AARHE: Phase 2: Units

@Dauvio:

@Baron:

@SS:

Ya I like it too.
2 inf = A2 A25.0% total
1 inf+1 art = A4 A50% total makes up the drop for sure.
Cost ya 7 instead 6 icps.

Do you know how many Art are bought in a game on average for China ?

I hope it will be at least Arty A3 D2, so chinese Inf will get A2+A3 for 5/8 or 62.5% which is nearer the OOB 4/6 (66.7%) combined arms.

This little case also shows that China might be better with a strong Arty A3 D3 because defense 5/8 (62.5%) will be nearer OOB 66.7% for Art+Inf.
Otherwise, 50% 4/8 combined defense is a whole D6 pip below OOB 66.7%

China need something because japanese Fighter and TcB keeps their usual OOB 50% attack per unit.

Interesting idea about Chinese Inf at cost 2.
Mostly the case with AA50.

Baron Munchhausen have been using the ENIGMA (vann) FORMULAS on these proposals???

Hi Vann,
I made up a straighter version of Enigma formula based on the odds of making a hit instead of using the number on dice.

So, you can change the values but still can compare if you immediately use the odds as input to the formula.
It allows to compare within any dice system and a same unit with different cost or odds.

Here is below the post with YG roster and variants still discussed:

@Baron:

YG’s complete D8s roster

Here is the comparative with Enigma formula (still using a 12 IPCs unit reference) based on odds, not dice number.
144*Odds/cost^2 = strength of unit on same odds by hit per IPCs basis.

I bolded the greatest number between D8 or D6 for same unit.
When there is no difference, I did nothing.
So, you can see at glance which is boosted or nerfed compared to OOB.

Unit type  Combat value  (D8 system) (D6 OOB)
Infantry       A1-2 D2    (2.00-** / 4.00)         (2.67-3.92 / 5.33)
Inf A2+Arty A2 D2         2.94**  /  2.94         (3.92 / 3.92)
Inf A2+Arty A3 D2         3.67**  /  2.94         Same as above
Inf A2+Arty A3 D3         3.67**  /  3.67         Same as above

MechInfantry A1-2 D2  (1.125-** / 2.25)       (1.50-3.00 / 3.00)
MechInf A2+Art A2 D2  (2.25** / 2.25) vs       (3.00 / 3.00)
MechInf A2+Art A3 D2  (2.81** / 2.25) vs        Same as above
MechInf A2+Art A3 D3  (2.81** / 2.81) vs        Same as above

Artillery   A2 D2       (2.25 / 2.25)                  (3.00 / 3.00)
Artillery    A3 D2       (3.375 / 2.25)               Same as above
Artillery    A3 D3       (3.375 / 3.375)             Same as above

Tank         A4 D4            (2.00 / 2.00)            (2.00 / 2.00)

Anti-Air A  A0 D1* (0.00 / 0.72 per plane)       (0.00 / 0.96 per plane)

Fighter      A4 D5    (0.72 / 0.90 )              (0.72 / 0.96)

TcBomber  A4-5 D4 (0.595-** / 0.595)       (0.595 / 0.595)

TcB A5+Tank C17    (1.12** / 1.00)         (1.16 / 1.00)
TcB A5+Fighter C21 (0.735** / 0.653)     (0.761 / 0.653)
StBomber  A5 D1    (0.625 / 0.125)         (0.667 / 0.167)

Submarine  A2 D1 (1.00, fs: 1.50 / 0.50 fs: 0.67)   (1.33, fs: 2.00 / 0.67 fs: 0.89)
Submarine  A3 D2 (1.50, fs: 2.25 / 1.00 fs: 1.33)   (1.33, fs: 2.00 / 0.67 fs: 0.89)
Destroyer    A2 D2 (0.563 / 0.563)                        (0.75 / 0.75)
Destroyer    A3 D3 (0.844 / 0.844)                        (0.75 / 0.75)
Cruiser        A5 D5  (0.625 / 0.625)                       (0.50 / 0.50)
Carrier, 2 hits A0 D2 (0.0 / 0.368)                            (0.00 / 0.491)
Carrier, 2 hits A0 D3 (0.0 / 0.552)                          As above
Battleship    A6 D6   (0.707 / 0.707)                      (0.628 / 0.628)

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this Collect income phase… thread (much harder to find with google search).
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914

Ok, so I kind of think that sea units currently cost a little too much, here is my alternative pricing for AA50:
The new price is similar to the price of ships in AA50 with the Improved Shipyards Tech, then the prices get even lower if you actually have the Improved ShipYards tech.

Starting Cost … Cost with Improved ShipYards … Ship Type

17 . 15 . Battleships
11 . 09 . Carriers
10 . 08 . Cruisers
07 . 06 . Destroyers
05 . 04 . Transports
05 . 04 . Submarines

The goal of this is to make the Pacific Theater more attractive to Japan and America.
I also think that transports should cost a little less, to make them cost the same as Subs.
My only issue is that with Improved Shipyards Cruisers need to cost 8.5 but i can’t decide which is closer, 8 or 9.  I am also not sure if maybe BB should cost 14 instead of 15 with ImpYards.

What do you think?

The funny thing is if you look at the 1939 map and you read about how the A50 game seems to be about you easily conclude:

Somebody must have gotten a bunch of ideas from AARHE and used some of these for the A50…which is fine. It was designed to be as complete as possible so people can rip from it and it can influence the coming pattern that emerges.

I fully support AARHE and so does Tekkyy. I have provided everything you and Bierwagen asked, and but a few more items like the setup sheets your working on and those cards for NA…we should be complete except for minor clarifications that Tekkyy is doing.

I think AARHE is way better than A50 or anything else w/o a doubt.  But if you want to as they say “turn off the brain” and play a very light treatment then A50 will also be played.

Of course you know the coming storm must erupt and renew and i must again make a phase 4 map for this new game, or at a minimum create a AARHE rules catered deliberately for A50.

The A50 already has flaws: no diplomacy, no defender retreats, not real new units, etc… these must be addressed.

Id like to make a random card system for A50 and come up with a few minor things

Id include: fighter-bombers, fortresses, mechanized infantry, heavy tanks, and dedicated airborne units.

ok agreed. make it so.

AARHE stands for Axis and Allies Revised: Historical Edition.

A set of house rule with enhanced realism, to be used on top of LHTR 1.3.
Comes with historical justifications in italics for each rule.

The two stickied threads has the files.

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?

yeah I checked out your USSR player aid
I feel a complex pattern might make it slightly harder to read the text on the printed thing
maybe just go along the line of one compact and one pretty presentation version

so would be nice to have additionally a simpler one for “comfort zone” reasons
it would look similar to revised OOB in colours patterns and style