All that sounds good… I want Mr. Andersson to come aboard as well… i like his NA’s and i think they will help the project out…
here is something that addresses some ideas for this project ( which by no means are permenent solutions or ideas for this varient).
OK here is a list of ideas that i would like to begin with to state the overall projects scope for improving AAR.
The idea behind this is to end those “dead zones” of back and forth combat, forcing players to keep what they win in the battle… this is why you collect after to purchase so it reflects just what you own before you begin new attacks. You also retain the ability to pay for SBR, Rocket attacks, etc.because your using the money you allready have in your hand.This also ends those million invasions of France, etc. that develop…this is a waste of time.
Victory conditions change:
Victory cities should have a point value, rather than saying “Berlin has the same value in terms of victory as Calcutta”… Victory cities should have a point value, so it will no longer place each city on an equal footing. Values can have a range of 1-3 or 1-5. what is important to understand at this point is they are not exactly equal. This will change the dynamic of strategy, and make the “opening startegy” more open ended
Changes in AA guns must be installed:
Each VC or Industrial Complex should have a built in anti-air defense, while artillery should be given the duty of land based defense of aerial attacks.The specifics will be addressed later
Additional units:
Adding a cruiser, Mechanized infantry, and a few other units will add flavor to a players diet of builds. The two mentioned are a must, but a few other nation specific units should be included.
D12 system: This is an optional idea…and i understand many hate change even for the best. The system does not rely on D12, it just works better. All existing units can be plugged in to this system, or we can now come up with nation specific values ( e.g. German tanks attack at 8/9 for example)
Defender retreats:
Cheaper prices for naval units:
Many also use some of these ideas and have proposed similiar changes
Adding neutrals:
The idea of “fuggetaboutit” and making it impossible to interact with those light grey territories is the worst case of brushing dirt under a rug i ever saw. The whole war started when Hitler invaded Poland which is neutral. They must have armies, a Value, and the alliance value to each side should be considered.
ALL AXIS, ALL ALLIES movement sequence:
This will do the following:
Save lots of time, about 35%
As you know war is conducted in simutaneous fashion, while in axis and allies its broken up into no fewer than 5 distinct operations, while their is no real coordination between allies and axis. AARE added that “combined D- Day” thing, but thats only a basic fix for a much larger problem. Another problem is UK often was able to attack Japan in the spring of 1942? excuse me? in April 1942 Nagumo’s carrier force was basically ready to totally deep six admiral sommervilles fleet around Ceylon, The Brits had to retreat due to substantial threat of destruction. In the game its more like the other way around.NOt at all historical
10 ) adding Italy as a 6th player
adding convoy boxes and the concept of submarine warfare/ASW into the game
adding rules covering lend lease
adding the factor of “OIL” into the game… As you know the war had the focus on the concept of oil. IN AAE we got a taste of this, but it was ignored in AAR. Japan started the war with USA because we cut off the oil to fund Japans war in China, Also in 1942 the focus of Germany’s campaign in the cacasus was the need to secure the Baku oil center et al…This can be done with a simple system.
That sounds good Imp, but I think we should start this in a new topic. Move your last post to start the new topic (still in the house rules forum) and we can start organizing from there. I just looked again at AARe. It’s awful and so convoluted in places. Maybe we should also start yet another new topic discussing all the things that are wrong with it!
Victory Cities
Every nation starts with 5 victory cities (VCs), each worth a certain number of victory city points (VCPs). Of these 5 VCs, 1 is designated as a capital (worth 5 VCPs), 1 other is designated as a major VC (worth 3 VCPs), 2 others are designated as moderate VCs (worth 2 VCPs each), and the last one is designated as a minor VC (worth 1 VCP).
The following is the list of VCs, the corresponding VCP value for that VC and the territory in which each is located. The VCs are organized by nation.
Russia:
Moscow (5)–Russia
Stalingrad (3)–Caucasus
Leningrad (2)–Karelia
Novosibirsk (2)–NovosibirskÂ
Vladivostok (1)–Buryatia
Germany:
Berlin (5)–Germany
Rome (3)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Kiev (2)–Ukraine
Oslo (1)–Norway
UK:
London (5)–UK
Toronto (3)–E. Canada
Calcutta (2)–India
Sydney (2)–Australia
Cairo (1)—Anglo-Egypt
Japan:
Tokyo (5)—Japan
Changchun (3)–Manchuria
Shanghai (2)–Kwangtung
Singapore (2)–FIC
Manila (1)—Philippines
US:
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (3)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Chongqing (2)–China
Honolulu (1)–Hawaii
Infantry Unit Placement at VCs
ICs no longer build infantry units. Infantry units are assembled only in territories containing VCs. They are still purchased and mobilized at the same time as non-infantry units. In order to purchase and place any infantry in a VC, that VC must have been in your control at the start of your turn (placing an infantry unit in a VC can be considered the same as placing the infantry in the territory containing that VC).
