AARHE: Phase 2: Units

(1) payment of (12) or two of (6).

-Japan uses them with the vast territory of China and Russia
-Germany to the front line in Russia
-Germany to Southern Itlay for transport to Africa
-UK, South Africa to Egypt

If you play with any of the varients, that have more territory , these can be more useful

Lets suppose that units generated by the mobilization of minor ally nations can visually be distinguished rather than simply merge into the armies of the controlling power.

This might just mean, for example, a yellow stripe on a French infantry to mark it as Belgian. With all the new pieces available if you contact WOTC this becomes practical.

What differences might these units have?

+1 in combat when defending their homeland; -1 elsewhere, or if their homeland is under enemy occupation?

e.g. - If Poland is under German occupation, will Polish units in the Russian army be less effective fighting for Russia, unless it means fighting over Poland itself?

option to place a new unit in the respective homeland each turn (with a sensible total limit - probably the original starting number; i.e. you can never have more than 3 & 1 Belgian inf and art).

One might extend the principle to colonies, e.g. marking some UK units as Canadian, South African, Indian, Anzac etc.

Would separate Bavarian units be representative of German political divisions?

Polish corps in the Russian army?

Austria-Hungary might have a real problem…

Soviet Union/Partisan/0/1/1/Can be built in any red terrirtory/1/Infantry with roundel under it

How about making it 0/1/0 Cost 1, and can build in any original Soviet territory up to IPC value. That will limit the number, movement, and use of these troops, but still helpful during a German invasion.

@Daedelus:

Maybe this would unbalance the game, but Franco’s Spain had been a close ally of Germany in the 1930’s and this could represent Germany’s constant nagging to repay the favor.
[…]
Thoughts?

It could be an interesting game option.  Historically, though, Hitler did try nagging Franco but got nowhere with him, for instance in the discussions over the projected Operation Felix (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix).

Ok that explaination makes more sence. Can you reword it in such a manner that it captures both the examples and the language of your description?

no we don’t need LHTR, because they uses different victory conditions and has different takes because its tailored for Tournament games. Our rules superseed LHTR EXCEPT for issues that we don’t clarify, that document overrides.

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink:

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”