AARHE: Unit Purchase and Mobilization (Phase 1)

  • Moderator

    Russia has manpower enmass could be the argument. Australia didn’t, in fact a majority of its Sailors served on British Ships not Australian. Russian advantage?

    GG


  • So are you sugguesting Russia should be immune from the rule of not able to build IC in low-income territories?

    Maybe we really should separate “victory city points” from “population” once and for all to end this somewhat strange model.


  • Final draft for phase 1 - preview

    (theduke is still thinking and changing though. So this is just a start for me I think this major moderate minor VCP is unneccessary lets just use the VCP numbers?)

    IC costs = 15 - IPCs*VCPs
    IC can be selected for destruction in “purchase units phase” and be removed in “mobilisation phase”

    ICs do not produced infantry.  IPCs spent on an IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory’s income.
    VCs produce infantry.

    Cost          Location
    2              Capital VC
    3              Other VC

    Limit        Location
    VCP          VC
    VCP-2      Captured VC connected to your Capital
    VCP-3      Captured VC not connected to your Capital

  • Moderator

    @tekkyy:

    So are you sugguesting Russia should be immune from the rule of not able to build IC in low-income territories?

    Maybe we really should separate “victory city points” from “population” once and for all to end this somewhat strange model.

    yes I am… I disagree that you guys should try to separate them merely because it is harder to represent that and might force you to add “stuff” to the board - something that if I remember correctly you were avoiding…

    GG


  • @Guerrilla:

    something that if I remember correctly you were avoiding…

    Its just me. Because I worry map changes’ll hinder the house rule’s popularity. Imperious Leader and theduke don’t mind I think.
    Imperious Leader has made many Axis and Allies variant broad games.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yes no map changes only added VC centers  no other changes except when we introduce Italy it will have its own color.


  • VC is not too bad. You just have a new cut-out board.

    As for Italy…but thats phase 2.


  • Final draft for phase 1

    IC costs = 15 - IPCs*VCPs
    IC can be selected for destruction in “purchase units phase” and be removed in “mobilisation phase”.

    Non-infantry units are mobilised at ICs.  IPCs spent on an IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory’s income.
    Infantry units are mobilised at VCs.

    Infantry Cost

    Capital VC      2
    Other VC        3

    Infantry Build Limit (per turn)

    Original Capital                                                    VCP or VCP-2  for UK/US
    Original VC                                                          VCP
    Captured non minor VC                                        1
    Captured minor VC connected to your Capital        1
    Captured minor VC not connected to your Capital    0


  • What do you guys think of the following set of mobilization rules:

    For Russia, Germany and Japan:
    -Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories
    -Infantry placed in the capital VC cost 2, in any VC contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 3, and in any VC not contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 4. (note that this is no difference between captured VCs and VCs of your color).

    For UK and US:
    -Max number of infantry=1 for minor VCs, 2 for both moderate and major VCs, and 3 for capital VCs.
    -Infantry at the capital cost 2, at all other VCs of your color cost 3, and at captured VCs cost 4. (note that there is no difference between contiguously connected and not contiguously connected).

    That’s all the rules. This is much simpler IMO and yet is still realistic.


  • This is for phase 1 right? Cos I thought for phase 2 we’ll be more distinct on population and transport advantages.

    As for simpler we got rid of “contiguously connected” but now have two tables.

    As for realistic I don’t know because I don’t know what we are modelling specifically.


  • We never got rid of the “contiguously connected” idea totally because it is still used in defining if either 0 or 1 infantry are built in minor VCs.

    This is for phase 1. This is to replace what we already have done. This is so much simpler that I really think we should change to using this new system. There are only a few changes between this and the old system:
    -US and UK major VCs build only 2 instead of 3.
    -It costs 4 each instead of 3 for Japan to place infantry on mainland Asia, but they can now place infantry on the Pacific islands too.
    -It costs 4 each for UK and US infantry placed in captured territories. This is the one rule that I’m thinking of changing again because on second thought this is not realistic. Many of the Axis starting VCs were captured militarily sometime after the actual start of WWII so these VCs are more willing to cooperate with the Allies when they become liberated. This cooperation should make the infantry still cost only 3 instead of the inflated price of 4. *Proposed change is that all non-capital UK and US infantry cost 3 and none cost 4 for UK and US.