For each of the 5 VCs that are originally owned by each nation, the maximum number of infantry that may be purchased and placed at the VC per turn is equal to the corresponding value of VCPs. The only exceptions to this are that a maximum of only 3 infantry per turn may be placed at the UK and US capitals and only 1 Japanese infantry per turn at each of the Japanese major and moderate VCs.
For each captured VC, the infantry placement limits differ between the Axis nations and the Allied nations. For captured Allied VCs, the occupying Axis nation may purchase and place no infantry at any captured minor VC and 1 infantry per turn at each of the other captured VCs. For captured Axis VCs, the occupying Allied nation may purchase and place 1 infantry per turn at each captured minor VC and 2 infantry per turn at each of other captured VCs.
If any territory containing a VC is attacked before the defender’s first turn, then the defender of that VC gets to immediately purchase any number of infantry not exceeding more than the respective maximums outlined above and place them at that VC. These infantry units are purchased and placed just before the battle takes place. This rule applies only before the defender’s first turn. For example, it can apply to Russia attacking the Ukraine on Russia’s first turn but cannot apply to Germany attacking Karelia on Germany’s first turn (since Russia already had their first turn by the time Germany gets to move).Â
Non-Infantry Unit Placement at ICs
All non-infantry units are still built at ICs, however, unit placement limits at ICs have changed. The total IPC value of all non-infantry units placed per turn at any IC in a given territory may not exceed 4 times the IPC value of that territory. If a certain territory contains both a VC and an IC, then the infantry placement limits for the VC are treated independently from the non-infantry placement limits for the IC.
The cost of purchasing new ICs now depends on the territory in which the IC will be placed. Any player purchasing an IC must declare where the IC will be placed during the ‘Purchase Units’ phase. The IC is still placed during the ‘Mobilize New Units’ phase. To determine the cost of an IC in a given territory, multiply the number of IPCs for that territory by the number of VCPs within that territory and subtract this number from the base IC cost of 15. For example, an IC in India, FIC or Kwangtung now costs 15 - (3 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 9 IPCs. An IC in W. Europe or C. US now costs only 15 – (6 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 3 IPCs. All ICs in territories not containing a VC cost 15 IPCs since 0 VCPs multiplied by any number of IPCs always results in a reduction of no IPCs from the base cost.
An IC can only be placed in a territory that was in your possession at the start of your turn. Furthermore, non-infantry units may only be placed at an IC that was there at the start of your turn. (This means once you take over a territory you have to wait 1 turn to build an IC and yet another turn to build units).
All ICs that were present at the start of the game are permanent (i.e. ICs that were never purchased can never be destroyed). Purchased ICs can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.
Victory Conditions
Just like in the AAR box rules, players agree before the start of the game which set of victory conditions they will use; Total Victory, Major Victory or Minor Victory.
Total Victory: The winning team is the first to control every territory by the end of any US player’s turn.
Major Victory: The Axis win if they control 40 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn. Likewise, the Allies win if they control 50 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn.
Minor Victory: Both sides bid the number of turns that they want the game to last if they are the Axis. The team that bids the higher number of turns gets to play as the Axis. The game will automatically end after the US player’s turn on the turn number that won the bid. The team controlling the majority of the VCPs at that time wins the game. Note: This is unlike the major victory conditions or traditional victory city rules in that the winner is not the first side to reach a certain number of VCPs, but the side who maintains control of the majority of the VCPs by a certain turn number agreed upon by both sides. This is intended to better fix the game duration and to allow for quicker games if players are pressured by a time constraint.
OK heres a few comments:
The total number of possible allied infantry builds is 13 more units than the axis… so the axis have to get over a hump both in terms of regaining paridy of allowable Infantry builds and total Victory points.Furthermore the axis have a comparative demerit on what they conquer vs. what the allies can take. This also makes it difficult for the axis to get over this “manpower hump”
Im not sure why the japanese specifically have a further demerit of one infantry build at major and moderate VC’s This also puts the axis in a manpower bind.
I really like this idea about how for example the germans can immediatly protect those Soviet territories from attack, because in every game with that the Soviet attack was either a disaster or cost them dearly. The japanese benifit from this also if the Soviets attack Manchukou. However i think its not relavent because i think the turn order will eventually be as follows:
Determining the cost of Industrial Complex is good and it makes sense, except I would add initially a factory in France, 3 in the Soviet Union ( leningrad, moscow and stalingrad and possibly one in india, Austrailia, or canada.
