of each other. At any point either could attack the other and in Aug 45 thats what the Soviets did. So to create an artificial rule ( e.g. if either attacks the other side immediately can place 4 infantry for free) type of thing is not very historical anyway.
Major and minor factories. Don’t see the need for this, just limit production to IPC income of the territory.
As you may know all factories are not created equal. Some were for just tanks ( tankograd in Urals) and others could build naval vessels… the game abstractly represents this notion.
Building factories; using captured complexes. Just both completely wrong. When France was liberated the new French army went back to war using American uniforms, vehicles and equipment. It was more efficient to ship them across the Atlantic from established production lines than re-establish French production.
Captured factories produce 1/2 rounded down of their original capacity. This is mostly for the axis anyway which did employ all sorts of foreign workers in major industry. This production is allowing placement in the conquered territory but its really an implied system of redeployment rather than ‘home grown’ equipment and production.
Lend-Lease. This seems too powerful, I prefer a more risky transport-IPC-via-convoy system which the Axis can actively intercept.
Its not really but its compensation for game balance issues relating to no Allied units allowed in SU. Its the games way of compensation.
As I’ve stated many times before I don’t like the non-combat-movement phase. In war ALL movement of war material is a combat move. I would limit this purely to aircraft landing, and train movement.
Its mostly rail movement and its necessary to do this after combat. when you play you will discover real quickly why this is so.
Different unit costs per nation. I prefer to reflect this in base IPC income levels.
Not a good way to go because a nations IPC was not always allocated in the most efficient way as another. Some nations had more manpower to draw from and other better utilized it. That cant be allocated easily into just a number.
Artillery/AA gun hybrid. No, sir. The principle role of artillery was to soften up land defences, not shoot down aircraft.
you said before that its ok but that you would only have heavy artillery to have this capacity.
Tank blitz. Can’t believe Jeff couldn’t come up with something better than the obsolete blitz move from official A&A. As I’ve detailed elsewhere something along the lines of a pass-through move for tanks simulates blitzkreig warfare nicely.
Its not obsolete. its just a simple way to keep the same idea. Tanks cant blitz a vast space the size of half the USA now can they?
Stop-drop transports. Another hangover from ye ancient A&A manual that makes no sense. WHY can’t a transport unload into two territories if able?
Why can’t amphibious assaulting units (or defenders) retreat to sea if they have available transports?
They can they just cant invade more than one territory with the same transport. thats not realistic.
Order of battle. Can’t find this in the rules, but why not just let the defender choose the order in which combats are resolved? OK, after a few plays most people will dump the battleboard, but simultaneously fighting all adjacent battles must get hard to track, especially when considering pass-throughs. Defender decides first eliminates the flanking attack menace much more simply.
When you play this will all make more sence to you.
Infantry placement seems very powerful; I severely limit this ability with only a few designated depots to be used.
Again it represents strategic redeployment and ability to enlist members of conquered lands into the war machine.
It occurs to me that building ships at sea is absurd. Ships should be built at an IC same as any other unit. The NEXT turn you can “launch” the ship into a neighbouring sea zone, together with cargo if applicable, thus simulating the longer build time of warships.
They are built in ports except that the piece itself is placed in the sea zone as its launched. Each turn is 6 months and its easy to get thing ready to fight. Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea and still made it to Midway in 10 days time.
I agree with Dezrtfish, the pay-money-for-invading-neutrals rule seems like another vestigial leftover from classic. We want neutral armed forces.
They are in the game but those are advanced rules not yet released.
The idea of tanks being wiped out by viscious sand dunes and angry mountain ranges is hilarious. Prefer defensive bonuses in combat.
Tanks are not wiped out… rather they run out of petrol in the middle of the Sahara… no gas stations for fill up.
@Imperious:
AARHE is only based on the actual Revised AA map. It offers minor improvements because it was intended to be playable for normal Revised AA.
Yeah in fact I’ve now added a note to clarify. In the still-slowly-changing not-yet-released-for-a-while rule file.
No Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is essential if you want a game playing out anything like WWII.
So to create an artificial rule ( e.g. if either attacks the other side immediately can place 4 infantry for free) type of thing is not very historical anyway.
Japanese-Soviet non-agression pact is a tough one. We could not come up with anything in AARHE neither as we didn’t want artificial rules.
I feel the pact has little backing behind it anyway.
