AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

@Panther thank you - I didn’t see your post until now, sorry :) since that post I’ve found numerous house rules and also figured out how the Kamikaze rule works.

@axis_roll:

We diminished the NO’s impact by making them only worth $4 each.

For the UK NO, our thought was Japan gets away with a 4 of 6 territories, why can’t the UK NO be like that as well:

“Gain 4 IPCs if Allied powers control at least four of the following territories: Eastern Canada, Western Canada, Gibraltar, Egypt, Australia, and Union of South Africa.”

Ah yes, that is also a good idea. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll edit my original post :-)

Japanese destroyers can carry one infantry.

typo.

for the system that you have made, i think that the cost of i.c. would have to be very low,

Yeah, I agree. After thinking about this some more, 10 IPCs for a factory is probably still too high.

Thanks for the feedback, I think I’ll try re-costing them at 5.

ok ill make a third version with the changes you asked for. Tonight.

@Sergente_nella_neve:

That’s all. What do you think about this?  :-D

its not good if defender chooses, its also not good if attacker chooses
your hybrid system should be fun to play

@Imperious:

which ones are outdated? i was talking about revised specifically and not Milton Bradley.

no.1 and no.5
no.1 - we got rid of the system that separates naval units into classes
no.5 - only targeted attack when undetected and 1st cycle only, replacing the old screening system yeah I know and I agree with you about the transport unit

@Sergente_nella_neve:

Oh, i’m sorry, excuse me!

In effect i forgot to specify that this rule doesn’t have effect for territories that already have an IC on it.

And you’re right, Germany can mobilize new units faster, but USSR too…

But Russia is already building in the Caucasus (in Revised) anyway, if the front is in Ukraine, then this really doesn’t help the Russians nearly as much as the Germans.

ok agreed. make it so.