AARHE setup issues


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Under AARHE we no longer use the AA guns because these are built into each territory at varying levels

    The problem is how exactly can we account for the value of these units so that players dont lose the value merely because we dont use them

    we could allow the VALUE be spent as part of a buy in at the start of the game for new units only.

    example: germany has 3 AA guns which =15 IPC say germany can now spend 15 IPC only on the new optional units prior to the start of the game ( they are placed during the placement phase at the end of the turn. Germany builds three mech infantry @12  and saves 3 for latter.

    UK has 10 IPC to build on new units. She builds a naval fighter @8 and saves 2 for latter.

    etc…



  • we no longer have AA units
    but they are just now ID units

    so we still use them!
    (IC and VC has built-in ID units, as well as map setup AA units becomes ID units)

    this was so they are built into territories (as you wished)
    but you can still have the option to build more defenses (as I wished)

    so I think it should be fine no need to give Germany 15 IPC to buid something

    however, regarding setup there are other things:

    1. setup for phase 3 territories (Norway and Finland…Eastern Australia and Western Australia…Western Europe and Vichy France…Italy and Southern Europe)

    2. for when NAV (naval fighter) optional unit is taken, FTR on carrier at setup is replaced by NAV…thats how I’ve been play testing it


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    so i should add them to the setup file?

    look at the setup . the units are still set up according to the names of the territories so nothing is really changed.

    on the naval fighter thing i would still make them 'real ’ fighters because the value is better. All these new items have to be purchased. So if we are not replacing a destroyer with a cruiser it stands to reason that we should not replace a fighter with a naval fighter.

    perhaps when we use optional units each player could have some fund like in AA europe where they can build these items only and place with built units at placement phase.



  • @Imperious:

    so i should add them to the setup file?

    Just change the words “Anti-aircraft” to “Infrastructure defense” on the player aids.

    look at the setup . the units are still set up according to the names of the territories so nothing is really changed.

    But that’ll leave Vichy France, Finland and Italy empty!
    Also, where does Australia’s 2 INF go? Eastern or Western?

    on the naval fighter thing i would still make them 'real ’ fighters because the value is better.

    Yeah I know.
    The problem it breaks the rules to have a FTR (fighter) on top of a CV (Aircraft Carrier), when optional unit NAV (naval fighter) is taken.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    so i should add them to the setup file?
    Just change the words “Anti-aircraft” to “Infrastructure defense” on the player aids.

    +++++ ok ill take care of it.

    Quote
    look at the setup . the units are still set up according to the names of the territories so nothing is really changed.
    But that’ll leave Vichy France, Finland and Italy empty!
    Also, where does Australia’s 2 INF go? Eastern or Western?

    ++++++Look at the file. its not as bad as you make it out

    Quote
    on the naval fighter thing i would still make them 'real ’ fighters because the value is better.
    Yeah I know.
    The problem it breaks the rules to have a FTR (fighter) on top of a CV (Aircraft Carrier), when optional unit NAV (naval fighter) is taken.

    +++++++ ok then we will have to make the fighters naval fighters as long as they begin on carriers.



  • @Imperious:

    +++++ ok ill take care of it.

    post player aids to the thread as you go thanks
    would be nice if you date your filenames or write next to the URL when did you last update
    that way people know whether they need to re-download

    ++++++Look at the file. its not as bad as you make it out

    I don’t get it
    Vichy France is ok
    but is it ok for Finland to be empty?
    or maybe my copies of the player aids are old

    +++++++ ok then we will have to make the fighters naval fighters as long as they begin on carriers.

    Should this be on the player aids or should be have a setup section in the rules file?



  • I think, that at first it was agreed that the territories that have been split in more territories, don’t get extra units to setup. But it is up to the player to divide them over the territories. This means that the normal setup units of Norway have now to be divided over Norway and Finland.

    But I think it would be better if “we” come up with pre-setup for all territories including the new ones. Also I like what IL suggested on giving each player an amount of IPC at the start of the game to purchase optional units, if it’s decided to play with them.



