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.

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.

Fair enough! And thanks very much for the writeup. If anyone tries this again, consider adding:

2 German subs in SZ 10 (Greenland)
2 German subs in SZ 12 (west of Morocco)
1 Japanese carrier with 1 Japanese fighter in SZ 62 (east of Tokyo)

Typing from a smartphone is the best way to respond LOL! So sorry for the typos and grammar.

Anyways Hotspurs. I really encourage you and others to play around with the game.

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

@Daedelus:

Maybe this would unbalance the game, but Franco’s Spain had been a close ally of Germany in the 1930’s and this could represent Germany’s constant nagging to repay the favor.
[…]
Thoughts?

It could be an interesting game option.  Historically, though, Hitler did try nagging Franco but got nowhere with him, for instance in the discussions over the projected Operation Felix (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix).

Again go by the set up. Thats official.

once you find all discrepancies ill fix everything so its correct.I have no idea why these errors exist but we will fix them.

ok