    We are not modelling anything super-specifically here. We are modelling an idea. For example, in the OOB rules players can spend all their moeny on as many infantry as they want in their capital. How realistic is that!? What about recruitment limitations, population limitations? We fixed that problem, as well as many other problems. When I say “realistic placment” all I mean is that we continue to restrict those crazy unrealistic possibilities that cropped up in the old OOB rules.


  • Oh yeah the continously connected is still there for USSR, Germany and Japan.


  • Here is the newest set of rules with the proposed change:

    For Russia, Germany and Japan:
    -Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories
    -Infantry placed in the capital VC cost 2, in any VC contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 3, and in any VC not contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 4. (note that this is no difference between captured VCs and VCs of your color).

    For UK and US:
    -Max number of infantry=1 for minor VCs, 2 for both moderate and major VCs, and 3 for capital VCs.
    -Infantry at the capital cost 2, and at all other VCs cost 3. (note that there is no difference between captured, not captured and connected and not connected.)

    That’s all the rules. This is much simpler IMO and yet is still realistic.


  • Another new proposed change:

    For Russia, Germany and Japan (same as before):
    -Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories
    -Infantry placed in the capital VC cost 2, in any VC contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 3, and in any VC not contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 4. (note that this is no difference between captured VCs and VCs of your color).

    For UK and US:
    -The max number of infantry per turn=the number of VCPs
    -The 1st infantry unit placed in a VC of your color cost 2 each; the 1st infantry unit placed in a captured VC cost 3 each.
    The 2nd infantry unit placed in any VC cost 3 each. All additional infantry placed in any VC cost 4 each.

    This simplifies things further by now having max infantry=number of VCPs for ALL VCs. Now the only differences are the costs of the infantry, which depends on both the nation and location of the unit placement.

    Justification for Russia, Germany, Japan infantry cost rules: These nations are ruled by a dictator whose degree of influence in a certain territory is dependent on how connected that territory is to the nation’s capital.

    Justification for UK and US infantry cost rules: These nations are ruled by a democracy and so the territories under their control have a greater rule over themselves.

    Make sense? How can I reword the justifications better?


  • @theduke:

    This simplifies things further by now having max infantry=number of VCPs for ALL VCs. Now the only differences are the costs of the infantry, which depends on both the nation and location of the unit placement.

    That can be good.
    We start to model population and transportation distinctly.

    That can also be bad.
    It ignores logistics. Japan can now implicitly “ship” infantry from the islands without TR(Transport) pieces.

    @theduke:

    For UK and US:
    -The max number of infantry per turn=the number of VCPs
    -The 1st infantry unit placed in a VC of your color cost 2 each; the 1st infantry unit placed in a captured VC cost 3 each.
    The 2nd infantry unit placed in any VC cost 3 each. All additional infantry placed in any VC cost 4 each.

    I also agree with (and also sugguested before) a system of raising costs of raising additional infantry with some sort of diminishing returns.

    @theduke:

    For Russia, Germany and Japan…no difference between captured VCs and VCs of your color

    This I am still wondering. Did dictatorship help you recruit enemy civilians?


  • Now if Japan wants to put in infantry on an island with a VC, Japan can do it in 1 of 2 different ways. 1) build the infantry there directly for 4 IPCs or 2) build the infantry in Japan for only 2 IPCs and transport the unit to the island. This gives the Japanese player an interesting choice to make. I like letting the player make thier own choice on a case by case basis.

    I guess the first method represents forceful recruiting of the native population? To what degree was this used in WWII? Dissent would cause this infantry cost to be more expensive than if the infantry came directly from the home island of Japan.

    Then the second method whould represent training of soldiers in the homeland of Japan and shipping them to where they are needed. This one is pretty self-evident.

    Comments on the realism of any of these previous ideas?

    For Russia, Germany and Japan there is no difference between connected captured and connected original VCs of their color. This is because of a combination of 1) how it would cost the same to transport infantry to either type of VC (by railroad, truck, etc…) and 2) how the conquered territory’s population would fear the dictator’s rule that much more sense the capital is directly “connected” to their land. It’s as if being directly connected to the capital is like falling into the dictator’s sphere of influence.

    If Russia takes Ukraine, should Russia pay 3 or 4 per infantry there? I think it shold be 3 because of sphere of influence.
    If Germany takes Karelia should they pay 3 or 4 per infatnry there? I think it should be 3 because of both sphere of influence (if not contiguously connected then sphere of influence effect is reduced) and because of railroads/roads leading from Germany to Karelia.

    These are just a couple reasons why I think captured VC infantry costs should be the same as for those for the original starting VCs.


  • I understand your Japan example.
    But are you removing the infantry placement limits of individual VCs?
    Like can Japan now raise all its infantry in Phillippines?
    Thats what I meant by implicitly shipping infantry.
    I wouldn’t want any “teleportation” of military (or material for that matter) causing strange reinforcements.


  • No, the infantry placment limits have been simplified.

    -Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories

    This means that Eastern US can now build up to 5 inf per turn, just lke Russia. The catch is that the US will pay more: 2 (for the first) + 3 (for the second) + 43 for the last three = 17 vs 25 = 10 for Russia.


  • Sorry to keep changing it, but I honestly believe this is the set of rules that will stick… here is my latest proposal for inf placement:

    -The maximum number of infantry that can be placed at a VC per turn is equal to the number of VCPs for that VC. (this is true for all VCs, no matter what the nation is that’s being considered).

    For Russia, Germany, Japan: All infantry placed in the nation’s capital VC cost 2 each. All infantry placed in VCs contiguously connected to the nation’s capital cost 3 each. All infantry placed in VCs not contiguously connected to the nation’s capital cost 4 each.

    Why? These nations are ruled by authoritarian regimes whose influence emenates from their respective capitals. Consequently, infantry units are most easily assembled within these capitals. Furthermore, railways and road transit systems allow infantry units to be stationed more easily in territories when they are connected to these capitals.

    For UK and US: The cost of each of the first 2 infantry placed at a certain VC depends on the type of that VC.
    -The first 2 infantry placed in the nation’s capital VC cost 2 each.
    -The first infantry placed in any of the nation’s major or moderate VCs cost 2. The second infantry placed in any of these VCs costs 3.
    -The first 2 infantry placed in all other VCs costs 3 each (namely, in the minor VCs and all captured VCs).*

    All infantry in excess of the first 2 placed in any VC costs 4 each.*

    *Keeping in mind that the maximum number of infantry that can be placed at a VC per turn is the number of corresponding VCPs.


  • Althought you are going around in circles, I do prefer this (like the oldest) rule as you can’t raise all your infantry in one VC. So no implicit/hidden shipping/shifting of military.

    Now you just need to put it in table form so its quick to read and seem not as complicated.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I like the table form as well… make it easy for people to get the answer w/o jumping thru hoops.


  • A table would be great  😉  But I have to say: Duke, your last rules on Infantry placements and the reasoning behind them, seem to be really good.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yes they look good. every that we do should be presented in an easy a way a possible to assimulate. I would prefer that with the entire project if possible. That way people dont say “look here old chap your going for a sequel to Avalon Hills Third Reich… what is this rubbish?  Instead they say AHH ok that makes more sence… " I can see what your going after with these rules”


  • I agree we should strive to find the simplest set of rules that accomplishes the same historic idea.

    That is why I’m still not satisfied with the UK and US infantry placment rules. It needs to be simpler still.

    How about this; for UK and US:

    -The 1st infantry placed per turn in the nation’s capital, major or moderate VCs costs 2 each. The 1st infantry placed in all other VCs per turn costs 3 each (namely, the nation’s minor and captured VCs).
    -The 2nd infantry placed in any VC per turn costs 3 each.
    -All infantry in excess of the 2nd infantry placed in a VC per turn costs 4 each.

    I will present the info in table format as well in the writeup. I think this set of rules is a little simpler to remember and accomplishes basically the same idea. It’s too bad that I can’t group minor VCs with the other VCs of the nation’s color. 2 IPC infantry in minor VCs would favor UK in Africa too much and allow Hawaii to assemble too many infantry throughout the duration of the game.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yep thats good.

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 3
  • 7
  • 1
  • 167
  • 2
  • 4
  • 65
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts