IMG_20200508_195523_hdr.jpg
Chaos in the Balkans:
Hungary and Romania are at war, Germany has annexed Austria, Yugoslavia suffered an unfortunate die role and has been forced to disintegrate into a Pro-Fascist Croatian state and a smaller Serbia. Italy managed to seize Albania without loss, and Czechoslovakia is reinforcing its border with the Nazis.
The UK has pledged to declare war on any power invading Greece.
IMG_20200508_200336_hdr.jpg
Swedish Disaster:
The Swedes attempted to peacefully take over Norway to prevent any major nations from entering Scandinavia, but the plan backfired. Not only did another unfortunate die role cause the Norwegians to resist, but the German and British players were offended by the assault, and Germany turned a blind eye to a British force that liberated the Norwegians and devastated Sweden’s hopes of a powerful, neutral, United Scandinavian state.
IMG_20200508_200349_hdr.jpg
Spain in Flames:
The civil war rages on in Spain, just as a deadly naval encounter ended in mutual annihilation for the Nationalists and Republicans. The free world does not want a Fascist Spain, and the U.S. Player has sent generous air aid to the Republicans. With Franco’s Army of Africa having headed for the mainland, I, as France, took advantage and seized their Moroccan colony. Unfortunately, I earned a -1 diplomacy points for this “aggressive” act.
AARHE: Phase 2: Technology
-
Yes, I also think that each nation should have Railroad options from the beginning. Not even only on their starting countries but also on conquered countries, that are connected. (Your side must controll them for at least 1 round) But the railroad system in the U.S. Russia and Europe should be better then that of Asia. I don’t think Africa should have railroad at all.
Countries that should be able to use railroads together;
Russia
Germany and Italy
Japan
UK and USA -
I think that if you are going to add Rail you should also “coal” and “oil” to represent country energy availability… if you don’t want to add those then don’t make Railroads IMO…
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
I think that if you are going to add Rail you should also “coal” and “oil” to represent country energy availability… if you don’t want to add those then don’t make Railroads IMO…
GG
I think those should also be inserted in phase 2 or 3.
-
I am not sure about changing the map to the extent where we add these “rail lines” I can easily do this, but it may be a big departure from the idea of keeping the variant aesthetics within the realm of what players are used too. I like very much the idea of “strategic redeployment” along established historical rail centers AND the possibility of air interdiction.
-
I don’t think rail lines should be added… What I mean is either add “oil” and “coal”, and have units be able to “rail-move” inside your “home” spaces, or have players build “Rail Depots” which they pay an upfront price for, and then can transport units up to x spaces away as long as they are going in between “friendly” rails depots…
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
I don’t think rail lines should be added… What I mean is either add “oil” and “coal”, and have units be able to “rail-move” inside your “home” spaces, or have players build “Rail Depots” which they pay an upfront price for, and then can transport units up to x spaces away as long as they are going in between “friendly” rails depots…
GG
What about Mechanized Army?
-
Yep we’ve talked about that too.
We haven’t considered for artillery though.So artillery carried by trucks?
-
Yep we’ve talked about that too.
We haven’t considered for artillery though.So artillery carried by trucks?
Runiing on gas, no matter if self proppeled or by truck!
-
Actually, the little piece looks like a smallish anti-tank artillery.
Should it represent self-propelled tank looking artilleries too?
-
@B.:
@Guerrilla:
I don’t think rail lines should be added… What I mean is either add “oil” and “coal”, and have units be able to “rail-move” inside your “home” spaces, or have players build “Rail Depots” which they pay an upfront price for, and then can transport units up to x spaces away as long as they are going in between “friendly” rails depots…
GG
What about Mechanized Army?
that kind of runs under my “developed technology” idea since it isn’t a “true” technology just a “development”… Rail on the other hand was just expanded, it wasn’t per say a tech…
GG
-
So do we need to separate “Developments” from “Techologies”?
-
Raillines are easy to accomodate…. all units move double in non combat? or option two: each nation moves x number of units double each turn in non combat.
-
Not “double” but rail speed. Say 3.
(Tanks on rail do not move faster than infantry. Mech infantry on rail do not move faster than infantry.)Must travel within the rail-ed territories for the bonus.
(A bit like the OOB Russian Rail NA.) -
***reearch is progressive
X hitting rolls to succeed, cumulative?***certain research resources can’t easily be diverted elsewhere
X free rolls per turn?
Imperious Leader: Land or Carrier based planes cannot alone be involved in attacking submarines except USA and UK starting on turn 12. Up until that time they can only be made available to search for them and also receive two search rolls per plane.
tekkyy: I prefer this moved to Technology. A little more simulation and a little less historic replay.
Imperious Leader: yes right i tried to leave out the “turn 12” thing and change to turn ?? because we have not installed a time frame for turns.
tekkyy: no this is not about time frame
I am saying the ASW technology should be under technology
I mean if Germany or Japan don’t buid must submarines wouldn’t US/UK redirect their research resource?Imperious Leader: Not clear im not even sure the “tech” should be something that must be researched for a price. I feel it should just happen because of all the research done before the war. It was only a matter of time. The allies could choose to basically stop research in some areas, but its not likely.
tekkyy: first reduce the chance factor (still good to have some of it)
secondly give free research rolls
this models research happening eventually, but the power can speeds thing up if wanted to
also models certain research resources can’t be deverted elsewhere anyway… -
“Not “double” but rail speed. Say 3.”
turns are 4-6 months why only 3?
-
I think there is a probably with a turn representing 4-6 months
I “think” it was 3 monthsanyway I’ve seen 1 month
which is even better, but really bad with construction scheduleI mean with 4-6 months
land units can go anywhere really in non-combat, with or without rail -
Yes right but for some measure of playability it has to be some fixed rail if its a fixed number of units as i originally posted it can be made to work as well. otherwise their is no way to model air interdiction because we would need many planes to “choke off” movement paths. Clearly we must just allow double movement in NCM and some fixed movement on a per nation basis… what you think?
-
yeah we could just allow double movement in non-combat-move
its effects should be quickly revealed in only a little bit of playtestingbut I think the double movement should be if the path only involves territories friendly at the beginning of your turn, or sea zones friendly at the beginning of your turn…of course both needs to be friendly at the moment :)
-
Movement by rail only includes movement by land or air units within territories you control. not ones that you took, or are uncontrolled. IN the soviet territories the rail guage was larger so conversion takes 1-2 turns of solid occupation to convert. However this may prove too hard to manage when the Soviets retake german converted rails in the soviet union. Markers will be required?
-
I think territory controlled at the beginning of your turn is good enough as solid occupation