AARHE: Phase 1: Income



  • To prevent strange situation of double-benefit or double-punishment in terms of income/economy/commerce we could switch to modelling on a global rather than local basis.
    “Local” includes models like “Connected IPCs” resistance to convoy raid which can be unrealistic. Destroyed IPC are destroyed. Blocked sea ports are blocked. There is no two ways about it.

    IPC FLOW
    @tekkyy:

    1. To store the IPC it must be able to go to your capital.
    2. To spend the IPC it must be able to go to the IC, from capital for stored IPC or from territory for newly produced IPC.

    Imperious Leader had something like it too for another game.
    @Imperious:

    Island “Hopping”
    Each island that is held or captured for receiving IP or as a port/airfield must be in and next to an adjacent sea zone that is controlled by a friendly player. Control includes all islands or land as well as a sea zone free of enemy ships. That is to say your conquests must be “supplied” by a “chain” of supporting territories or no planes or ships can land/dock there (land units can however hold the island) or you do not receive any economic benefit (IP) from these conquests.

    Reason: How can is it possible to receive income from New Guinea when enemy controls the sea zone?

    CONVOY PATHS
    @Imperious:

    On the SZ idea i could easily add convoy boxes if thats what is needed. It could solve some other issues for the ability to interdict (sink income) from lend lease and otherwise destroy a nations economy. I figure that 1/3 of UK’s income is based on sea trade so they have 30 IPC start and thats 10 IPC in sea produced income= about 3 boxes… Japan would be about 2 boxes, While Italy stands at 1 box (in medd). Soviets should have two boxes (lend lease) to archangel and persia. USA would be about 3 boxes. Each box is worth 1-3 IPC roll one d6 1-2=1 IPC, 3-4=2 IPC 5-6=3 IPC lost for each attacked box.

    We are using something like that for our lend-lease incomes.

    GAME SEQUENCE
    We collect income before combat to prevent 5 nations collecting income from 1 territory in the same round  :evil:.
    Discuss this in the main thread if anything.



  • I don’t think a blockade is necessarily an all-or-nothing entity as you describe it. It can be total, but you can have partial blockades where the attacker doesn’t have full control of the sea area. This is why I proposed the commerce raiding rules with die rolling. Some unknown number of ships are bound to get through and the variance in the dice will simulate that. The more enemy ships present, the more dice you roll and thus the more likely you will have a total blockade.

    For phase 1, I think having airfields and ports are too confusing and not worth bringing up. For a latter phase they will be perfect. That’s just my opinion.


  • Moderator

    The easiest way to fix the “Double Benefit” problem is just to collect Income at the beginning of your turn, making it impossible for a newly conquered territory to be “used” more then once…


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

    For phase 1, I think having airfields and ports are too confusing and not worth bringing up. For a latter phase they will be perfect. That’s just my opinion.

    ++++++++right airfields are everywhere and ports are just too much to deal with… perhaps we can look into them in stage 3

    The easiest way to fix the “Double Benefit” problem is just to collect Income at the beginning of your turn, making it impossible for a newly conquered territory to be “used” more then once…

    ++++++it was moved to the phase just before movement… the beginning was shown to be a bust for various reasons.



  • No I am not saying introduce airfields and ports. They are not modelled explicitly at this point. (The only thing I’ve said before about airfields was about combat. Planes need to rearm and if you don’t have land forces left your planes have to retreat before of lost of airfield.)

    No worries we can combine my simple 2-lined rule with the rolling dice (a 1-line rule).
    The player chooses the weakest blockade and roll according to no. of enemy ships.
    We just gotta define how many IPC per convoy fleet.

    As for land paths you don’t mean we should roll for them as well do you  😄 We are not modelling the super high risk truck convoys through enemy territory are we?

    The thing with convoy sea zones is that it can gets very complicated.
    Like there would be all these conditions on which part of the Pacific are under Allies control for Allies to rely on certain convoy SZs. Its also strange to force a player to use certain convoy paths if thats the case.



