AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

This is essential for balance; it hardly effects the Allies but enables the CPs to counter Allied sea transport.

If a turn is a year that Berlin-Munich service needs a rocket up the boiler. More than anything, this issue demonstrates the lack of play testing for this game.

As I said before, just make landing craft give some kind of boost for landing infantry, like they attack at 2 on the first round, something like that.

Also, I agree landing craft are pretty much already in the game due to transports even existing however if you want to add landing craft, you can then “imply” that the transport without them are just docking at some port.

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

Lately I play them as 8 Ipc defenseless units that can transport 2 inf. there range is 5. So typically they have a round trip range of a fighter unless they take off from airbase and then the round trip is that of a bomber.

ok always on then.

@oldsalty:

OK.  Cost of the IC is not an issue.  Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15.    Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?

They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then).  I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.

yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15

“4 x IPC  income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both

*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build

Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism?  Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.

no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out

AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible

simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it

unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map

but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism

Just curious why “Oil producing Countries” are not brought into play in the 1942 game as they are for 1939.  Makes for a very strategic play.

Its a deliberate tiered approach to introducing ideas outside OOB/LHTR… the idea of three stages of learning: basic, intermediate, advanced.

People invariably start basic and learn that the game does not need to remain an abstraction of WW2, but even with pieces can allow for rules to create a historical model of the real war and its realistic capabilities. Many issues are swept under the rug to deliberately dumb down the game for the beer crowd, but Grognads expect something more and AARHE delivers the promise.

in the end is this kind of attack reasonable?
considering the AA batteries are scattered and not easy to spot?