AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

@CWO:

@Erocco:

@Argothair:

Some early thoughts on your mix of units:

Many of your units are quite similar to each other mechanically, especially on land. E.g., a tank destroyer is C5 A4 D4 M2, whereas a light tank is C5 A5 D4 M2 – do you really need two different units whose statistics are within one point of each other? Another example is Mech. Inf. (C4 A2 D4 M2) vs. Armored Cars (C4 A3 D3 M2). With d12 dice, these small differences will only matter once every 12 rolls. Consider whether your players will want to buy extra minis, carefully squint at the setup, etc., so that they can enjoy the result of these small differences.

I though of this long and hard. I love to have a choice of many different types of units for every situation. I own most of the HBG sculpts so I figured why not.

Just a comment on a possible middle ground between two valid points: your valid point that having special extra units is fun and interesting, and Argothair’s point that having too many special units – some of them having only minor differences between them – complicates things excessively.  A possible way to split the difference is to have a rule saying that, out of the full range of available special extra units, each power is only allowed to buy X types per game (say, for example, 2 types).  This helps to keep things manageable, because each player only needs to remember the specifications for a very limited number of extra types, not for dozens of them.  It doesn’t restrict game-to-game variety because, from game to game, the various players won’t necessarily buy the same special units.

An additional concept to consider would be to have certain types of special units only be available to certain powers, rather than to everyone.  This could result in interesting situations in which the opposing forces can never be precisely matched in composition…and it would also have a historical basis, because in WWII not all powers fielded every type of weapon.

I should start posting some of the work completed to date because that’s exactly what I’ve done. Every Nation has 2 specific units with the exception of Italy which they have one (ideas for a second unit are welcome) and depending on the unit you can only build 1 or 2 per turn. So anything you suggesting CWO Marc has been implemented.

Sorry for the late feedback. I was pretty occupied during the last weeks.  :-(

We did playtest the “Island Hoping” VO and in our opinion it worked very well. The Axis decided to do a G1 Barbarossa and a J1 Pearl Harbor. The idea was to force USA into a Pacific war and that way provide Germany the needed air to crush Russia. This idea worked and the US player did heavily invest in the Pacific to prevent Japan from getting the islands and later even more to get the islands himself. Because of this fact we would say that those new VOs are very good, because before there was not much to lose in the Pacific for the Americans, but a lot to win in Europe.

Resume, we will keep playing with the new VO in our next games and keep you informed!  :wink:

The lady and I will be playing as the Allies, and we’re going to attempt a neutral crush.  The idea is Russia hits turkey hard R2, followed by the US landing in Spain US2.

The idea is roughly this:

R1: purchase 2 tanks & 1 mech for Stalingrad, 7 inf for Moscow.  Back off the front lines, including sending the Leningrad troops to Archangel, then position 6 infantry in Caucasus and as many mechs and tanks as possible in Stalingrad.  All air force goes to Moscow, giving Russia 23 units to hit Turkey with on R2.  Should only lose 3 infantry in the counter attack, leaving 15 ground units in Turkey.

US1: purchase 7 transports, all in the EUS.  Get the Pacific fleet to Hawaii, get some planes down to NZ and Queensland, consolidate the Atlantic fleet in EUS, move the EUS fighter to Gibraltar for extra defense.  US2: all Pacific buy of 2 CV, 1 transport, 2 DD’s, 3 subs.  Attack Spain in full force, should only lose 2 inf, leaving 14.

UK1: factory in Egypt, transport in Canada, fighter in South Africa.  Standard Med and Africa moves: clear out the Malta SZ with a couple of planes, try to kill the Italian BB with the sub in SZ98, add planes to Gibraltar to defend.  I’m going to use the Canada transport to drop a tank and inf in Suriname.  Over on the India side I’ll move the fleet over to Africa and use the transport to take Persia.  UK2: Buy ships out of Egypt, factory in Persia.  From there, get as many men to Egypt as a I can, move the Royal Navy to SZ91 to help protect the American transports.

There is obviously a lot more to it, but this is the basic version.  Thoughts and suggestions?  The overall idea is to squeeze the Med and Italy.  US can build a complex in Spain, or more likely just shuttle 8 units from EUS each turn.  Russia can gradually advance into Southern Europe, especially if the UK has men and planes to back them up.  The idea with UK is just that: build a lot of ships and planes to help secure the Med and the territories Russia and the US advance into.

just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.

THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean.  Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures.  Procedures do not necessarily require robots.  Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.

These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.

“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”

I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.

“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”

Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.

Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.

We have to agree to disagree.

These rules use the OOB maps for AA50 and 42. They are current files.

GAH!  I always forget the fine print about resorting to OOB/LHTR to clarify – thanks Tekkyy.

Jennifer don’t you mean AARHE? rather than AARe?

AS soon as a few people are ready we should attempt a play by post.

I actually sold my map that was printed to another friend… so ill need to get another copy.

Yep thats correct… but once Moscow is fallen its possible for western allies to move into Soviet territories because after all communism has fallen and Stalin is dead.

see its quite simple rule