Lastly, i think Hawaii was far more important to US than Kwangtung. Hawaii should be 2 and Kwangtung should be 1. This change allows more fight in the pacific, rather than china.
So i think the manpower problem should reflect an equal oppurtunity for the axis to “equalize” more quickly with the allies.
I think this can be easily solved with installing limitations on numbers of infantry… for example:
Soviets: 8
Germany:14
Japan:8
Uk:6
USA:8
Thank you for your analysis, Imp. I’ll try to explain my thinking behind each of those rules that you brought up. Please don’t hessitate to let me know if any of my following arguments don’t make sense:
The total number of possible allied infantry builds is 13 more units than the axis… so the axis have to get over a hump both in terms of regaining paridy of allowable Infantry builds and total Victory points.Furthermore the axis have a comparative demerit on what they conquer vs. what the allies can take. This also makes it difficult for the axis to get over this “manpower hump”
IMHO I don’t think it’s accurate to really add together the lower Axis infantry placement limit and weakened Axis economy to say this combined effect to is too difficult to overcome. The reason is because the infantry limits are so high that basically the only force working here is still only the weakened Axis economy. Let’s analyze the effect of the infantry placementlimits by nation, comparing these house rules with the out of box AAR rules.
Russia with AAR rules: With Russia’s economy generally hovering somewhere between 27 and 21, they would be purchasing between 7-9 infantry. They would only be able to place 4 in Caucasus and 3-5 in Russia.
Russia with new rules: Where can Russia place the 7-9 infantry now? They can only place 3 in Caucasus and the remainder in Russia, except if Russia spends more than 24 IPCs on infantry then they have to place the excess in Novo (assuming Karelia is in German hands).
There are a couple factors that reduce Russia’s economy from what it might otherwise be with the AAR rules; 1) Germany can put pressure on Russia much faster with infantry placement in Ukraine. 2) when we include the modified turn sequence (with collect income before combat instead of after) Russia won’t be able to boost their economy by trading W. Russia or Belo., etc with Germany. The bottom line is that if Russia could buy more than 8 infantry on a turn before, the reduced economy will make it much less likely this will happen now. Consequently the only outcome of the infantry placement limits will be only 3 infantry in Caucasus per turn instead of 4. This may seem to some people to be a huge disadvantage for Russia, after all 1 less infantry per turn can really add up. But remember, that 1 infantry that had to be placed in Russia instead of Cauc. can be moved into Cauc. next turn so the result effect isn’t 1 less per turn but 1 less (total; not per turn) for 1 turn only. This 1 less infantry isn’t that big a weakness for Russia.
*********All in all, Russia is in a little worse position with these new infantry placement rules, but not by much.
Germany with AAR rules: If Germany’s economy is around 45 IPCs, that’s at most 15 infantry. But who buys all infantry as Germany? Infantry are important but Germany needs to buy at least a couple rtl and/or armor. I can’t remember playing a game and Germany ever buying more than 13 infantry.
Germany with new rules: Germany limited to 13 infantry, but they never really purchased more than 13 anyway, so the limit is basically the same. Now these 13 infantry can be placed on the front lines (2 in Ukraine and 1 in Norway and 1 in Karelia). I think we can all agree that Germany’s position with these new rules is much better.
*************All in all, Germany will never buy more than 13 infantry per turn so the limit is mute, but the places Germany can place their infantry give them a good advantage.
UK with AAR rules: In the middle part of the game, UK’s economy is around 20 IPCs. That’s about 6 infantry.
UK with new rules: Right from the 1st turn, they can place 2 infantry in India and 1 in Cairo. Cairo won’t stand long, and when it falls this 1 per turn in Cairo won’t be available until it’s taken back in the distant future. But including the 2 per turn for defense in Australia, UK is in much better position against Japan.
UK can only place 3 infantry in UK. This is a factor only when the Allies are doing KGF but not really by much given UK’s typically weak economy (UK will be lucky if they can fill 3 transports per turn).
***************All in all, UK is in better position overall with a stronger presence against Japan and only a slightly weaker presence against Germany.
Japan with AAR rules: Without any additional ICs, Japan would be buying no more than 8 infantry. More ICs usually just add armor units, not more infantry, so Japan will usually buy no more than 8 infantry no matter what their economy grows to.
Japan with new rules: Japan is limited to 9 infantry now. They can only buy 5 for their capital now, but the 3 less infantry in Japan are now placed in mainland Asia so this headstart is definitely a bonus for Japan (not to mention not needing to buy as many transports).
