AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

I like this. Very simple. Very elegant. I’m going to have to borrow this for our next game. I’m going to make 8 Blue Allied Victory Tokens, 8 red Axis Victory Tokens and 1 Gold Victory Token.

@NilOGrav:

Big thanks for Young Grasshopper,

Played this last weekend in combination with the Halifax rules (option 2, the greater Commonwealth). Fantastic. We have added a ton of luxury materials (NO-cards, scoreboards, country sheets, , IPCs, tokens, etc) to help speed things up and are looking for a year now how to create a one day game w/o losing the characteristics.

This completely answered our questions! Congratulations on a job well done.

chrz Eppo

Thanks for the comments NiIOGrav, glad to help… I honestly think these VOs are a no brainer for those that want to sum things up in a 10 hour day. I will be releasing my new game accessory card deck soon, keep an eye out for my next “essential customizations” video.

Cheers.

@Baron:

Hope UK Pacific new turn order will help smooth the game flow.
Do you intend to merge it with ANZAC when you have less players around the table?

I don’t think so, the group loves the speed of the game with the separate UK nations… but they want something a little closer to oob rules. Also, it’s believed that the new victory objectives help balance the game the way a combined UK Pacific and ANZAC combo once did. It still needs a few tweeks to the NOs.

@oztea

Hi! Sorry to disturb you, but just to clarify (sorry for the stupid question), Japan is supposed to be at war with the UK, ANZAC, and the Dutch in this setup, right? I’m asking because the TripleA map doesn’t have the UK and Japan at war and I’m not sure whether that’s an error or not. Thank you!

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

@Cmdr:

@Gargantua:

Paratroopers talk a big game…

But for examle, if Patton hadn’t have broken through to Bastogne,  they would have been massacred :S

I still think it is a bit complicated.

Just have a rule that says you have a full round, from the time you are cut off, to establish a line of supply (unbroken, but you can make it as conveluted as you need to establish it) to a friendly industrial complex or all units in the territory are lost.  It must be a major industrial complex or convoy zone (free of enemy warships.)  That stops you from building a minor complex to supply your troops and stops the enemy from just taking a major complex and cutting off your entire continent since you can get to a convoy zone instead.

Maybe I think too simply?  It just seems the easier it is to understand, the better the chances of using it and spreading the idea to others.

I prefer the notion of keeping it simple.  My A&A “house rules” games have so many rules as it is…

@Vareel:

some units just don’t seem to have any nitch.

’

All the units in AAP40 have a niche, you just have to think about it more. Some are not as sexy as they used to be (tanks, battleships) and some are certainly bought less by certain players, but in general this is representive of history.

This set of unit stats is the best to date.

Why should crusiers be able to be traded with fighters?

the tac bomber rules already give them a clear role and make alot of sence except they are simpler that yours.

I do like your rules for infantry supporting tanks on the defence, except I dont like tanks costing five. tanks are big things that take alot to produce they should be expensive and players should not be able to build stacks of them (unless they are the russian player, in AAE40 the USSR should not be able to buy mech inf and instead can buy tanks at 5.)

Thanks Tekkyy