Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)



  • To get more organized with this project, I think we should expand the number of topics. I think we should keep the format the same as it is for this topic… AARHE: [Insert Sub-Topic Here] (Phase [Insert Number Here]).

    This topic is where to post general thoughts on phase 1 that wouldn’t fit well in any of the other topics for phase 1. it’s also where we can post new ideas. think of this as the misc. section so other topic boards don’t go off track. if a good discussion develops in this topic, then we can expand it to a new topic of its own.



  • Here’s a new idea for Italian Forces NA:

    IPC bonuses for 2 free IPCs when at least 1 ground unit, air unit, and naval unit is purchased in a turn applies for IC at Germany as well as in S. Europe.

    This would mean that we could restrict the IPC bonus rule to apply to all nations only when at least one of the units is placed in the capital. This advantage is so simple…. it just makes S. Europe considered as another capital for purposes of production.

    The german player would get double IPC bonuses each turn (resulting in 6 more free IPCs!) as well as italian inf also costing 2 each (max is still 3 inf per turn though). This is another 3 free IPCs in inf!. This is so simple, fits well with the bonus IPC idea, and has such a realistic feel to it!



  • Is it realistic to say inf cost less in the capital then when they are assembled outside the capital? There’s less corruption in the capital, better morale so easier to recruit. Probably other reasons too. Opinions?



  • New idea!

    Instead of saying that in order to gt the 2 free IPCs they have to be for units placed in the capital, now they are for units that have to be placed in a territory of your color worth 8 or more IPCs. I don’t know if we should have the same definition for infantry costing 2 each or keeping it 2 at just the capitals.

    The only difference is that now W. US gets cheap units too. It’s like US gets even more free IPCs (brings them closer to their realistic economic advantage) but makes it so they can only get the free IPCs if they build evenly in both W. and E. US (even more realism!) I think this is a major step forward for creating an incentive to follow a more historic purchasing strategy! Now US has plenty of incentive to go after both Germany and Japan instead of just doing a boring, typical KGF.

    I don’t know if I want 3 more US inf in W. US, however. US didn’t have a lot of infantry, so why give them incentive to build 3 more? So to recap, I think we should define it like so:

    INF:
    inf in your capital cost 2 each
    inf in all other of your VCs cost 3 each
    inf in all captured VC territories cost 4 each

    MAX inf per territory depends on number of VCPs and your type of government:

    FOR Russia, Germany, Japan:
    max number inf= number of VCPs for VCs contiguously connected to capital
    max number inf= number of VCPs minus 1 for VCs not contiguously connected to capital

    FOR UK and US:
    max number inf= number of VCPs or 3, whichever is smaller.

    NON-INF:
    Every nation gets their first 2 IPCs free when spent at a territory of your color worth 8 or more for each of the following categories (need to reword for simplicity… ideas?):
    ground troops (not inf) 
    air units
    naval units

    So, for example, Russia has 1 territory worth 8 or more. so the first 2 ipcs spent on ground troops (not inf) and placed in that territory are free. the first 2 ipcs spent on air units there are also free. Russia isn’t adjacent to a SZ so they can’t build naval units there so they can’t get 2 free ipcs for naval purchases in Russia.

    US has 2 territories worth 8 or more so they get the first 2 ipcs as free for both territories… incentive to spend money on 1 type of ground.air, naval unit for each territory and spread the war to both fronts. The US doesn’t have to spread the purchases but then they won’t get as many free IPCs. That’s the beauty of the rule, creating an incentive for the players to make historic purchases, but still give them the freedom to do what they want!



  • Wait, I think discussion on Italy already has a thread.  :lol:

    “AARHE: Phase 2: Adding Italy to the game”
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6386.0



  • Arg!  😛 I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again….

    Phase 1 needs to have things (like Italy) in order to have the ‘historical name’ on it. But phase 1 also needs to be simple. This is a problem since it’s hard to have a simple set of rules and also be historically accurate. The compromise that was decided a long time ago when we came up with the idea of different phases was to have:

    phase 1= emphasize simplicity but get as realistic as possible.

    phase 2= emphasize realism but try to keep it as simple as possible.

    phase 3= expand the game to get as realistic as possible and still be enjoyable to play.