**************All in all, Japan is in better position with more of a head start in infantry in Asia.
US with AAR rules: I find US would typically be loading up 4 transports a turn and sending them to Europe. For this they would buy 4-6 infantry a turn.
US with new rules: US can only buy 3 for their capital, but they can supplement this with a couple from C. US. They can still ship quite a few infantry per turn into Europe, but not as easily and with a significantly reduced upper limit of infantry. The 2 infantry per turn in China helps a lot, but China will be taken in the first couple of turns so this advantage will quickly be taken away.
***************All in all, US is in a much worse position with these new rules.
If we take the conclusions from each nation we’ll find that hands down US and Russia are in worse position and hands down UK and Germany are in better position. Japan is in better position, but the combo of UK and US in Asia are in even better position than Japan so Japan is relatively in slightly worse position in Asia. Japan will eventually take China due to it’s poor strategic position and when it falls there will be a snowball effect so Japan will still take Asia, but just slower than before. This is why I say the weaker position of Japan isn’t enough to take away from the added advantage on the German/Russian front for the Axis and concluding that these new rules give the Axis the overall advantage.
As for the 13 extra Allied infantry per turn, the Allies always had this advantage of building more men. It comes with the economic advantage. All I did was set a formal limit where there wasn’t one before to cut down on possible unrealistic effects. The limits are high enough that it shouldn’t hinder the Aixs further than their economy already does.
Im not sure why the japanese specifically have a further demerit of one infantry build at major and moderate VC’s This also puts the axis in a manpower bind.
This is just for realism. It was a hard decision. On one side if I don’t reduce these limits to 1 then it’s simpler because it flows in with all the other limits better and it improves game balance by helping the Axis. Both are important to the game. On the other hand, if I do reduce the limits to 1, then we allow much more realism on that front. Imagine a game where Japan puts 7 infantry in mainland Asia. Japan would hardly have any money left to put anything in Japan (unrealistic), and wouldn’t need any transports (unrealistic) and most importantly they would have even more strength on a front that they already too strong in.
You would get a more balanced game with Japan building 3 in Manch. and 2 in each of FIC and Kwang. but it’s only realistic because Japan is super strong. I don’t want that because then you are saying to heck with realism. It bothers me having Japan as strong as they are in AA and AAR. I don’t want them even stronger. To me it’s as absurd as saying lets make a balanced game by just making US the weakest nation in the game. That would do the trick but it would be ridiculous. The game has balance anyway with the turn bidding in the minor victory conditions, but when we add in the sub interdiction rules, the game will be balanced no matter what the victory conditions.
- russia
- both axis
- western allies
I was thinking of holding off on combining turns until phase 2 modifications. Either way, the effect on that ‘before first turn’ rule is about the same from the original order. The only territories effected either way are basically you get RR and a protected Cairo and China. No difference except for no protection for Japan if UK attacks Philippines or FIC or Kwang. (all minor issues).
Determining the cost of Industrial Complex is good and it makes sense, except I would add initially a factory in France, 3 in the Soviet Union ( leningrad, moscow and stalingrad and possibly one in india, Austrailia, or canada.
I was debating whether to just add more ICs at the start of game and say no new ICs or just keep the ICs the same and make some really cheap. I went with the latter. I am a minimalist and I don’t want to add ICs where I think they should go when it won’t effect the game that much.
We could have an optional rule that states that at the start of the game, before anyone moves, every nation gets to purchase as many ICs as they wish. It would be a fun rule that doesn’t seriously shift the game balance.
Lastly, i think Hawaii was far more important to US than Kwangtung. Hawaii should be 2 and Kwangtung should be 1. This change allows more fight in the pacific, rather than china.
Kwangtung belongs to Japan at the start of the game, not the US. I want every nation to have 5 cities for simplicity. Do you mean Hawaii more important than China?
I want US to be able to only put 1 infantry in Hawaii, not 2, and I want US to be able to put 2 infantry in China, not 1, to represent those massive, massive numbers of men. I don’t want to make anymore exceptions to the ‘max infantry=VCPs’ rule if I can help it.
Soviets: 8
Germany:14
Japan:8
Uk:6
USA:8
Russia’s economy can only support 8 infantry per turn anyway even though the formal limit is at 13. Adjusting the ridiculously high limit of 13 for Russia won’t effect the game and just introduce one more unnecessary rule. Besides, I would probably not buy over 8 men in a turn becuase I would probably have to place that 9th man way out in Novo. That is penalty enough to deter the Russians from building over 8 men.
Do we need to adjust Germany’s limit from 13 to 14 or Japan’s from 9 to 8? The changes are so minor that I would like to keep it the same, again just to cut down on unnecessary rules.
Practically, UK’s limit is 3 with my rules. Although all the other infantry that they place look like UK troops, they are really just basically infantry from the minor Allies (Canada, Australia, India). I like the idea of keeping UK limit at 3 because it almost forces UK to also build other units like fighters without the need of completely overhauling the realative value of the various types of units.
USA can basically buy only 8 per turn now (3 for E. US + 2 for C. US + 3 for W. US). I don’t think the 1 on Hawaii will ever truly matter and the other infantry represent the Chinese, not US. The Chinese infantry won’t be able to be placed once China is taken over on the 1st-3rd turn so the US limit is basically 8 already with the rules I proposed.
Chongqing (2)–China
Honolulu (1)–Hawaii
what i meant was to switch these two …forget kwangtung so:
Chongqing (1)–China
Honolulu (2)–Hawaii
I am now convinced of your ideas, but once the allies swing their weight around and are able to get those extra infantry… it was impossible for the axis to swing the door back. This was borne out from playtesting and is where the comments came from.
I think the game is much better in terms of balance and realism with 1 inf per turn at Hawaii and 2 inf per turn in China. It’s possible to have Hawaii worth 2 and China worth 1 and still keep the same inf placement limits, but we’d have to add more exceptions to the rule ‘max inf=VCPs’. I don’t think it’s worth the added confusion.
I’d like to hear more on why Hawaii is more important than China. The territory labeled China on the game has much more area, much grater population, and did much more in stopping Japanese expansion.
I made the rule that the Allies could build 1 more inf per turn in captured VCs just for realism, not balance. I see your point about a snowball effect once the Axis territories start to fall. The game should be just as good with the limits for the Allies the same as the Axis, 0 in minor VCs and 1 in all the others. But then there’s only 1 inf per turn in France (that’s too small). I think you’ve convinced me to make the Allies captured VC limits the same as the Axis and just have more French inf available as a NA.
I’d like to hear more on why Hawaii is more important than China
I think that to the United States the events in China are not too dramatic to the overall American war plan and pretty much the war in china would not have mattered to much to the course of the war even if they were to conclude a peace. On the other hand if the US lost Hawaii… that would have been catastrophic to the ability to “funnel” units into the pacific. The doorway to the western US would be open to a very real threat. thats why “to america” losing Hawaii is much more important. Japan really does not posses the ability to take hawaii on turn one, so it can be defeated…
BTW since i can easily edit the VC cities I can add additional cities noting that stalingrad is not a current “Official” VC and possibly adding “canbarra” or “Sidney” as a new VC…
Now that we fully agree with how VC are handled in concept… we only have to make decisions on what if any additional VC are to be included and add them to each players mix of starting VC.
BTW since i can easily edit the VC cities I can add additional cities noting that stalingrad is not a current “Official” VC and possibly adding “canbarra” or “Sidney” as a new VC…
Now that we fully agree with how VC are handled in concept… we only have to make decisions on what if any additional VC are to be included and add them to each players mix of starting VC.
- Russia gets Stalingrad’
- germany gets Polesti oil fields in Balkans ( very important to german strategic fuel supply)
- UK gets sidney or canberra
- Japan gets truk or ?
- usa gets ?
What? Since when have we been adding more VCs? I thought each nation was just getting the 5 VCs outlined above. Do you want to change those VCs, and if so how?
Oil fields as a VC? We can represent oil in the game better than with VCs IMO. Oil is not crucial for phase 1, but we can still discuss it for introduction in a later phase.
If you wanted to add 2 more Pacific island Japanese minor VCs in addition to Manila and Honolulu, which ones would you choose?
I am sorry bout my last post… you have allready covered all the necessary VC. I will add these with small numbers denoting the value on the map. I think exactly what you made is perfect. except i really feel that hawaii and that china spot should be switched in values. that is all.
I think we need to work on combat system next. ill post another land combat idea soon…
I got it! I was just fooling around with some more calculations on VCs and I came up with a system that’s much, much better! I’ll work on posting the new VC system in a new topic.
BTW, it’s too bad we can’t come to an agreement about the China/Hawaii issue. If we switch the values they won’t really flow with the rest of the game. China needs to be able to build 2 inf, otherwise it will fall too easily. 2 inf in Hawaii isn’t realistic. I have a problem with US putting 1 inf there per turn, let alone 2.
Naw its a small point… let it stay how it is… I guess its a balance issue vs. Historical thing and a minor one at that.