  • But it is up to the player to divide them over the territories.

    yeah I think thats what players would do at the moment
    since we don’t specify

    though could be a blow to realism
    eg. to leave Italy empty…

    regarding IPC at start of game to purchase optional units
    I don’t see the point yet
    purchasing units is pretty much already the opening of the game


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    regarding IPC at start of game to purchase optional units
    I don’t see the point yet
    purchasing units is pretty much already the opening of the game

    +===== this is a special purchase fund that can only be spent on optional units. Its done just like they have it in AA europe. They are placed at the end of the turn with other units that are built so the games strategy will not change dramatically in the opening turn.



  • the thing is they can already build optional units with the first turn’s income
    and the bigger picture is you are giving them more money, why are we doing that?

    and so what do you think of “leaving Italy empty”?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    the thing is they can already build optional units with the first turn’s income
    and the bigger picture is you are giving them more money, why are we doing that?

    ++++ Its to give players a chance to start with a few new pieces rather than artifically add units to the existing setup and hence ruin the strategy. Now a player can essentually use the strategy he was using before and the volume of ideas that have been created for the game would not be rendered a waste. I do also understand that the new rules will have an impact on strategy. The funds that i propose are in no way a huge deal… perhaps a fund of 12-15 IPC to be spent on these units. enough for a starter force.

    and so what do you think of “leaving Italy empty”?

    Italy is not empty. Look at the set up. Southern italy=italy and has 2 inf,1 art,1 tank,and a bb and Ap off shore. The italian army also has 2 inf ,1 tank,1 fighter in the balkans and 1 inf and 1 tank in lybia. Is that not enough of an Italian army?



  • [quoteIts to give players a chance to start with a few new pieces rather than artifically add units to the existing setup and hence ruin the strategy. Now a player can essentually use the strategy he was using before and the volume of ideas that have been created for the game would not be rendered a waste. I do also understand that the new rules will have an impact on strategy. The funds that i propose are in no way a huge deal… perhaps a fund of 12-15 IPC to be spent on these units. enough for a starter force.
    [quote]

    Well that woud be FORCING the players to buy the new optional units then. (and that wouldn’t be realistic would it)
    And if you don’t force the IPC to be spent on optional units then its just a generic “more IPC”.
    But I see what you are getting at. You are trying to preserve (to some extent) opening strategys.
    I just feel weird about it.

    Italy is not empty. Look at the set up. Southern italy=italy and has 2 inf,1 art,1 tank,and a bb and Ap off shore. The italian army also has 2 inf ,1 tank,1 fighter in the balkans and 1 inf and 1 tank in lybia. Is that not enough of an Italian army?

    Oh I see. Italy is new player so it doesn’t have that problem. You actually specified it.
    So its “Southern Europe” thats empty. But I guess you meant for that.

    But we haven’t solved he generic problem with non-new players.
    Norway/Finland. Vichy France/Western Europe. Western/Eastern Australia.

    I reckon we should just specific the split in the rules.

    Norway: 2 INF
    Finalnd: 1 INF

    Vichy France: 1 INF
    Western Europe: the rest

    Western Australia: 1 INF
    Eastern Australia: the rest

    I see in your phase 3 map with setup ghosts…Finland, Vichy France, Western Australia is empty.

    USSR can take Finland straight away.
    Japan can take Western Australia straight away.

    Is that your intension?
    (It doesn’t quite preserve strategys. But that doesn’t matters.)



  • I think southern Europe should not be left empty in the option with Italy. There should at least be 1 inf.

    I still like the idea of  15 ipc for each player at the start of the game, to spent on optional units. Realistic or not… Btw i doubt that it isn’t because for example cruisers were used allot in WWII, so they should be there at start. Though i also see your point…


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I sent you both a new set up file for phase 3. This has split the actual forces in many cases between both territories. On western austrailia that would be a great desert so i doubt Uk would garrison it. If you think it should have an infantry then i could shift one over.

    In norway its got one infantry and one plane. Normally the plane should goto finland but many strategys need that plane in norway so it can attack the UK BB off gibralter.

    Let me know if other changes are needed based on the map file i sent you. And i did add in the AA guns.



  • I finally got AI installed… the map with the icons on it turned out great!  I think you did good with the setup.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    so then no changes even with austrailia?  france/vichy?  finland/norway?



  • @Imperious:

    so then no changes even with austrailia?  france/vichy?  finland/norway?

    I think yes, no more changes. But only because it seems to be decided that no extra units are inserted into the setup, even though there’s more territory to defend…  So. if no more units, then is OK IMO.

    Like you said, Norway needs that fighter, and Western Aus doesn’t need a garisson… Vichy was still really Vichy in June 1942, so no German troops necessary. (also the allies can’t invade it, and germany does need Western protected)


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK good. less work for me to do.

    I dont want extra units and i dont like to change the set up either.



  • yeah should be fine to leave Western Australia and Vichy France empty



  • so we started discussion of setup of optional units when they are used
    note it is replacement, rather then more units during setup

    NAV (naval fighter)
    DIV (dive bomber)
    CA (cruiser)
    PARA (paratrooper)
    MECH (mechanized infantry)

    @Imperious:

    Japan 2 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
    Italy 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mech
    Germany 1 cruiser, 2 para, 3 mech

    Soviets 1 para, 3 mech
    UK 3 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
    USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mech

    this would be basically balanced and historical

    I am thinking less, like scale it down
    basic balance is not an issue if we are minimalists

    like
    only Germany and USSR gets MECH
    only Japan and UK gets CA

    placement of NAV and PARA is a simple one

    NAV (naval fighter): all on CV (aircraft carrier), replacing FTR (fighter)
    PARA (paratrooper): all at Capital, replacing INF (infantry)


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    NAV (naval fighter)
    DIV (dive bomber)
    CA (cruiser)
    PARA (paratrooper)
    MECH (mechanized infantry)

    Japan 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 Div
    Italy  1 cruiser
    Germany  1 para, 2 mech, 2 DIV

    Soviets 1 para, 2 mech,1 Div
    UK 1 cruiser,1 Div
    USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 DIV

    all carrier based fighters are replaced with naval fighters.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I also feel that Divebomber should be replaced with “fighter-bomber” because it symbolizes the unit better.

    A divebomber is really what the plane does but a fighter-bomber is really what the plane is. The problem is divebombers describe specific naval fighters that existed, while in other parts the divebomber was something used to bomb cities and military targets. We allready have naval fighters so its a bit of a conflict. A fighter-bomber describes all classes of planes that drop a targeted payload , while divebomber can be at least two completely different types of planes one naval and another land based.

    You may even allow limited SBR by these units (at 1/2 values)

    for example:  1-2 = 1 ipc lost, 3-4= 2 ipc lost, 5-6=3 ipc lost on SBR



  • Japan 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 Div
    Italy  1 cruiser
    Germany  1 para, 2 mech, 2 DIV

    Soviets 1 para, 2 mech,1 Div
    UK 1 cruiser,1 Div
    USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 DIV

    PARA (paratrooper) and NAV (naval fighter) is done
    now we place CA (cruiser), MECH (mechanized infantry), and FB (fighter bomber) on the map

    some of these we have no choice and is written below
    options are noted
    ?? means many options

    Japan: CA Caroline Islands, PARA at Japan, FB at Japan/Manchuria
    Italy:  CA “can’t”
    Germany:  PARA at Germany, 2 MECH at ??, 2 FB  at ??

    USSR: PARA at Russia, 2 MECH at ??, FB at Moscow/Karelia
    UK: CA at India, FB at UK/Egypt
    USA: CA at W.US, PARA at W.US, FB at E.US/W.US

    divebomber is really what the plane does but a fighter-bomber is really what the plane is.

    yeah sounds about right
    what short form for fighter bomber be? FB?

    About fighter-bomber performing SBR…we’ll have to get rid of Germany NA: London Blitz ok?



  • Japan: 1CA(East Indies fleet), 1DIV(Japan) 1PARA(Japan)

    Germany: 1CA (Baltic), 2FB(1 Western Europe, 1 Ukraine), 2MECH( 1 Western Europe, 1 West Russia), 1 PARA(Germany)

    Italy: 1CA (Italian coast), 1PARA (Italy)

    UK: 2 CA (Indian Fleet, and Egypt), 1 FB (Egypt)

    US: 1 CA (West coast) 1 MECH (Eastern US) 1 PARA (Eastern US)

    USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1FB(Caucasus) , 1PARA(Russia)

    I Was thinking of something like this…



  • oh…that’ll require putting CAs in place of BBs
    so far I’ve only considered putting CAs in place of DDs


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 4
  • 14
  • 4
  • 3
  • 6
  • 77
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

63
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts