AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

IDK if even 1 IPC bonus per working Convoy SZ can remain manageable.
US 9, UK 8, Japan 7, Germany 2, URSS 1.

Well, there’s no reason we can’t decrease the number of convoy zones. The point should be to simulate a few of the most important, most vulnerable commerce lanes, not to put a convoy box in every single sea zone that saw merchant traffic. Just off the cuff, here’s another possible distribution of convoy zones for 1942.2:

USSR: Archangel, Soviet Far East
Germany: Baltic, Central Med
UK: English Channel, Central Atlantic, Eastern Med, Persian Gulf, Cape of Good Hope
Japan: Tokyo Bay, South China Sea, Java Sea, Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf
USA: Solomon Islands, Pearl Harbor, Caribbean, New York, Brazil

That should produce a less crazy income swing. If you think that’s still too much, you can relocate income from land territories to adjacent sea zones, instead of adding fresh income. E.g., Borneo drops from 4 IPCs to 3 IPCs, but the Borneo Sea Zone is now worth +1 IPCs if its convoy is undamaged.

I have labored in the past thinking of ways to fix the Research & Development phase. My ideas have ranged from ridiculously complex and elaborate to outright stupid, however, my final draft is both simple and balanced. The following house rule has been rigorously play tested, and none of the original technologies have been modified. This rule is balanced enough to bring the R&D phase into your games more often, while simple enough to get your fellow players to approve it.

Grasshopper’s Tech Rule

When an eligible nation chooses to enter the Research phase by purchasing 1 or more research dice, they will receive 1 bonus roll for free. Therefore…

_- if you buy 1 dice for $5, you will get 2 dice for a chance to roll a 6

If a 6 was rolled during the research phase, you must then choose a technology chart to roll on during the development phase. However, after you have chosen a technology chart, and before you make a development roll, you may choose one technology that you will be immune from. For example…

- America chooses to make their development roll using technology chart #2, and decides to be immune from Radar (technology #4). Therefore, if a 4 is rolled, the player for America must try again until they get a result other than 4.

This process is reset after each game round allowing players to choose different charts and immune technologies with each R&D phase.

just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.

THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean.  Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures.  Procedures do not necessarily require robots.  Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.

These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.

“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”

I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.

“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”

Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.

Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.

We have to agree to disagree.

if i had nukes tech i would build a stack of bombers and nuke every opposing territory within range,
for 45 - 50 I.P.C. i could build 3 -4 bombers and nuke territories with no opposition with the superfortress tech,
getting nuke tech needs a twist because of the damage that it can do,
simply getting lucky by rolling a tech that has nukes tech combined would be a game killer, i think that a cost for nukes that would force a player to factor the cost of nukes into the I.P.C. spend would make nukes plausable within a set of house rules,

WOW! that is very impressive. I will get to work on the background sheets. So just make at a patient pace and we will have the final product that will be even more impressive.

good job!

How do you move units? Imagine a diagram of WW2 history on the A&A mapboard. You would see arrows going back and forth across the territories. In my solitaire AAR, each dummy nationality follows those invisible arrows. I have listed below each nation (in caps) the name of each arrow or track it follows { in ellipses} and then each territory it follows. The tracks have opposites from opponent countries (in other words Sylvania has A,B,C,D for a track and Fredonia has D,C,B,A for a track. RUSSIA {Northwest Direction} Russia, Archangel, Karelia, Eastern Europe, Germany. {Western Direction} Russia, West Russia, Belorussia, Eastern Europe, Germany. {Southwestern Direction} Caucasus, Ukraine, Balkans, Germany  GERMANY {Western Front} Germany, Western Europe.{African Front} Germany, Italy, Libya, Anglo Egypt {Army Group North} Germany, Eastern Europe, Karelia, Archangel, Russia {Army Group Center}Germany, Eastern Europe, Bellorussia West Russia, Russia {Army Group South} Germany, Balkans, Ukraine, Caucasus {Atlantic} all ships ttosea zone 8 COMMONWEALTH {East Mediterranean Anglo-Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Italy Germany {West Mediterranean} Algeria, Libya, Anglo-Egypt, Italy, Germany {Atlantic} sea zone 8 JAPAN {Mainland Asia} Manchuria- Kwangtung, China, Sinkaing, French Indochina, India {Java} Japan, Philippines, Borneo, East Indies {Australia} Japan, Okinawa,Carolines New Guinea, Solomons, Australia, New Zealand {East} Japan, Midway, