ideas and discussion were repeated
most important discussion/progress was at the end of your last post:
@Imperious:
OMFG… what is this? why do you keep going back to losing one ship?
haha I answered already
this is funny, a bit your like misunderstanding at the “Lite” thread
here it is again
“don’t lose more than you ship”
ship as in the verb
my system do not destroy any ships, only IPCs
basically the idea is say US has Hawaii, takes New Guinea…that is 1 IPC + 1 IPC
if Japan raids convoys from those two islands going for Los Angeles…US can potentially lose 2 IPC…not 1 IPC per Japanese ship for unlimited amount
but its ok I think in the other bits of your post you agree already not to bleed a player like that
you lose one ipc (potentially with a roll)
Enemy ships do not hit the convoy or “travel path” from another part of the world. Only German naval in Atlantic and Indian can cause 1 ipc damage each ship to british or American, i guess the allies decide by committee who loses this, or the German player can declare, or we allow this to be dependant of how close he is to enemy IPC of territories separated by sea.
your latest revision is yet another step closer to my system
we now have concensus on
*no more “bleeding” a player
*units can’t hitting other parts of the world
what remains in the merely last point:
remains realistic even if territory control changes
This is the radioactive part of what you are arguing for. UK is an island economy and Germany and Italy are NOT, but YOU want them to be treated the same…. that cant be possible unless we turn Germany into an island too.
its not radioactive once you see it differently
its definitely not realistic for African income to go to Berlin if Allies control Med Sea and Altantic right?
if the convoy system is nation specific, then you would need to have some sort of blockade rule about Germany Africa, (and potentially Madagascar, Brazil…and other nations depending on the map situation)
so my system is not only shorter, but also saves us other troubles such as these
fine reintroduce the rolling idea and playtest.
to clarify, we only reintroduce rolling if you wish (I am good with 1 IPC per unit)
because rolling is incompatible as earlier you got rid of ability to store war material at victory cities
previously say UK tried to build an infantry at Singapore, other resources goes to London to build other stuff.
the (Singapore) infantry costs 4 IPC.
Japan raids 1 IPC of it fater rolling, instead of deploying an infantry…3 IPC is saved at Singapore.
so we only reintroduce rolling if you want
and then we can either reintroduce storing war material at victory cities, or do other things
also once you get the correct interpretion of the rules you’ll see its quite simple to play
now that you relaxed what a convoy route can be (South Africa can go to Med Sea via land rather than forced to use nearby sea ports to sail directly to Berlin or Italy), you simply check if there is a free path…if there then no convoy raid, if there isn’t you select the least guarded hostile sea zone
(other discussions that may no longer be important due to progress)
Tekkyy i have shown that how YOU wrote the 4 IPC thing makes it seem that anytime you isolate a small island the other guy loses 4 ipc. Only in one case can this actually happen…. with Borneo. With the new rule the other side has a chance to protect his empire, and also under this system its not universal (thank god) it only applies to specific historical nations that had developed this ability also historically.
um, I just shown how you high value islands are almost as common as low value islands
first acknowledge East Indies and forget Borneo, now you acknowledge Borneo and think its the only high icnome island?
its East Indies, Borneo, and Phillipines vs. low income Okinawa, New Guinea, Hawaii…
If Germany took UK the game would be OVER… thats the point the Historically based game design has victory conditions which take care of these issues, so Germany would not get in that position. The German u-boat campaign was developed exclusively by Germany during 2 wars, UK, USSR, Italy, and even USA had not real appreciation of how to successfully run a submarine campaign designed to sink commerce. Thats why only certain nations are given this ability.
no it doesn’t have to be over for Allies if Germany takes UK
it depends on the rest of the map
(and lets history replay arguments would be nice)
1939 map in particularly gives us the option to explore a heavy Battle of Britain rather than going to Operation Barbarossa
Russia given the spare time could have built up even better than they did in history
Germany has submarine campaign focus because of the friendly/enemy situation
US submarines harassed Japan shipping too
if you want to give Germany bonus its a matter making of an NA (eg. German transport can convoy raid too…how they disguised raider Kormoran as a merchant ship and then sank HMAS Sydney)
But Germany can lose income if they lose Madagascar, or take India, or Norway, of if the Soviet sub is placed in the baltic, or this or that….
you don’t lose more then you ship (verb) in my system
so Madagascar nor India are not going to be become a negative income contribution
naval units don’t hit convoys in a different part of the world in my system
so Soviet sub in Baltic is only going to hit shippping in that particular sea zone
But a Historical version must not have this because the Soviet player had no idea how to conduct these types of raids. Even if just 1 IPC was potentially at risk it would be a bad rule. This is a historical version and not a universal version. Revised is a universal version and the reason why we are doing a historical version.
this is not a question of how well one nation can raid, that can be dealt with by a Germany NA that increases German raiding efficiency
if Soviet has submarines in Baltic and Germany dont kill them, those submarines are not going to stand there and watch hostile convoy shipping going by
We don’t allow IF’s of that type, It simply was not capable for some nations to pursue specific strategies. Its like saying both the Americans and Italians should basically have the same access to technology and diplomacy or the same IPC. Why the heck do we then just give Italy 50 IPC’s a turn?///??? Thats would be a universal idea as well….
please, you are comparing grossly different probabilities
Germany damaged Allied shipping more than US damaged Japanese shipping
but Germany put most naval resources into submarines
OK ill make a new map here are the new ipcs…
USSR 50 IPC
UK 50 IPC
USA 50 IPC
Germany 50 IPC
Japan 50 ipc
Italy 50 IPC
there… now its universal rules. great… Now everybody starts out with 40 inf, 10 tanks, and 5 artillery…now just have the same 10 NA’s for everybody… and we just keep doing this until we have… checkers
A system takes into factors as input and gives an outcome.
My system is simple and universal. It is based on actual shipping. It generates different vulerabilities for each nation.
The income system is also simple and universal for all nations. You add income of all territories minus SBR/rocket damage. It then generates different income for each nation.
The system is realistic. No arbitration in the outcome needed.
Forget “lose a ship”… this is about convoy boxes and how we can make AARHE by simulating the historical boxes that normally would be on the map in a simple way. The conclusion is that each qualifying ship rolls a dice and potentially it can cost the other player 1 IPC… thats it… now specifically the convoy boxes are always allies, because historically the allies traded over the sea, while Japan also depended on the sea for economics.
forget your “lose a ship” interpretion
I repeat, ship as in the verb, not the noun
if you somehow find a static system that remains realistic regardless of whats happening on the map,
and do you let bleed a player by causing 10 IPC (by 10 units) damage to 2 IPC shipment,
then great we could use it
To model this we allow only specific nations and specific locations of enemy ships that can even engage of these attacks.
That is no modelling. That is arbitration in outcome.
I repeat, your method will only be realistic for a small subset of game outcomes. Players are not going to perform the same as WWII. Its a game, a simulation.
I’ve already mentioned specific examples (territory control and which unit in which sea zone) why your system is unrealistic.
You’ve engaged in a lot of historic replay kind of talk, if you can be more concrete in your argument and give specific examples (territory cotnrol and which unit in which sea zone) why my system is unrealistic it’ll be more helpful.
We are not talking about who is “blocking” or “ships” getting lost or anything.
ships as in actual game units, no
but convoy raiding is about losing the goods on convoy ships which are sank so don’t know what you are talking about
You tell me how we incorporate the allied convoy boxes from AAE and AAP into AARHE and stop adding convoy ideas for Germany and Italy aside from a possible Italian Medd box.
I never said static convoy boxes are realistic
hence it was never a goal for me
Ok if the USA player has subs in the New Guinea sea zone for 2 turns, then Japan faces economic isolation and thats just fine.
that get rid of the problem of US ships at New Guinea hitting convoys from Phillipines to Toyko
this is your isolation rule, which is realistic for islands without VC/IC and low income islands
then you’ve got to create an exception for high income islands like Borneo, East Indies and Phillipines
and then you write rules to incorporation AAE/AAP convoy boxes ideas
arbitration via nation specific text adds more length again
do you see what is happeneing?
you write so much to achieve realism while my system is only a few sentences
Then they are not interested in any historical edition. You cant sell people on ideas and then be afraid to tell them what the ideas are. AARHE is for people who prefer more realism and historical ideas in these games. The OOB rules are the Universal version and thats why we toil for years to create something different.
what do you mean? what are we afraid to tell?
potential players of AARHE are still interested in what-if
they just want the what-if to be more meaningful
or they just want the new dimensions added to the game such as land units can’t hit air units
Yes correct IF UK falls and USSR falls, and USA falls and Germany owns every single territory on the map…. THEN your correct but the game is nothing but the movie “Fatherland” played out for humor in a new world run by Germany. You always seem the bring examples of a game condition thats beyond the reach of the allies to win anyway to make your points to support how unfair it all sames.
no, Germany taking UK is a lot more achievable in AARHE because convoy raids can isolate UK from her colonies
if UK decides to use Canada to stage their purchase, Canada becomes the new destination of convoys from UK colonies
the situation you mentioned (UK and USSR fell) is probably end game, the situation I mentioned is not as such
This rule does not do that. Its only going by the printed values,not some inflated 8 IPC thing
oh you have new ideas for IC output limit?
anyway, remember its not a "some inflated 8 IPC thing)
the output limit is proportional to territory value, Australia is 2 IPC, her IC can build 8 IPC worth of units
it accounts for amount produced while not allowing high value pieces to be built at low income territories
I hope the new IC limit you propose is just as realistic
….but is your universal world you allow anybody to do anything. Uk can start making SS units, France can have the worlds largest navy and the Soviets can sink all the non-land locked ipcs coming into Germany from the Baltic. All these ideas are equal with the USA player turning fascist in a universal world.
my system do not allow ships in the Baltic to hit convoys in other parts of the world
so no Soviet ships in the Baltic can’t “sink all non-land locked ipcs coming into Germany”
I wonder if you still have wrong interpretation of the rules
We are giving each player the historical based tools to perform unique strategies to win, whether the actual players decide to engage in these strategies is not up to us, what our job is to model what was effective to each nation, and not rather make each nation have the same abilities as each other.
national advantages takes the task of differentiation
if you like you can give Germany a convoy raid advantage via national advantage (eg. each ships hits 2 IPC rather than 1 IPC)
but its unrealistic for ANY country’s convoys to go through obviously blockades
The American player can build A bombs more easily than Italy
The German player has developed U-boats to the extent where they nearly starved the island kingdom of England.
America can pursue technology and make a bomb and blow up Germany
Germany can build lots of subs and wipe out UK commerce
may the best nation win… thats AARHE in a nutshell.
If people want checkers and no idea of what actually was historically plausible, then keep playing OOB
research head start and research capacity in AARHE already lets US the distinct A-bomb advanatage and Germany super submarine advantage
its all there already
Germany is likely to have submarine campaign while UK is unlikely simply because at game setup, UK territories are spread while Germany are packed together
but anything goes once the game starts
I don’t know why you want to force a particular outcome
its like disallowing USSR to build naval units, but when the situation is right…its a prefectly sensible thing to do
we are not going to not let certain countries build certain units now are we? of course not
Play test then. but don’t encourage design where you start with checkers and everybody is left with " i thought this was a historical version?" and these blokes allow the British player to destroy German IPC’s just by having ships off the coast of African German controlled coastline.
no there actually has to be shipping in the particular sea zone
the idea that territories must use its own or adjacent sea port was created after consulting you
this is the second time you mentioned it I think its pretty clear you are saying its unrealistic
(last time you mentioned that South Africa resources wouldn’t have to get on a board until Med Sea)
so I’ll update my file now to remove that restriction
Go look at the map and tell me which are the 2 island nations> UK and Japan, the whole convoy system thing is for nations that are islands and USA is sort of in this block. By extrapolation we conclude based on the war, that UK was nearly starved and Japan was nearly starved. Also, we conclude that USA lost alot of Liberty ships and the Murmansk convoys got attacked as they sent trade to USSR. In the latter war period American subs sunk a huge % of total foodstuffs going to japan because they were feeding off of Japan like vultures.
WE DO NOT conclude Germany lost income or Italy lost income, nor do we conclude American surface ships sunk japanese merchant ships to a high degree…. the solution is we model only the participating nations that historically were effected in this manner. WE DO NOT allow Germany to lose money because they grow food and build supplies from central Europe, while UK / USA must ship stuff to other places and also receive stuff via the SEA because they control many places that are outside in different part of the world or support these localities.
you’re bringing up history replay type of arguments again
anyway at game setup this is the likely outcome (that Germany can’t be raided much)
my system keeps convoy raiding on actual shipping, if you play the game like historic it remains realistic
on the other hand, your longer and nation specific system is do not remain realistic all the time