For me its not important a variant plays out like WWII. Just model all the issues as far as you could and give the player decisions.
I feel the way to address it is via national victory conditions. Japan didnt have much to gain from soviet far east. Japan just need oil right?
There might be a good non-agreesion pact house rule out there though. One that is better than 4 free inf lol.
There is - mine!
Japan and USSR are not permitted to attack each other until at least one enemy capital has fallen/enemy power has surrendered. The logic being that Stalin would never have attacked Japan until the European war was effectively won; and the Japanese, having decided to attack the western powers to grab their oil and minerals, would not have risked war with Russia until their Pacific front was secure.
This needs some additions regarding the Xenophobia rules and ability of allies to use airspace etc, but I think this works fine as a general principle.
Yes i suspect that would work but forcing such a requirement is still artificial. Japan or the axis is hardly going to invade and defeat either the US or capture London. which reduces it to something basically “cant be done” in an abstracted game this effects playability more then a typical a hard core wargame which has specific combat and terrain justifications to make an attack very costly… This comes back to the solution of “the side thats attacked gets 4 extra infantry” as a measure to safeguard.
So basically theirs no right or wrong way of doing it but rather to minimally impact the games balance.
If we have to use an artificial rule I would make it Japan and USSR each get like 4 extra IPC income per turn until they break the pact.
Whatever route you go down, the biggest difficulty with NAT/Xenophobia rules is this:
Suppose the Germans have occupied Leningrad and are threatening Moscow. Xenophobes or not, it is clearly in the Soviet’s interests that the Western Allies invade German held Leningrad to take the pressure off the Russians defence of Moscow. But if they do so are they violating the Xenophobia rule by entering Soviet home territory?
If not (they are “liberating” it), what is to stop them sitting there and building a stack of infantry just like they normally do in defiance of the Xenophbia rules? The Soviets forfeit the right to build units there, but still collect income and can concentrate on other battles.
The Soviets would never allow the western allies to set one foot on Russian soil. That alliance was one of convenience. Stalin thought at any moment the western allies were secretly making a separate peace (avoiding spilling more Anglo blood) or outright collaboration and a united attack in together with Germany. Stalin remembers the time in 1919 when the former allies of Russia of WW1 invaded all parts of Russia to throw off the communists and nearly succeeded. Stalin was prepared to die fighting than allow any possibility of such a thing ever happening again.
NO sir their is not way in hell of that happening.
This is another issue of having a rigid axis-allies team system.
It is not realistic except for US-UK relations.
Simple.
Let them go in I say. Let them piss off Stalin. Rule would be USSR now becomes a third team and may attack US/UK territories.
But this effectively breaks the xenophobia rule.
I prefer a Soviet sphere of influence which is no-go for the Western Allies. Using the War Game map as a reference this would include all Soviet brown territories and all those territories bordering them by direct land routes.* Only if USSR is out of the game can the other Allies go here.
Otherwise Russia is virtually encouraged to abandon areas to the Germans in the hope that the West will liberate them and take over their defence, which puts us right back in AAR territory. Also, it seems harsh that a Soviet unit, attacked by Germany with nowhere to retreat but into UK occupied Russian areas, cannot do so. At the very least the Soviet should not collect income for liberated territory until it regains control, but even here it means ALL allies emptying the area for the hand over, so perhaps a round of coexistence is acceptable after liberation.
I just have two questions, why is’nt this Jeff character more active in this thread ? Why he need IL to talk his case ? And have there been a message board for this new game ? I mean IL has his Gamedreamers side, do Jeff plan to do anything like that ?
And if I order this game, I want to know exactely how much it will cost to ship it to Norway. I want to get a price with all includet, so I go to my local post office and pay and pick up my game. I love this new game, and I agree with IL on most subjects, but I dont afford to pay like $ 400 just for shippping
They have a website.
http://www.thewargame.com/game_page.html
But is “Gamer’s Forum” is “Coming Soon!”.
why is’nt this Jeff character more active in this thread ? Why he need IL to talk his case ? And have there been a message board for this new game ? I mean IL has his Gamedreamers side, do Jeff plan to do anything like that ?
Yes he will soon get involved himself. Hes not the type to be posting and living on these boards like we are. I asked him to show up and he is short of time… but he will. He will start his own site soon. Right now hes sorting out his orders and shipping out games. Hes a one man show at the moment. I do most of his talking because that is what he asked of me knowing he wont have much time.
