AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

I’m not sure yet if we should allow carriers to move before their fighters and thereby extend the fighters’ range.

Is it realistic? It takes a long time for the carrier to move two SZ spaces (i.e. half an entire ocean). If carriers move before their fighters, then we are basically saying that the carrier’s movement takes no extra time.

Yeah I think planes must be launched before carrier moves or be cargo.

@theduke:

Should we restrict fighters to land back on the same carrier they started the turn on? Why can’t fighters land on a different carrier (still owned by the same nation)?

I think what someone said before is that historically the carriers didn’t shuffle the planes between themselves. It models planes being assigned to carriers.

@Imperious:

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

This models refueling.
Spitfire’s range from wikipedia…Range: 470 mi (760 km) combat, 1,140 mi (1,835 km) ferry
So Spitfire’s range is just a tad short of a London-Berlin attack. Movement of 4 is generally quite realistic.
The non-combat “move twice” system covers refueling in non-combat land moves.

The question now is whether we get them refuel on carriers. Hence covering the Pacific in one non-combat turn if they have carriers in the pacific.

[theduke]

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

So let me get this straight… under this rule, a fighter could take off from a territory, move through 2 SZs in combat move phase, conduct combat, and then also fly over 2 more SZs in non-combat move phase. That means all 4 moves could be spend going over SZ spaces. I don’t think this is realistic. I propsed 2 SZ spaces max per turn, not 2 per combat move phase and 2 per non-combat move phase.

[Imperious Leader]

So let me get this straight… under this rule, a fighter could take off from a territory, move through 2 SZs in combat move phase, conduct combat, and then also fly over 2 more SZs in non-combat move phase. That means all 4 moves could be spend going over SZ spaces. I don’t think this is realistic. I propsed 2 SZ spaces max per turn, not 2 per combat move phase and 2 per non-combat move phase.

Land based planes are not to be mingled with carrier planes. You can move your carrier 2 SZ and then launch planes one space forward and one space back to carrier. Thats the only way you technically get to move the planes 4 spaces. When they attacked Hawaii it only took like 2 weeks to move into position and launch planes for the attack. So looking at the board you’d see 2 Jap carriers in the SZ above Hawaii, then you would see 4 planes going south to attack the fleet. NO way do carrier planes take off and attack ships and land in China for next turns attacks. that has to go.

[tekkyy]

So the OOB cargo rule is also changed now?

[tekkyy]

From another thread, strangely from the income thread…

@Imperious:

because you wont get into those situations where you take France with one infantry…

Are we implementing that rule about a minimum no. of troops required to capture certain territories? Is this phase 1?

[Imperious Leader]

So the OOB cargo rule is also changed now?

+++++ i dont see any other changes… BTW this and the other idea are phase two.

Are we implementing that rule about a minimum no. of troops required to capture certain territories? Is this phase 1?

Phase one is done… but we will come back to add things if phase two gets too burdened with new rules. Thats why we need the “official” status on phase one? what is it?

BTW those nifty NA’s or national cheaper unit tactics thing goes in phase one? I hope so.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

Phase one is done… but we will come back to add things if phase two gets too burdened with new rules.

So for phase1, only 1 inf is requires to capture.

BTW those nifty NA’s or national cheaper unit tactics thing goes in phase one? I hope so.

I am fine with the national units and national attack. theduke is fine with national units but not necessary national attack.

[theduke]

I don’t know yet whether I want to include national units in phase 1 or not. If we end up including any ‘optional rules’ in phase 1 (whih we obviously don’t have to) then I’ll probably be in favor of adding national units as one of those optional rules.

[Imperious Leader]

ok good.

[tekkyy]

So both national units and national attacks are now finialised for phase1?

[Imperious Leader]

I’d vote for that. They look perfect.

[tekkyy]

So thats basically set for phase1.
Are Mobilisation and Income rules set too?

I am obviously fine with the Income rules. Still wondering for Mobilisation do we need a distinction between “Victory City Points” and population. There were areas of strategic importance yet has little population and vice visa.

[Imperious Leader]

Post what rules you dont see as perfect so we can take a look.

[tekkyy]

VCP is currently used for a few things. Infantry deployment, IC cost, victory condition…anything else?

I feel we should be clear with what VCP is representing. Population? Resources?

And how about Russia’s mobile IC with respect to low income (<2 IPC) territories not able to build ICs?
The rules are not conflicting at the moment. Though the model might be. Are we saying these territory can’t build IC there but can support?

We haven’t cleared defined why low income territories cannot build IC? I mean we already have IC of different sizes (output limit proportional to its and its neighbours IPC income. And then we have this additional restriction based on the income of the territory itself and nots its neighbours.

Maybe fill me in with the logics behind the rules. What exactly does VCP represent? What exactly is an IC piece?

[theduke]

I think we need to tweak a lot of the rules involving money. Like IC costs, building limits, SBR limits, commerce raiding limits etc… I know we already shot around some ideas but I think we need to revisit all those again and declare what they all are so we’re all on the same page.

I’m going to be real busy with work for the next week. I’ll try to check the boards as often as I can this week. When I get back I’ll put in my 2 cents and try to tackle this issue and then hopefully soon after we’ll be able to write something up.

[tekkyy]

No worries and no hurry.
This is not a one week project anyway.
We’ll wait for you.

With all that income and mobilisation rules…IC cost, IC output limit, VCP’s effects, VCP output limit, SBR limit…we need to declare the models and justification for the rules. And they gotta be “consistent”.

eg. Why would IC output limit depend on income sum of the IC’s territory and neighbouring territories of same power, yet IC costs and whether you can build an IC depend on only the territory itself?

As mentioned I push for a global (vs. local) model with these things. Pecisely you should not be able to teleport IPCs to an IC. It must be able to get there via land or sea.

I am also thinking about infantry. Should there be infantry output limits at a VC? Should cost of infantry increase with bigger purchases? Like 1st infantry at a VC costs 1 IPC. 2nd infantry costs 2 IPC…5th infantry costs 5 IPC…

[theduke]

With all that income and mobilisation rules…IC cost, IC output limit, VCP’s effects, VCP output limit, SBR limit…we need to declare the models and justification for the rules. And they gotta be “consistent”.

*****I agree. all rules will be explicity justified in the same document (kind of like how OOB national advantage rules have justifications along side the actual rules).

eg. Why would IC output limit depend on income sum of the IC’s territory and neighbouring territories of same power, yet IC costs and whether you can build an IC depend on only the territory itself?

**** I don’t know what you mean by the output limit depending on neighboring territories. The output limits in my plan were:

1. total IPCs of units placed there per turn can’t exceed 4 times the territory’s IPC value
2. total number of units placed there per turn can’t exceed the the territory’s IPC value
   ( i don’t think there were any other restrictions).

As mentioned I push for a global (vs. local) model with these things. Pecisely you should not be able to teleport IPCs to an IC. It must be able to get there via land or sea.

******My goal is to achieve this, but as simply as possible. in latter phases we can be more complex about it, but we really need to keep the solution to this super simple for phase 1 in order to include it.

I am also thinking about infantry. Should there be infantry output limits at a VC? Should cost of infantry increase with bigger purchases? Like 1st infantry at a VC costs 1 IPC. 2nd infantry costs 2 IPC…5th infantry costs 5 IPC…

*****There are already limits… limit of infantry=number of VCPs…exceptions are 1) non-contiguous to capital subtract 1 inf 2) captured territories build 1/2VCPs rounded down, or 0 in minor VCs, 1 in moderate and major, and 2 in enemy capital. I know you don’t like VCPs for IC builds but I think VCPs for inf placement is totally justified and realistic. I was thinking of having all inf built in capital cost 2. all inf built in VCP territories of your color cost 3. all inf built in captured VCP territories cost 4 each.

[theduke]

I just wanted to add a minor change in the fighter movement rules from before:

-fighters that begin a given turn on a carrier must end that turn on the same carrier, unless the carrier is destroyed in combat on that turn.

-fighters that move into more than a sum of 2 SZ spaces among the combat and non-combat moves of any 1 turn must end their turn on a carrier (notice that carriers do not have to move before fighters anymore, and that the 2 SZ rule only applies to fighters that land in a territory).

-fighters that do not move in the combat move phase of a certain turn, may ‘move twice’ in the non-combat move phase of that same turn.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

all rules will be explicity justified in the same document (kind of like how OOB national advantage rules have justifications along side the actual rules).

Yeah that would be nice.

( i don’t think there were any other restrictions).

Your right. I got confused.

My goal is to achieve this, but as simply as possible. in latter phases we can be more complex about it, but we really need to keep the solution to this super simple for phase 1 in order to include it.

Yeah this is a tough one.
What I’ve sugguested in the income thread is fairly simple I think.
In phase 2/3 I’ll be excited and thinking about how to be “tighter”.
Current proposal only covers isolated single territories. A group blocked by enemy is unaffected at all even if it consists of just 2 territories.

*****There are already limits…. limit of infantry=number of VCPs…exceptions are 1) non-contiguous to capital subtract 1 inf 2) captured territories build 1/2VCPs rounded down, or 0 in minor VCs, 1 in moderate and major, and 2 in enemy capital. I know you don’t like VCPs for IC builds but I think VCPs for inf placement is totally justified and realistic. I was thinking of having all inf built in capital cost 2. all inf built in VCP territories of your color cost 3. all inf built in captured VCP territories cost 4 each.

Yeah. But I also talked about deminishing returns. A boundard system rather than a progressive system I proposed would be simpler.
Say you CAN raise infantry over the limit, but at a cost of 5 IPC. This would model a forceful recruitment.
Although at the moment the only reason why you would do that is for the new amphibious assault rules of attacking tanks not fighting on round 1.

As with income we’ll have a table to make it look simple.

Location          Cost
Capital            2
VC                  3
Captured VC    4

Location                  Limit
Capital connected    VCP
Not connected          VCP -1
Captured captial      2
Captured VC            1
Captured minor VC  0

[theduke]

how about this new system:

location:                      cost:
capital                            2
all other territories           3 (applies to captured terr. and those of your color)

-All VCs of your color and captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected. UK and US exception is that all territories are considered connected but their capital VC max =3.

• All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max.