  • No worries we can combine my simple 2-lined rule with the rolling dice (a 1-line rule).
    The player chooses the weakest blockade and roll according to no. of enemy ships.
    We just gotta define how many IPC per convoy fleet.

    How many subs do you think Germany is going to have? Do you now how impossible it will be for subs to cover every possible SZ surrounding UK? If UK chooses the ‘weakest’ SZ path it will 90% end up being no German units in that path and commerce raiding will not be represented accurately.

    As for land paths you don’t mean we should roll for them as well do you  We are not modelling the super high risk truck convoys through enemy territory are we?

    Land blockades? What? How complicated do you want this to be?



  • @theduke:

    How many subs do you think Germany is going to have? Do you now how impossible it will be for subs to cover every possible SZ surrounding UK? If UK chooses the ‘weakest’ SZ path it will 90% end up being no German units in that path and commerce raiding will not be represented accurately.

    Good point.
    But realistically UK would rather take a longer path than risking convoy ships through hostile sea zones right?
    And is UK allowed route supplies through USSR?

    It depends on what we see IPC as. War material only or also general economic income?
    Is the latter case I guess economic convoy SZs would still be needed.

    Land blockades? What? How complicated do you want this to be?

    No land blockades. I am just saying you can’t realistically send supply truck through hostile territories so no need to roll any dices there.  😄



  • @theduke:

    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.

    We should enhance the model rather than dismiss it straight away and go back to static routes or something. Enemy convoys naturally steer around your forces (rather than rush through taking their chances ) if you don’t complete a blockade. Thats one thing I don’t like about static routes/convoy SZs.

    We could let your naval units attack enemy convoys travelling in adjacement enemy sea zones too.



  • We should keep in mind that 1 SZ is like 1/8th of the North Atlantic Ocean. This means that commerce raiders shouldn’t be able to fire from adjacent SZs. It also means that convoys won’t know they are in the same SZ as an enemy commerce raider until they are actually in the same SZ. It’s not like they can ‘see’ the raiders from the next space over and avoid them by making like a 1000 mile detour to a different SZ space.



  • Thats a question of survillence.
    So far in Axis and allies we have complete vision with no fog of war.
    The game seems to assuming very well done recon.

    The other thing is whether we should let IPCs travel by sea then land then sea….if we use this model. That would make it difficult to block.  Is it realistic for UK supplies to go thru US/USSR? Is it realistic for any supplier to skip the cape by going thru Africa?


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

    FOG of war it too much of a change from the games intentions.  Thats why subs under our system will have to be located even though we clearly see them on the board. For the most part everybody knew what was where only not exactly only an estimate that a particuliar ship was seen leaving harbor and heading on such and such a course… The idea of creating something like the true fog of war system would only be proper if we were designing a “block of war” style game ala stratego… Having pieces basically assumes that the trade off is things like this “fog of war”



  • I guess this is one reason why convoy raid in OOB and other variants restrict to submarines.
    The convoy ships don’t know enemy submarines are there?


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

    They do and they dont… to model this we install a rule regarding sub detection and keep subs seperate from “normal naval combat” so that players dont use them as “infantry soakers” in naval combat loses.



  • Good idea. Lets add that to our “naval combat” thread.



  • So we haven’t sorted out how to model convoy at sea yet.
    But these two should be easy and less controversial.

    1. Isolation
    (When Russian cities when surrounded by German forces, all they have and can raise is infantry.)
    When an inland territory is completed surrounded by hostile territories it may not transport IPC outside nor spend IPC from outside. Unspent IPCs are forfeited.

    2. Interruption of production
    (Fighting were not done at  US homeland in WWII. US production goes uninterrupted.)
    Collect one less IPC from each of your territories attacked by enemies since your last turn.


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

    Hey those are great! simple… duke what do you think?



  • So we haven’t sorted out how to model convoy at sea yet.
    But these two should be easy and less controversial.

    1. Isolation
    (When Russian cities when surrounded by German forces, all they have and can raise is infantry.)
    When an inland territory is completed surrounded by hostile territories it may not transport IPC outside nor spend IPC from outside. Unspent IPCs are forfeited.

    2. Interruption of production
    (Fighting were not done at  US homeland in WWII. US production goes uninterrupted.)
    Collect one less IPC from each of your territories attacked by enemies since your last turn.

    Do we need this russian isolation rule? I don’t think so, because when they are surrounded they should buy mostly inf anyway. the purchasing costs already take care of this, we don’t need an explicit rule here IMO.

    What about territories surrounded by SZs and territories? I think this “surrounded by hostiles” idea could be a good start but needs to be fine tuned.

    What’s with this uninterrupted US production? How is the game affected with/without fighting on US soil?

    I don’t like automatically subtracting 1 no matter the size of the attacking force. Attacker could possibly exploit this. This could be a good start though.



  • My text in brackets is meant to be background/justification and is not part of the rule. :lol:

    So its just a general Isolation rule applying to other nations besides Russia too.
    Similar for production interruption.

    I hope its clear now.

    Good point about size of attacking force. I reckon at least “two (ARM+ART)” or “one FTR”?
    Armour and artillery not infantry are used for razing operations. And invading planes causes air sirens telling all civilians to hide.
    That was my logic.



  • So any idea of what size/length a battle before income is affected?

    How about the condition being 1 or more enemy FTRs doing bombing (when dogfighting is over) or combat cycles exceed 2?

    Another thing is if this should interrupt income this way a new occupier of a territory after a long battle should also receive reduced income?


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

    I know for a fact that at Stalingrad they kept making tanks even while the battle for the city was raging… The Soviets simple never stopped working on turing the economy for war. I think only some fraction of a territories value can be compromised from a direct land attack… even if it fails some loss inb production should occur, but again  it has to be simple.



  • IPC compromisable
    A quarter of territory’s’ IPC income rounded to nearest IPC.

    Condition
    3 or more cycles of combat (exclude dogfighting).

    Multiple attacks
    As soon as one attack meets condition, further attacks til the next income collection for the territory have no effect.


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

    can you make an example with items 1 and 3?  i dont follow your idea.



  • Germany/Berlin has income of 10 IPC. One quarter is 2.5 rounded off to 3 IPC. (I should say round-off not round-up or round-down or round-to-nearest…)
    So Germany/Berlin loses 3 IPCs if it suffers an attack with 3 or more cycles of combat excluding dogfighting-only cycles.

    German holds Germany/Berlin. If Russia attacked Germany/Berlin and meet the condition thus reduced Germany/Berlin’s income, further attacks by UK and US do not cause further industrial interruption damage. However if Russia withdrew from its attack after 2nd round than attacks by UK or US has a chance to cause industrial interruption damage.


    What we are modeling is only a factor of income can be affected, and multiple small attacks in the same round do not stack.

    Alternatively we could have each attack causing 1 IPC reduction on its own, total of attacks do not exceed the 1/4 compromisable income.


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

    OK… yes some income from an adjacent land attack from the enemy should “cost” you some IPC but the problem becomes one where like in invasions you only need to land ONE infantry or attack with one infantry to cost the enemy say 3 IPC. this is a trick that results from these rules. I feel they should not be addressed at this time, but we can come back to it after phase two. Can you repost everything we agree on phase one? WE need to move forward with this.



  • @Imperious:

    but the problem becomes one where like in invasions you only need to land ONE infantry or attack with one infantry to cost the enemy say 3 IPC. this is a trick that results from these rules.

    No you can’t pull that one off.
    theduke saw that already at the beginning. 8-)

    You need “3 or more combat cycles excluding dogfighting”.
    So you need a sizable attacking force with respect to defending force.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 171
  • 3
  • 17
  • 13
  • 3
  • 167
  • 3
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

27
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts