AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)

[theduke]

Since no neutrals were ever invaded after 1942, it seems that the simplest solution would be to say that neutrals in the game can’t be invaded. This would simulate history.

If we do decide to allow invading neutrals, then we shouldn’t make it complicated by saying that each neutral has a different size military. I think we should make all neutral military foces consist of an average force. Naturally, some neutrals should just remain impassable.

I think I vote for saying for phase 1 neutrals can’t be invaded. We could then introduce declaring war on neutrals as an option in phase 2.

[Imperious Leader]

Since no neutrals were ever invaded after 1942, it seems that the simplest solution would be to say that neutrals in the game can’t be invaded. This would simulate history.

This argument can be extrapolated to many other aspects of what we are doing. On techs for example then if we follow this path Rockets are only available for germany, Super subs for germany, jet fighters for germany, Heavy Bombers for US…long range planes for USA… basically denying most of the nations the “possibility” of development of these weapons.

Germany didnt (rather wasnt) able to take any more neutrals because after the summer of 1942 she found herself on the losing end of things, but the game presents the “possibility” of Germany doing better then in the real war… thus neutrals must be allowed to be more than mere “obstacles” To do anything else it basicically akin to “sweeping dirt under the rug” the OOB rules were quite lazy with their treatment of this subject… Thats where we come in and make changes for the Historical basis.

[theduke]

There’s a reason why neutrals weren’t invaded. It wasn’t worth it for any of the major players to declare war on any of them. If you really feel the need to include that possibility then you have to make it really not worth it. Maybe like as many as 6 free enemy infantry placed there for free. We can’t make it worth that much for anyone to invade or else players will be invading neutrals in every game and that’s not realisitic.

I want simplicity for phase 1. I don’t want the complexity of phase 2 or 3 creeping into phase 1. I like not beiing able to invade neutrals because it shouldn’t be that important to the war anyway.

[Imperious Leader]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#National_impacts

Here is a list of these so called neutrals and how they invaribly entered the war with the allies… If we dont include something with them our project looks real bad as a historical varient.

Neutrals were basically no very neutral. Even if Germany didnt have a chance to invade them.

[theduke]

The game starts in early 1942. At that time most of the neutrals remained neutral until the war was basically over (1945). With this reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to model this by just saying players can’t invade neutrals. As I said before, if you feel that you have to have invasion of neutrals you should make the penalty be so ridiculously high that practically no one would ever do it.

[Imperious Leader]

OK then well move this to phase two… But to complete phase one we need something else to wrap it up. Or the other phases will have to much new stuff to learn. Perhaps we can allow attack on neutrals and they have armies as outlined, but no possibility for alliance to either side as this point. In latter phases we install rules about which are pro allies/ pro axis. Because most did not get involved intill 44-45 is only on the basis on how the course of the war developed… The possibility of an axis victory must be also addressed which leads to neutrals becoming involved… just like the potential of say Japan getting “rockets” which is far more remote possibility.

[tekkyy]

Yeah I think its all in the modelling.
We want a simulation not a replay of history.

But I also like to form basis rules for now for phase 1.
It is gonna require quite a bit of research for the details. It won’t be most efficient for our efforts so play more on other things first.

[theduke]

Up until now I have advocated revising fighter movement by saying that combat in a SZ counts as one extra move. I think a better solution is to have the following restrictions to fighter movement:

The sum of total moves in the combat and non-combat move phases in any given turn cannot exceed 4, and of these 4 moves no more than 2 may be used flying over SZ spaces.

Any air unit that does not move in a given combat move phase may ‘move twice’ in the non-combat move phase of that same turn. Moving twice means that an air unit may move up to 4 total spaces (still including no more than 2 SZ spaces), temporarily land in a friendly space, and then again move up to 4 spaces (including no more than 2 SZ spaces) to land in another friendly space.

Once a fighter starts it turn on a CV, or temporarily lands on a CV just before the non-combat move phase bonus move, that fighter cannot land, or temporarily land in a territory until the CV is destroyed.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok so:

1. Carrier based fighters are tied to the Carrier until its sunk and
2. Planes have 4 MP per turn, so the carrier can move first hereby extending the range of planes as long as they during the entire course of a turn do not exceed 4 MP

am i right?

So are we finished with phase one? and what is the final wording? Look at Tekkyys post about national advantages… i think they are good. can they be added to phase one? Phase one needs something else.

[tekkyy]

Its great we further clarified the non-combat “move twice” system for air units.

[theduke]

1. Carrier based fighters are tied to the Carrier until its sunk and
2. Planes have 4 MP per turn, so the carrier can move first hereby extending the range of planes as long as they during the entire course of a turn do not exceed 4 MP

I’m not sure yet if we should allow carriers to move before their fighters and thereby extend the fighters’ range.

Is it realistic? It takes a long time for the carrier to move two SZ spaces (i.e. half an entire ocean). If carriers move before their fighters, then we are basically saying that the carrier’s movement takes no extra time.

Also, it introduces a new complexity to the game. Before, all units moved in the combat move phase at the same time. Now you are saying that units move in a certain order within a certain combat move phase. It’s not a hard idea to add in, but is it really necessary enough to go out of our way to change the rules for it?

Can this extension in movement be exploited? It seems that if CV based fighters can effectively move 6 instead of 4, this might give an unrealisticly big advantage for the CV fighters over land based fighters.

[Guerrilla Guy]

My take on Fighter movement… They should only be allowed to attack an adjacent zone (including land territory) from there carrier… In real life that is all they could do anyways, and you cut any compications in Naval Fighter Movement… Carriers move then fighters move…

GG

[Imperious Leader]

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft carriers may carry Fighters of their own country. Such planes launched from a carrier may move only two sea zones or territory to attack. However, the carrier itself may move up to its full movement capabilities before launching a plane. A carrier must end its movement after launching a plane. After combat, all planes must return to their original carrier if possible. In addition, air units may be assigned directly to carriers during the Place New Units Action Sequence.

so this then?

[theduke]

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

Since the max total moves are 4, if we have max 2 SZ moves in combat move phase and max 2 moves in non-combat move phase then what’s really changed? All that’s pretty much changed is that you can’t move 3 SZ to attack and then move 1 to land. That’s hardly a change. In the rules I proposed, the max number of SZ moves per turn is 2, not the total number of SZ moves per each move phase.

If the max SZ moves is 2 per turn, then:

fighters can still move from EUS to UK (provided they fly over E CANADA)

fighters can still move from UK to Africa (provided they land in either Algeria, Libya or Gibraltar. Note that we changed Gibraltar location so it boarders SZ 12 and 13).

fighters can’t move from EUS to Brazil and conduct combat, unless they fly over Venezuela. But since that’s neutral, and you can’t fly over neutrals, they therefore can’t fly to Brazil and conduct combat. They can make it in non-combat by the ‘move twice’ rule (EUS to temporarily land in Panama, and then move again to Brazil).

You’ll notice that these ‘move twice’ rule and max 2 SZ move per turn rule compliment each other rather well. fighters can still move over 2 SZs per turn, but only in non-combat and only if they own a territory (or CV for carrier based planes) between to the 3 SZs to temporarily land in. This effectively puts much more importance in ‘island hopping’ and also indirectly enhances the realistic importance of Gibraltar, Panama, etc… IMO I think it will be hard you’ll find another set of rules very different from these that are as simple and as effectively realistic.

Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft carriers may carry Fighters of their own country. Such planes launched from a carrier may move only two sea zones or territory to attack. However, the carrier itself may move up to its full movement capabilities before launching a plane. A carrier must end its movement after launching a plane. After combat, all planes must return to their original carrier if possible. In addition, air units may be assigned directly to carriers during the Place New Units Action Sequence.

What is the motvation behind changing the movement rules so carriers move before fighters and effectively allowing the fighters to get a couple extra move pts.? Don’t you think it’s too big an advantage over land based planes?

Should we restrict fighters to land back on the same carrier they started the turn on? Why can’t fighters land on a different carrier (still owned by the same nation)?

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

I’m not sure yet if we should allow carriers to move before their fighters and thereby extend the fighters’ range.

Is it realistic? It takes a long time for the carrier to move two SZ spaces (i.e. half an entire ocean). If carriers move before their fighters, then we are basically saying that the carrier’s movement takes no extra time.

Yeah I think planes must be launched before carrier moves or be cargo.

@theduke:

Should we restrict fighters to land back on the same carrier they started the turn on? Why can’t fighters land on a different carrier (still owned by the same nation)?

I think what someone said before is that historically the carriers didn’t shuffle the planes between themselves. It models planes being assigned to carriers.

@Imperious:

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

This models refueling.
Spitfire’s range from wikipedia…Range: 470 mi (760 km) combat, 1,140 mi (1,835 km) ferry
So Spitfire’s range is just a tad short of a London-Berlin attack. Movement of 4 is generally quite realistic.
The non-combat “move twice” system covers refueling in non-combat land moves.

The question now is whether we get them refuel on carriers. Hence covering the Pacific in one non-combat turn if they have carriers in the pacific.

[theduke]

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

So let me get this straight… under this rule, a fighter could take off from a territory, move through 2 SZs in combat move phase, conduct combat, and then also fly over 2 more SZs in non-combat move phase. That means all 4 moves could be spend going over SZ spaces. I don’t think this is realistic. I propsed 2 SZ spaces max per turn, not 2 per combat move phase and 2 per non-combat move phase.

[Imperious Leader]

So let me get this straight… under this rule, a fighter could take off from a territory, move through 2 SZs in combat move phase, conduct combat, and then also fly over 2 more SZs in non-combat move phase. That means all 4 moves could be spend going over SZ spaces. I don’t think this is realistic. I propsed 2 SZ spaces max per turn, not 2 per combat move phase and 2 per non-combat move phase.

Land based planes are not to be mingled with carrier planes. You can move your carrier 2 SZ and then launch planes one space forward and one space back to carrier. Thats the only way you technically get to move the planes 4 spaces. When they attacked Hawaii it only took like 2 weeks to move into position and launch planes for the attack. So looking at the board you’d see 2 Jap carriers in the SZ above Hawaii, then you would see 4 planes going south to attack the fleet. NO way do carrier planes take off and attack ships and land in China for next turns attacks. that has to go.

[tekkyy]

So the OOB cargo rule is also changed now?

[tekkyy]

From another thread, strangely from the income thread…

@Imperious:

because you wont get into those situations where you take France with one infantry…

Are we implementing that rule about a minimum no. of troops required to capture certain territories? Is this phase 1?

[Imperious Leader]

So the OOB cargo rule is also changed now?

+++++ i dont see any other changes… BTW this and the other idea are phase two.

Are we implementing that rule about a minimum no. of troops required to capture certain territories? Is this phase 1?

Phase one is done… but we will come back to add things if phase two gets too burdened with new rules. Thats why we need the “official” status on phase one? what is it?

BTW those nifty NA’s or national cheaper unit tactics thing goes in phase one? I hope so.