AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

@All-Encompassing-Goose said in Converting Revised To The Modern Era?:

I’ve heard this game can last for days and can be a real slog. Is there a setup for this game that makes it better?

djudication System:
The determination of who wins a game will be based upon the control of Victory Territories (VTs). The Victory City method of determining a winner will NOT be used. Each side controls 12 Victory Territories at the beginning of the game. The Victory Territories are listed below.

AXIS POWERS

GERMANY
Germany
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Eastern Europe
Ukraine SSR
Norway

JAPAN
Japan
Manchuria
French Indochina
Philippine Islands
East Indies
Borneo

ALLIED POWERS

USSR
Russia
Caucasus
Archangel
Novosibirsk

UK
United Kingdom
India
Anglo-Egypt
Australia

USA
Eastern US
Western US
Hawaiian Islands
Sinkiang

If a player holds 18 (or more) VTs for a full round of game play (from the end of a countrys turn to the beginning of that same countrys next turn.), then that player automatically wins.
In the event of a VT tie at the end of the game, whichever side increased its IPC total is the winner. If the game is still tied after reviewing the IPC totals.If a player chooses to concede before the game has reached the 18 VT automatic win threshold or the game time limit 6 Rounds. The winner will be give a victory total of 19-5.

If no time limit, call it after 6 rounds (bid of 3-5 to Allies is the most balanced) if you have a time limit 4.5 hours for experienced players or 5 hours if less experienced/will play slower. Just ensure you get 5 or 6 rounds in.

Yeah we have about twenty guys in our Bay Area group.  Black Elk is also in our group just haven’t met him yet lol. Hopefully soon though.  A great group of guys who love A&A. :)

And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.

I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this Collect income phase… thread (much harder to find with google search).
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914

You could limit the bomber by saying that it must accompany ground units in ground combat and naval units in naval combat.

That might be too restrictive, but since it’s immune from defensive fire, at least it would require you to have other units that are not immune to use it.

yes… :-D

I can see what your doing…(avatar)

This is a truism… I only get to play board wargames every couple months, but the hours spent laboring over the games I am working on gives me about the same “rush”…

GG

Thats not too hard to model.
Just let fighters defend SBRs.

We’ll already made production capacity more realistic but limiting IPCs spent at an IC rather than no. of units.
So maybe SBR should destroy IPCs as well as reduce production capacitiy.

Actually, what if we purchase at the END of your turn, and pick which ICs to build them with. At the beginning of your turn some of the units may be destroyed while building and you never got to use them.  :-D Thats pretty cool on the timeline.