AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

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:

@Vance:

Thanks YG.  If you don’t mind I think I will post “espionage” as a separate house rule that could work with your tech system, or with just about any tech system for that matter.  You never know someone might use it or get an idea from it.  I love the idea of STEALING the other guy’s tech LOL

Hey man, feel free to use any of my ideas for separate rules, I just ripped off some good ones from Axisplaya and I didn’t feel bad about it one bit 😏 As for espionage, I thought stealing a tech from an enemy might be to powerful for the 10 spot, so I modified it to say develop any tech that an enemy power possesses.

@empireman:

did they go after UK? or after another country?

At the beginning of the game I bought a sub and another destroyer and went on a submarine hunt.
Then they helped reinforcing the british after being liberated by the USA. They captured Brasil and Invaded gibraltar and North-Africa alongside the Americans. In the end they were able to invade Norway. The allies claimed victory shorty after that. I found them fun to play with.

I’m thinking of just putting them in as a complete independent force from the beginning starting with the 7 IPC’s from Canada.

Either way they were an original addition to our game without interfering with balance issues. I gave them a spot going behind the UK but maybe it’s better for them to go behind Italy’s turn. That’s something I still have to tweek :)

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.

Well a couple of things:

Spain should be at 4IPC: 4 inf, 1 ARM ,1 art, 1 fighter, 1 DD, 1 AP
Turkey at 3: 4 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Art, 1 AP
Arabia at 2: 1 INf
Sweden at 3: 3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, 1 AP
each South American nation gets 2 Inf, and each African neutral gets 1 Inf

Sweden provides 1 IPC to Germany each turn as aid as long as they are neutral
Spain can loan out its armor division representing the blue division to Germany while neutral.

Diplomatic is done like Technology except you cant buy it: each side targets one ally per turn and its converted on a roll of 6. If its converted you pay IPC equal in cost to value and then you can use the forces, but you dont collect any money. The only way to collect income is by direct occupation and violate its neutrality.

Either side allies or axis can do this at any time, but you must defeat all its land forces. If it has any leftover naval or air they can be ‘interned’ by the other side and converted (replaced) with its own pieces.

problem solved easily.

yea i added in planes as attackers but if non transports are in the sea zone, they must attack as normal as per OOB.

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?

@Imperious:

+++++ Then i feel we should use the same pattern in AARHE to fit with LHTR. The language should be similiar so as not to confuse. Please modifiy this throughout the text.

Ok.

The diplomacy modifier of -3 was too much and leads to many neutrals converting too fast.

Yeah I can imagine.
Thats hitting on 4 or less, which is 66%.
Allies has 4 dices per turn.