AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

@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.

@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).

Seems to me that some of the Japanese NAs are very powerful, like Yamato Class Battleships, Paper Planes and Banzai attacks. With this, Japan would be unstoppable, on the mainland and at sea. Even the extra 40 IPCs for the US wouldn’t be enough, and I would know since that’s how I play, and that’s how I’ve played from the beginning. Tone them down or replace them and/or give the Allies a bid (20-30 IPCs) and it’ll be more fair.

Nonetheless, I still love the ideas, even if I have seen them around the forums. I also love the ability to pick which ones you want to use.

ok always on then.

@oldsalty:

OK.  Cost of the IC is not an issue.  Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15.    Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?

They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then).  I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.

yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15

“4 x IPC  income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both

*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build

Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism?  Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.

no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out

AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible

simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it

unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map

but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism

Anniversary Extension

I think this sounds like a surgery.

My bad… I forgot the 4x rule.  That clears up a lot.

@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