    So, we want to have Italy rules, right? so let’s get as simple Italy rules as we can get for phase 1. but, let’s not be restricted in using them for phase 2. so we end up with very simple Italy rules for phase 1 and totally different (more complex, but more accurate) Italy rules for phase 2.

    we will try to minimize the rule changes between phases, and mostly just add on to the next set of phase rules, but some changes will be necessary for things like Italy. changes might only consist of Italy, how combat is resolved, introducing aerial combat, commerce raiding (convoy boxes not in phase 1).

    so then the question becomes, how do we know which set of Italy rules we are talking about in that topic thread? We know which set it is by the phase number in the topic title (this topic title has phase 1).

    sorry if i sound peeved, but this is at least the 3rd time I’ve posted this stuff.   😢



  • Ok I see.

    Yeah there’ll likely be changes rather than simply add-on through the development phases.



  • The following is a list of the changes I think we can make to fighter units in phase 1:

    1. fighters beginning the turn on a carrier must end the turn on a carrier, unless the carrier they started the turn on is destroyed in that turn.

    2. as before, all fighters must count the number of moves in combat move phase and non-combat move phase and the sum can’t exceed the max number of moves (4 for normal fighters). however, now all fighters conducting SZ battles must add 1 extra move during the combat phase.

    3. fighters that don’t move in the combat move phase of a certain turn may then move in the non-combat move phase of that same turn up to the normal max number of moves (4 for normal fighters), land in a friendly territory, and then again move up to the max number of moves to land in another friendly territory.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK that looks good.



  • Ok thats better than unlimited non-combat air move hehe.

    By the way, what about bombers?


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Duke:  This manpower limitations rule is great but should be for phase two:

    INF:
    inf in your capital cost 2 each
    inf in all other of your VCs cost 3 each
    inf in all captured VC territories cost 4 each

    +++++++++ now this looks good however it should be tied in with placement… so the extra cost= the cost of deployment/training in a conquered land. Under the system we allow (or should) allow infantry to be placed in occupied territories at 1/2 rate of the value of the territory rounded up. so if Germany captures a territory at 3 value it can place 2 infantry costing 8 IPC… you like?

    MAX inf per territory depends on number of VCPs and your type of government:

    FOR Russia, Germany, Japan:
    max number inf= number of VCPs for VCs contiguously connected to capital
    max number inf= number of VCPs minus 1 for VCs not contiguously connected to capital

    FOR UK and US:
    max number inf= number of VCPs or 3, whichever is smaller.

    ++++++++ on this the max number should follow more of a historical feel… this system IMO is too abstract or detached from the feeling of realism. We could consult some book at look at what each nation was able to build in terms of infantry and make some clear balancing issues. I just dont “see” how if your territory is not connected ( or even is connected) how that is established as part of a nations “ability” to create new infantry with the capture of more victory cities. It might be reflected by the Total IPC… but as you know the allies will have a advantage in that. The “problem” as i see it is infantry push mechanic and stacks of cheap infantry buys. The task is to produce historical rules to limit this impact as much as possible…

    NON-INF:
    Every nation gets their first 2 IPCs free when spent at a territory of your color worth 8 or more for each of the following categories (need to reword for simplicity… ideas?):
    ground troops (not inf)
    air units
    naval units

    So, for example, Russia has 1 territory worth 8 or more. so the first 2 ipcs spent on ground troops (not inf) and placed in that territory are free. the first 2 ipcs spent on air units there are also free. Russia isn’t adjacent to a SZ so they can’t build naval units there so they can’t get 2 free ipcs for naval purchases in Russia.

    US has 2 territories worth 8 or more so they get the first 2 ipcs as free for both territories… incentive to spend money on 1 type of ground.air, naval unit for each territory and spread the war to both fronts. The US doesn’t have to spread the purchases but then they won’t get as many free IPCs. That’s the beauty of the rule, creating an incentive for the players to make historic purchases, but still give them the freedom to do what they want!

    Yes thats a great rule… no improvements can be made. add it to the final draft… I think the name " national replacements"  should describe it well…



  • @Imperious:

    inf in your capital cost 2 each
    inf in all other of your VCs cost 3 each

    Looks fine.

