AARHE: Phase2: Game Sequence

[tekkyy]

So lets precisely or a little more precisely define the time line.

How long is a round?
How long is a turn?

Are they the same?

[Imperious Leader]

IMO each turn = 6 months… each round of combat is say 1 month?

[tekkyy]

hmm are you getting confusing combat cycle wth game rounds?

a “round” consists of 5 “turns”?

now that each team takes their turn together
I am thinking a turn is 6 months and a round is a year
round1 being an exception

[Imperious Leader]

Ok its just our difference in nomenclature… I was thinking a game turn is when all players take a turn. each round i was identifing with combat rounds.

[tekkyy]

I think its technically a combat “cycle”  :lol:

So what should we have the time modelled?

a round = 2 turns (axis, then allies)?

[Imperious Leader]

yes a round becomes two turns both axis and allied

[tekkyy]

So we shall set the time model is 1 turn = 6 months, 1 round = 12 months ?

Now I can get back to Russian Winter discussion I interrupted due to timeline.

[rawdawg]

Has anyone said anything about a different setup to accommodate a new round sequence? The game is setup to accommodate the original turn sequence, and if the allies all go before the axis, than they can hit places that were supposed to be fortified. For instance, UK would be able to attack Libya and Algeria and take both, Us could fortify or pull out of Hawaii, making Pearl Harbor non existant, UK could wipe out the Mediterranean fleet, things of that sort.

The Axis would not be able to come back from the Allies first round. I believe that the Allies should go at the same time and the Axis should go at the same time, but there needs to be an alternative setup for at least the Axis so they don’t get over powered.

[Imperious Leader]

Rawdog: i think its great that you too have come over to this site… along with your other comrade Gen. Patch im sure and welcome your contribution to this project.

"Has anyone said anything about a different setup to accommodate a new round sequence? The game is setup to accommodate the original turn sequence, and if the allies all go before the axis, than they can hit places that were supposed to be fortified. For instance, UK would be able to attack Libya and Algeria and take both, Us could fortify or pull out of Hawaii, making Pearl Harbor non existant, UK could wipe out the Mediterranean fleet, things of that sort.

++++Yes and you bring up a great point that has not been covered yet. Under these new rules the sequence is 1) Soviets, 2) axis , 3) allies ( including Soviets)
on the second turn we move into 1) Axis 2) Allies… thus the only problem is with the UK setup… I ask you can you make the effort to remedy this to protect UK especially against Japans attacks against India and the UK fleet in the Indian ocean.

The Axis would not be able to come back from the Allies first round. I believe that the Allies should go at the same time and the Axis should go at the same time, but there needs to be an alternative setup for at least the Axis so they don’t get over powered."

++++ ok why do you see the need for this? the general idea is to allow better coordination of each team and to facilitate quicker play.

[rawdawg]

OK, I misunderstood, I thought first turn would be all Allies, followed by all Axis, in which case, the Germans would lose all of Africa with the Mediterranean fleet, and the us could pull out of Pearl Harbour.

With this sequence, it would actually be a lot easier to setup. I will come back later today and post a rough draft.

Now that there is a time factor, USA should not be involved with combat or non-combat and should be limited for buying units until 1943 or if any one of there units not including China or Sinkiang china is attacked. In the meantime, UK transports may go a seazone adjacent to a US IC load up to 10 IPCs each transport and bring them back to a UK IC. This money is subject to being sunk and can only be spent at the IC it was brought to.

The game should start in 1941 or 42 because thats when the Germans were pushing into Russia.
Also, the pact between Russia and Germany was that they would not attack eachother, correct? Now before Germany broke that agreement, their ally, Finland was requesting help for the Russian-Finnish war. Hitler had a meeting with the Finnish leader and told him that he was not able to send troops due to the underestimation of the Russian forces. In reality though, the prize for the Russians in this pact was that the Germans would not assist the Finnish if the Russians attacked. Now shouldn’t Russia be in control of Finland? I understand that their is no Finland on the board, but that can be taken care of with a marker. What do you guys think?

[tekkyy]

1. Soviets, 2) axis , 3) allies ( including Soviets)

Oh no…that wasn’t my interpretation of the outcome of our earlier discussion.

I thought it was

round 1
USSR
Axis
Allies but not USSR

round2
Axis
Allies

About Finland…are they significant? How do they compare to Sweden and Norway?

[Imperious Leader]

Finland is an axis minor ally. they also fought against Soviets on their own in 1940 and won that war.

[rawdawg]

OK here is an Idea

UK gets 1 extra infantry and an armor in India, Japan loses its transport off of Kwangtung, or it gets moved along with the other Japanese transport.

Do you think it is necessary to reinforce the British fleet adjacent to India? If so, i would reccomend replacing the destroyer with a Battleship. The united kingdom had many different battleships across the world. Plus, it would make for a decent battle if Japan decided to attack the fleet. India is not as vulnerable and could prove to be too expensive to attack, and India wont be overpowering.

I would like to know what you think about my earlier post when I mentioned USA not being involved until 1943 or until attacked. Read it over and tell me what you think as it may spark another issue on setup. For now, India is the only place I seen that needed extra attention in setup.

RD

[rawdawg]

Another point of intrest is about the Russians doing there turn along with the other allies. When you think about it, the US and UK always worked together, and the Russians were always doing their own thing. I guess that the other allies not being able to go into Russian territories can make up for that, but do you think we should have the Russians go on a different turn at all times? if the turn sequence goes

R1          R2
Russia      Axis
Axis        Allies
Allies

Then the axis go twice in a row before Russia’s next turn.
From what I understand, this is the turn sequence. Wether it is or not, we should create a topic for completed ideas so everyone is on the same page, I have already said a few things that were already said and already incorporated into the project, there is just too much stuff to read now and this could be a potentially great way to stay organized. Just throwing out some ideas!

RD

[Imperious Leader]

Tekky is doing just that. Soviets should not get any lost turns. It works quite well if only on turn one soviets only move first and also with the rest of the allies.

[tekkyy]

Axis goes twice between Russia 1 and Russia 2.
Hm…didn’t think about that before.

It should be ok I guess since this isn’t new and you must have playtested it already, Imperious Leader.

But Russia isn’t really losing a turn.
In fact Russia gains a turn under this game sequence.
Russia doesn’t gain a turn with respect to Axis…but does with respect to Allies.

[Imperious Leader]

I have playtested it 3 times. Everything is perfect. if the Soviets were somehow to not play with the allies first turn the game would turn into a german slaughter of Russia.

BTW where is the other rules for combat and naval combat? also of invasions?

[tekkyy]

which rules?
can you be more specific?

[Imperious Leader]

Playtested the turn sequence and it is sound.

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

In WWII countries didn’t really wait for their enemies to move first. What if we just let the players take their turns at the same time, for example write their moves? I know this is not original but this is AAR ‘Historical’ Edition, right?