OK, got it.
AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)
-
All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max.
Did you mean non-major?
No, non-minor VCs is what I meant. All captured capitals, major VCs and moderate VCs are grouped in a separate category. Captured minor VCs are grouped in the same category with the VCs of that nation’s color. Why’d you think non-major?
And with connected, whats the argument there?
Connected makes resources travel easier but the enemy’s civilians would still be unhelpful?Reasoning is the same as has always been… that it is easier to shuttle troops to the front lines when they are connected (connected= short for contiguously connected) by land. It represents a railway without the need for railway pieces. It represents a partially mechanized infantry force without the need for new inf pieces. In the latter phases we’ll have explicitly different units representing things like mech inf, but for phase 1 the ability of placing limited inf directly on the front lin es are represented by the VCP system. VCPs is justified because number of VCPs is proportional to the level of built up transportation (roads, railways, etc.) to that territory.
Maybe we should say consider UK and US territories always “connected” but rather say that they have a different government policy with recruiting hence always 3 inf and always costs 3 or something.
It would be unrealisitc to allow US to place 3 inf in hawaii, brazil, or sinkiang etc… therefore i don’t like US building max 3 inf at any VC.
-
Why’d you think non-major?
“captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected”
“All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max”
So we could end up with easier to raise troops in captured minor VC than captured non-minor VC?
I was thinking maybe you shouldn’t even be able go raise troops captured minor VC…In the latter phases we’ll have explicitly different units representing things like mech inf, but for phase 1 the ability of placing limited inf directly on the front lin es are represented by the VCP system.
Oh I see. I look forward to population and transportation being separately represented in latter phases.
It would be unrealisitc to allow US to place 3 inf in hawaii, brazil, or sinkiang etc… therefore i don’t like US building max 3 inf at any VC.
Yeah it would be unrealistic. I was just brain storming about how to represent US/UK polices. At the moment they can’t raise more than 3 inf anywhere right?
And with US and UK been always “connected” is that about them having better land and sea transport or is that also going to be modelled separately in latter phases? -
“captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected”
“All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max”
So we could end up with easier to raise troops in captured minor VC than captured non-minor VC?
I was thinking maybe you shouldn’t even be able go raise troops captured minor VC…Both quotes are correct, although I think you made a mistake with the math. captured minor VCs has inf=VCPs if connected or one less if not connected. Since VCPs for minors = 1, this means that if connected you may put 1 inf there and in not connected 0 inf. All non-minor captured VCs are 1, regardless of whether on not they are connected. This means that the number of inf made in captured minor VCs is either the same or less than the number of inf made in all other captured VCs (i.e. (0 or 1) is less than or equal to 1).
The only nations that are connected to minors are russia and germany. placing 1 inf at a captured minor will hardly ever happen since the criteria are too hard to satisfy.
Yeah it would be unrealistic. I was just brain storming about how to represent US/UK polices. At the moment they can’t raise more than 3 inf anywhere right?
And with US and UK been always “connected” is that about them having better land and sea transport or is that also going to be modelled separately in latter phases?US and UK can’t raise more than 3 anywhere is correct. The reasoning they are always connected is primarily because many of the VCs they start with are minor Allies. Minor Allies have a much easier time raising their own troops than the other nations’ VCs have to raising theirs. Germany and japan have their starting VCs because they stole those territories militarily. It should be harder to raise inf in a territory you stole militarily. US and UK didn’t do that with their VCs since thier VCs are mostly minor allies.
alternatively, we could group russia in with the western allies and then say that all allies get to raise number of inf=VCps if connected or not. this might be simpler because then all the allies would have 1 set of rules and both axis would have another set of rules. russia still needs to be able to raise 5 per turn though. UK and US shouldn’t be able raise more than 3 per turn. after second thought, maybe you can’t have same inf placement rules for all allies.
-
Well explained. I understand now.
Thats vote for USSR having different INF placement rule to US/UK for realism. Its not too complex.
-
Yes the Soviets should have different rules on placement. the western allies actually spend time and resources to properly train soldiers. The Soviets just combed entire areas of males and gave them a gun and a bullet and said “go toward the Germans” if you get killed the comrade behind you picked up your gun and continued the fight. Of course i am taking some liberties with this characterization which is not entirely correct but its pretty damm close for 1942 Soviet Infantry situation. Only the Shock/ and Guard troops got some real training and equipment.
-
Here’s an idea that i want to throw out there:
western allies VCs are always considered ‘connected’ (like before), but now no VC may build more than 2 inf per turn. this means that max of 2 inf per turn are made in eastern and western us and uk and eastern canada (instead of 3 at all those places). this would make the 3 us territories can make only 6 inf per turn among them (instead of 8). is this more realisitic?
should western allies also get the advantage of inf made in the capital costs only 2 each?