    I just dont “see” how if your territory is not connected ( or even is connected) how that is established as part of a nations “ability” to create new infantry with the capture of more victory cities.

    Correct. I wouldn’t mind raising it to 5 IPC for infantry in occupid VC.
    Too few POWs fought on the enemy’s side  :-P.

    US has 2 territories worth 8 or more so they get the first 2 ipcs as free for both territories

    It should be allowed to be spent on either territories. But I don’t see why they should get double bonus. If anything why is the trigger at 8?



  • Duke:  This manpower limitations rule is great but should be for phase two:

    INF:
    inf in your capital cost 2 each
    inf in all other of your VCs cost 3 each
    inf in all captured VC territories cost 4 each

    +++++++++ now this looks good however it should be tied in with placement… so the extra cost= the cost of deployment/training in a conquered land. Under the system we allow (or should) allow infantry to be placed in occupied territories at 1/2 rate of the value of the territory rounded up. so if Germany captures a territory at 3 value it can place 2 infantry costing 8 IPC… you like?

    I think it’s simple enough to use in phase 1. It’s only 3 lines after all. IMO the costs of infantry should be as described above and the limits of those infantry should be described as follows:

    FOR Russia, Germany, Japan:
    max number inf= number of VCPs for VCs contiguously connected to capital
    max number inf= number of VCPs minus 1 for VCs not contiguously connected to capital

    FOR UK and US:
    max number inf= number of VCPs or 3, whichever is smaller.

    The max inf per captured territory is always 1 less than the number of VCPs or 2, whichever is smaller.

    I think asking some of the people who play this game to divide by 2 and round down might be too much to ask, or at the very least, too “mathy” and end up being a turnoff for them.

    ++++++++ on this the max number should follow more of a historical feel… this system IMO is too abstract or detached from the feeling of realism. We could consult some book at look at what each nation was able to build in terms of infantry and make some clear balancing issues. I just dont “see” how if your territory is not connected ( or even is connected) how that is established as part of a nations “ability” to create new infantry with the capture of more victory cities. It might be reflected by the Total IPC… but as you know the allies will have a advantage in that. The “problem” as i see it is infantry push mechanic and stacks of cheap infantry buys. The task is to produce historical rules to limit this impact as much as possible…

    I don’t know what you mean by no “historical feel”. Do you want me to come up with a list of inf limitations for every individual nation and every individual territory?! I’m going for simplicity and this system is IMHO by far the best combo of realism and simplicity. If you second guess any specific territory inf limitations please let me know.

    NON-INF:
    Every nation gets their first 2 IPCs free when spent at a territory of your color worth 8 or more for each of the following categories (need to reword for simplicity… ideas?):
    ground troops (not inf)
    air units
    naval units

    So, for example, Russia has 1 territory worth 8 or more. so the first 2 ipcs spent on ground troops (not inf) and placed in that territory are free. the first 2 ipcs spent on air units there are also free. Russia isn’t adjacent to a SZ so they can’t build naval units there so they can’t get 2 free ipcs for naval purchases in Russia.

    US has 2 territories worth 8 or more so they get the first 2 ipcs as free for both territories… incentive to spend money on 1 type of ground.air, naval unit for each territory and spread the war to both fronts. The US doesn’t have to spread the purchases but then they won’t get as many free IPCs. That’s the beauty of the rule, creating an incentive for the players to make historic purchases, but still give them the freedom to do what they want!

    Yes thats a great rule… no improvements can be made. add it to the final draft… I think the name " national replacements"  should describe it well…

    I’m actually thinking about changing it a little. I think I want to tie it into oil resources. For example, If you control 1 of the 10 territories containing vast oil fields then you get this industrial advantage of cheaper air and naval units.



  • I just dont “see” how if your territory is not connected ( or even is connected) how that is established as part of a nations “ability” to create new infantry with the capture of more victory cities.

    Correct. I wouldn’t mind raising it to 5 IPC for infantry in occupid VC.
    Too few POWs fought on the enemy’s side  .

    This rule has nothing to do with POWs. The connectedness factors in because 1 of several components of this is railways. If a territory is not connected, then it’s not connected by railway and therefore fewer (1 fewer actually) inf can be placed there.



