Our club has added technology rules that really speed up the game and offer much more variety. One of the most significant is that each country has rail movement. If you want to discuss, best way to reach me is by email at jonkrost@comcast.net
AARHE: Unit Purchase and Mobilization (Phase 1)
-
Thats quite advanced and major.
How long does a turn represent? How long does a round represent?turn is 6 months max… If the build sequence takes too long it will detract from playability 3 turns should be the max ( 2 might be better)
OK the IC model… only one factory per territory and a limit of factories should be installed for those (real cheap places you mentioned).
-
@Imperious:
OK the IC model… only one factory per territory and a limit of factories should be installed for those (real cheap places you mentioned).
Yeah probably no factories for territories with IPC below 3.
Is “one factory per territory” supposed to answer my curiosity? -
I think any territory with 0,1,2 values should not be able to have a IC… 3 and higher would seem correct… so no fac in egypt or s africa. india and austrailia are ok however.
-
oooh India is 3 but Australia is 2…
-
Yea i saw that… Austrialia might have to move to 3… an entire continent costing only 3? huh?
-
Though not the most fertile lands, Australia does have metals, coal and other raw materials.
But Australian population is small.Does anyone know if Australia produced much in WWII?
-
Any news on whether Austrtalia produced much in WWII?
-
NO but for now we keep it the same value as OOB.
-
So for phase 1 we cannot build an IC in Australia.
This rule about not able to build IC in territories with income <3 IPC, I wonder how does the model and realism work with respect to mobile ICs…
-
It would be interesting if you guys made some kind of “Commonwealth” Value to represent said problem. Like an advantage for Britain overall is they may deploy 1 unit from there Phase 2(Game) Purchases in Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, West Canada or East Canada.
GG
-
We already have a new system for INF mobilisation.
They are no longer “built” at ICs. -
UK can already build troops in UK, E. Canada, India, Australia, Anglo-Egypt, Trans-Jordon and South Africa.
-
Ok, nm then… Australian production of light vehicles:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/australia/production.htm
and here was there naval state:
http://users.chariot.net.au/~lenshome/index.htm
I think you guys have done good as it is… The Aussies don’t need a navy beyond what they have…
GG
-
So thats all good.
Australia can remain as 2 and may not build IC. (I don’t like map changes anyway.)
The argument for the rule of not able to build IC at territories with income of 2 or less…what is it exactly anyway?
It can’t physically build due to lack of resource? Or it can’t support it?
What happens when USSR moves ICs using the mobile IC rule? Only Russia and Caucasus has income of 3 or more IPCs :?
-
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 VCLimit Location
VCP VC
VCP-2 Captured VC connected to your Capital
VCP-3 Captured VC not connected to your Capital -
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. -
Yes no map changes only added VC centers no other changes except when we introduce Italy it will have its own color.
Suggested Topics