-
here’s another idea:
how about we do away with the rule that if a VC is attacked before the defenders first turn, the defender can place inf there before the attack. we replace it with the rule that anytime throughout the game when a VC is attacked, the defender doesn’t have to assign a casualty on the first hit. this means that the defender gets one free hit per battle defending a VC.
i think a better way to say basically the same thing is to say that when defending a VC, 1 inf is a 2 hit unit (like a battleship).
either of these new rules will make the game more realistic IMO by modelling the extra defense in these VCs and reduce the occurence of these being traded back and forth costantly. now players will more likely hold off 1 turn and attack a VC next turn extra strong and only giving the defender 1 free hit instead of attacking a VC weak 2 turns in a row and giving the defender 2 free hits (one per turn).
if we want to go even further with this, we could say that VCs with more VCPs get more 2-hit infantry. number of 2 hit inf=number of VCPs might be too powerful…. 5 2-hit inf defending each capital might never make capitals taken. we could reduce the effect by limiting it to only the first combat round. after the first combat round all inf turn ack to regular 1-hit inf no matter if they were hit on turn 1 or not.
-
Its okay to have some defense modifiers to account for built up areas such as cities. Only that it should be explained as such and not bundled into what is allready been established. That way people looking at playing this will “see” what and how we arrive at historical realism. If we just insert this into the template of other rules “ad hoc” we would look quite arbitrary.
It should have its own section:
Terrain and weather:
- VC territories have a built in defence of one causaulty before any other hits are assigned.
- Soviet Winter: at the end of any German combat movement phase the Soviet player can declare a one time “harsh winter” providing the modification of +1 for all defending Soviet infantry…or something like this…
of course this can be elaborated to effect say jungle islands in the pacific ( dug in defenders etc) or Italian mountains
-
every rule should definitely have its own explanation.
-
Shall we do that for phase 1 while they are fresh in memory?
-
Yea id say thats a good idea.
-
After working some of the numbers in the first turn of the game, it’s still too easy for Japan to take China on turn 1. I propose a minor change to the initial setup: China starts with 2 extra US infantry, Egypt with 1 extra UK infantry, Trans-Jordan with 1 extra UK infantry and the Kwangtung SZ with 1 extra DD. Note that both the Axis and the Allies each get a total of 12 IPCs worth of extra units.
-
what change made it too easy for Japan to take China on turn 1?
is it the new infantry placement of at VC instead of IC?
-
No, I didn’t mean that it’s easier to take China on turn 1 than with the OOB rules. I mean that it’s still too easy to take China on turn 1! Our rules do make it harder to take China, but we need to change the rules so it’s even harder still. That’s all I meant.
-
Oh I see.
-
Simplied rules for ICs:
-Every nation starts with an IC in their capital and major VC.
-Whenever any territory containing an IC is captured, the IC may be destroyed at the defender’s discretion.
-ICs placed at capital and major VCs cost 5 IPCs each.
-ICs placed at moderate and minor VCs cost 10 IPCs each.
-ICs placed in a territory with no VC cost 15 IPCs each. -
The issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.
Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.
Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.
Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.
The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat. -
Simplied rules for ICs:
-Every nation starts with an IC in their capital and major VC.
-Whenever any territory containing an IC is captured, the IC may be destroyed at the defender’s discretion.
-ICs placed at capital and major VCs cost 5 IPCs each.
-ICs placed at moderate and minor VCs cost 10 IPCs each.
-ICs placed in a territory with no VC cost 15 IPCs each.I think we should still be able to destroy your IC otherwise.
When enemy keeps SBRing one of your unused ICs, at least you can destroy it to stop this strange situation.Of course I am still worried about tiring population, transport as well as industrial to our abstract Victory City Points.
-
@B.:
The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.Yep we have something like that in mind in the land and naval combat threads.
And it probably won’t be optional.
We are very keen on the rule for both land and naval combat in phase 2 or 3.
Its quite important for historic realism. -
Thoughts on switching UK’s major and moderate VC designation so India is now the major VC and Canada and Australia are the moderate VCs? Canada would still start with an IC and India would not.
Why do this?
-India had a larger population and military than Canada. With India as the major VC, India could assemble up to 3 inf per turn and Canada up to 2 inf per turn instead of the other way around.
-I assume possession of India was more important than possession of Canada (i.e. worth more VCPs), even though Canada was industrialized. I don’t know what real stats to compare to measure VCPs, but I’m thinking it would be a combination of GDP, population, resources etc… Thoughts on which territory should be worth 3 VCPs and 2 VCPs?The only downside to this change is that now ICs don’t start exclusively in all capital and major VCs. If UK major VC=India, then UK wouldn’t have an IC in their major VC, but have an IC in one of their moderate VCs (Canada). This makes things slightly more complicated.
While we’re at it, should we change Japan’s VCs so Manchuria is a moderate VC and Kwangtung is a major VC? We would still keep a starting IC in Manchuria and still not have one in Kwangtung.
Suggested Topics