  • Important!
    I think you need to redo the VCPs numbers.

    You don’t have to make Axis and Allies total number equal since you can just place the major victory condition accordingly.

    But VCP is now tied to popluation/infantry so instead of artifically make UK US capital infantry deployment limit of 3 you can just make their capital worth 3 VCP points…then you have UK and US at 8. After all VCP is used to replace Victory Cities.

    @theduke:

    This rule has nothing to do with POWs. The connectedness factors in because 1 of several components of this is railways. If a territory is not connected, then it’s not connected by railway and therefore fewer (1 fewer actually) inf can be placed there.

    I think it does. Raising infantry in occupied VC would be from POWs or enemy civilians.

    If you use Railway then the infantry is shipped there not raised there. It doesn’t matter if you are allowed to ship them there straight away in the same turn but you can’t build over your capital/VC’s capacity!

    And this railway thing we haven’t sorted yet.



  • I guess I misunderstood how POWs worked. Are there many examples of a nation taking over a territory containing POWs and releasing them? Are there POWs in all these VCs? What is the more prevalent factor here, reinstituting POWs or shipping infantry in to the front lines?

    The VCPs don’t have to be equal but it works out nicer when they do. I don’t want to make VCPs for US and UK capitals 3, because if they ever captured they should be worth a lot more than the same number of VCPs for, say, Canada or Manchuria.

    The impresion that I’m getting from a lot of other people on this project is that they want to emphasize realism more than simplicity for phase 1. My impression of the discussions when we first set this phase idea up was to emphasize simplicity, but invoke some realism for phase 1 and then for phase 2 give much more emphasis to realism. I think the game needs to find a good balance between simplicity and realism, and I understand that people will balance the weight of each of the 2 components differently, but it seems like we’re all getting too technical with all this realism and the game is getting too complicated for what phase 1 was supposed to be. I agree that we could have different VCPs for each type of VC and it would work out, but with 5 different nations each having different VCPs might be a bit too dawnting for players just picking thiis up for the first time. The VCP idea is already increasing the complexity of the game do we really need to make minor changes to it here and there and make it even more complicated in the name of realism?



  • Oil Producing Territories:

    There are 10 oil producers, listed with starting occupying nation:

    Caucasus (Russia= total of 1 territory)

    Balkans (Germany= 1)

    Trans-Jordan (UK= 3)
    Persia
    Western Canada

    East Indies (Japan= 1)

    Central US (US= 3)
    Western US
    Mexico

    Venezuela (Neutral)

    I will post later my ideas for how to incorporate these into the game, but for now I just wanted to get your opinions on the list. I’m aware that there are territories not on the list that also produced limited oil, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing any major oil producers first.

    How oil territories could work:

    For every oil producing territory in your control at the start of a turn, you may reduce the cost of any of the following 3 purchases by 2 IPCS, provided that 1) the purchase is placed in your capital and 2) if you control more than 1 oil producing territory you cannot take advantage of the same purchase type more than once in the same turn:
    -Buy 2 armor (for 8 IPCs)
    -Get 2 free IPCs to spend on an air unit
    -Get 2 free IPCs to spend on a naval unit

    Along with the capitals, W. US and Italy also get to take advantage of this. For each oil producing territory, both the capital and major VC for Germany and US get to take advantage of 1 purchasing option (that’s a double effect compared to the other nations). Reason for these 2 additions: US was an economic powerhouse and Italy was the 3rd Axis power.

    Even though Axis gets 3 territories that they can use the advantage at, while Allies gets 4 territories, 2 of the Allied territories (the US ones) are far away from where they can be best used, while 2 of the Axis ones are right in ground zero. I think the net effect is a minor advantage for the Allies.

    The reason why it might work:
    Russia needs to concentrate on defense, but they also want to utilize the oil advantage so the best option for them is go for 2 armor for 8 (historic).
    Germany can make use of all 3 types of oil advantages. The Italy advantage doubles this effect (historic).
    UK, Japan, and US are all island nations. If they want to utilize the 2 armor advantage, then they need to transport them to Eurasia. If we go back to the A&A original transporting rules then only 1 armor unit and no infantry can be transported in 1 transport. This would make it disadvantageous for these nations to build the 2 armor. They will be better off buying the air unit or naval unit (historic).

    So even though the rule itself for oil might arguably not seem totally realistic, its effect on the game certainly is realistic and rather simple. If we use this set of rules, then I don’t think we need to continue this week-long argument over which national units to choose from. We are not forcing a nation to accept 1 type, each nation can choose the cheap unit they want. Everyone’s happy!



  • @theduke:

    So even though the rule itself for oil might arguably not seem totally realistic, its effect on the game certainly is realistic and rather simple.

    Yeah I don’t think its realistic. I think oil should be modelled by logistics and not production.
    Probably should tie to strategic redeployment in fact…the more oil you control the move you can afford to redeploy your forces I would think.

    @theduke:

    If we use this set of rules, then I don’t think we need to continue this week-long argument over which national units to choose from.

    Actually I think we should finish off national units, income and mobilization and leave oil and strategic redeployment to phase 2.

    I think National Units is coming to a preliminary agreement just now.



  • @theduke:

    The VCPs don’t have to be equal but it works out nicer when they do. I don’t want to make VCPs for US and UK capitals 3, because if they ever captured they should be worth a lot more than the same number of VCPs for, say, Canada or Manchuria.

    This comes to the point again that VCP shouldn’t be used to represent too different things. Hence the strangeness as we try to twist it to fit.

    Ok ok we’ll wrap it up and look into it at phase 2. I’ll keep it on my wish list.  😛



  • I don’t feel that national units are coming along at all. That fact that we have 2nd guessed ourselves so many times says that when players read this write-up, they too will disagree with our national units. This week-long debate has taught me that you can never make enough people happy when you force a specific national unit on them.

    That’s why I favor this oil system. It allows each nation to choose what cheap unit they want, while indirectly guiding them to a more historically based purchase.

    Yeah I don’t think its realistic. I think oil should be modelled by logistics and not production.
    Probably should tie to strategic redeployment in fact…the more oil you control the move you can afford to redeploy your forces I would think.

    Oil wasn’t tied into tank builds? or aircraft builds? or naval builds? What do you mean by redeployment exactly? building these units away from any ICs or number of moves per turn or something?



  • You know… that strategic redeployment thing briefly looked at with some sorta point system on much shifting of troops you can do.
    I guess it was bit weird and too similar to non-combat movement, but I think it was allow them to move even if they gone into combat that turn…

    Or maybe all troop movement should use oil. You can get into a situation where you have lots of IPC and lots of forces but can’t move your troops lol.



  • Sounds like that possible rule of strategic redeployment needs to to be finalized a little more. I don’t see yet how it won’t be extremely complicated.



  • I’ve been thinking about changing lend-lease.

    US may move into any territory controlled by either UK or Russia in the non-combat move phase and instantly have those units converted to the equivalent units of the respective Ally. No more than  a total of 10 IPCs worth of units per turn may be converted from US to either Russia or UK units.

    I think this will make the game a lot simpler. Commerce raiding lend-lease is now through sinking military transport units. Commerce raiding nations due to their teritories not being contiguously connected to their capital is still done by subtracting IPCs. This allows now there to be only 1 set of rules for subtracting IPCs due to commerce raiding. Opinions?



  • My opinion is, of course, negative.
    But just because I like my global dynamic model 😉

    Unlike static convoy SZs, the player decides which blockade (if any) it’ll try to run through.
    The wording of the rule is simple.

    This is in the income thread.@theduke:

    US may move into any territory controlled by either UK or Russia in the non-combat move phase and instantly have those units converted to the equivalent units of the respective Ally.

    I think it was supplies sent to USSR hence we want it to be IPC.
    For UK you are quite right. UK bought much actual war machines from US and your method is realistic.
    The thing is that it would be difficult to intercept Lend-lease with your method but I guess thats normal as UK let US enter their territory.



  • US sent many aircraft to Russia.
    Didn’t we already discuss how your blockade idea would make it really hard to set up a complete blockade of, say, UK? That’s a lot of SZs to spread out over.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 3
  • 106
  • 8
  • 3
  • 21
  • 15
  • 114
I Will Never Grow Up Games

42
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts