AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)
provides losses and losses as % of population. In excel I calculated these population
Russia (RSFSR) * 199,344.83
Great Britain 50,000.00
*Total USSR military loss in World War II was 8,668,400. (This does not include civilian loss.)
Population and industrial capacity
Population in 1939 Steel output in tons
UK 47.961.000 13.192.000
France 41.600.000 6.221.000
USSR 190.000.000 18.800.000
USA 132.122.000 51.380.000
Germany 76.008.000 23.329.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (both including Austria)
Italy 44.223.000 2.323.000
Japan 71.400.000 5.811.000
Population and industrial capacity by the British Empire Forces
Population in 1939 Steel production in tons (1939)
Canada 11.682.000 1.407.000
South Africa 2.161.000 250 (both white)
Australia 6.807.000 1.189.000
New Zealand 1.585.000 –
India 374.200.000 1.035.000
The British Commonwealth and Empire possessed further resources for war. Canada and Australia had significant industries, and their populations, like those of New Zealand and white South Africa, were well-educated and physically and mentally capable of providing high-quality recruits. These 4 self-governing ‘dominions’ followed the British lead and declared war 1939.
What was your point? That Australia should also start with an IC?
Sorry I didn’t get around to analysis it yet.
But posting the stats first from two sources.
More details (though still far from complete) are found at
Using the following mapping:
Canada Eastern Canada + Westerm Canada
Newfoundland Eastern Canada + Westerm Canada
Poland Eastern Europe
Lithuania Eastern Europe
Latvia Eastern Europe
French Indo-China French Indo-China
Burma French Indo-China
Thailand French Indo-China
Malaya French Indo-China
Singapore French Indo-China
Ethiopia Italian East Africa
New Zealand New Zealand
Italy Southern Europe
Yugoslavia Southern Europe
Hungary Southern Europe
Greece Southern Europe
Albania Southern Europe
Estonia Southern Europe
Malta Southern Europe
Portuguese Timor New Guinea
United Kingdom United Kingdom
South Africa Union of South Africa
United States US
Soviet Union USSR
I came to these populations for the game territories:
Eastern Canada + Westerm Canada 11,600,000
Eastern Europe 39,300,000
French Indo-China 63,600,000
East Indices, Borneo 70,500,000
Italian East Africa 14,100,000
Manchuria 23,400,000 (Korea only)
New Zealand 1,600,000
Southern Europe 78,100,000
New Guinea 500,000 (Portuguese Timor only)
United Kingdom 47,800,000
Union of South Africa 10,300,000 (only whitemen were recruited, better to useÂ 2,161,000)
Western Europe 58,800,000
So for each power we are looking at:
UK 110,100,000 (excludes India, but only 1/4 million of 375 million recruited anyway)
Japan 246,400,000- (excludes much of Manchuria’s population, but doubt they recruited many Chinese)
US 193,300,000 (excludes Chinese forces, who caused 75% of Japanese Casualities but were defensive, shouldn’t be modelled as mobile infantry divisions, better modelled as a NA for US)
USSR has powerful recruitment system. Effectively well ahead.
Germany has huge numbers, but much are enemy civilians. But still well ahead.
UK lacked numbers. Not much of India joined up. Only whitemen were recruited in South Africa. Below average.
Japan, much are civilians of enemy colonies rather than enemy civilans, thus better than Germany’s case. Banzai patriotism also makes up for it. Average.
So instead of a flat 15 VCP per power I propose:
Then we have distribution of VCPs to deal with:
Japan needs to be highly concentrated in Japan.
German needs to be highly concentrated in German and Southern Europe.
A few low population territories such as those in the Pacific Islands shall receive 1 or 0 points.
My propose new VCP distributions:
Rome (5)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Warsaw (2)–E. Europe
Kursk (0)–W. Russia
UK: (after looking at population and deaths, many reductions are placed, and introduced Persia)
Toronto (2)–E. Canada
Cape Town (1)–South Africa
Japan: (Japan can’t no longer easily recruit Chinese)
Singapore (2)–French Indo-China
Batavia (1)–East Indices
Guadalcanal (0)–Solomon Islands
Milne Bay (0)–New Guinea
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (4)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Sao Paulo (1)–Brazil
I think having varying VCPs/nation isn’t worth the added complexity. With the even VCP system it is much easier to play the game without consulting some table. Players don’t want to have to consult tables, etc… I don’t have to consult a table for the 15 VCPs/ nation system… I instantly know where the VCs are and how many VCPs each are. Granted, I’m the one who came up with the system so it would be easier for me to memorize them, but I think others will also instantly remember where they all are after playing 2-3 games.
I vote for the simpler, but probably less exact, even VCP system.
Lets keep phase one as it stands and look at things after the other two phases are done. A clearer idea of what direction we should travel will present itself to us depending on what other ideas we come up with. Just move forward with phase two stuff.
My ruleset probably won’t be available for a while anyway on account of how after tomorrow I won’t have access to a computer for a week. Let’s go with the phase 1 rules we already have written up and I’ll just eventually post what I’m currently writing up with under some other name to avoid confusion. I think the writeup we have already will probably end up going along better with phase 2 anyway. I just don’t want to abandon what I have since it has a ton of new ideas that I just came up with.
I can’t wait to come back in a week to be completely overwhelmed by the number of new ideas everyone’s come up with.
I don’t have to consult a table for the 15 VCPs/ nation system.
Yes I agree that the current system is a bit easier to remember.
But I think it don’t be easy to memorize 7 (5-3-2-2-1-1-1) cities/territory per nation anyway. I think we’ll still have plenty of table lookups.
Lets keep phase one as it stands and look at things after the other two phases are done.
Let’s go with the phase 1 rules we already have written up and I’ll just eventually post what I’m currently writing up with under some other name to avoid confusion.
Ok I’ll finish off writing up the justifications and go build the phase 2 thread structure.
We’ll include the new simpler infantry mobilisation rules anyway since all 3 of us said it was good.
Yes and make it all in table format right?
I’m probably going to win the award for most random question ever by asking this, but how many aircraft movement markers come with the game and how many are labeled 1, 2, 3, etc…?
I don’t know the answer myself because I think I lost a few of them over the last couple years (probably because I don’t worry about keeping them on account of how they are worthless). I’m asking because I’m looking into making a change to the game that would utilize them for something else.
Thanks for your help.
I have the 4th edition from Avalon Hill known as “revised”.
There are 15 of those aircraft movement markers.
4 x 1’s
4 x 2’s
3 x 3’s
1 x 4’s
1 x 5’s
1 x 6’s
1 x 7’s
Thank you tekkyy.
So here’s a question: with soviet xenophobia, coud the western allies attack german troops on soil that was originally russian at the start of the war (german controlled russian soil) without pissing off stalin or breaking some agreement?
FYI- I’m still working on my writeup. When I starting writing it out I came up with a million new ideas so it keeps changing. I should have it posted in a week or 2.
It seems US and UK can’t move land units onto red territories as long as Moscow is controlled by USSR.
By the way this might fit under Phase 2 National Victory Condition / Diplomacy thread.
Yep thats correct… but once Moscow is fallen its possible for western allies to move into Soviet territories because after all communism has fallen and Stalin is dead.
see its quite simple rule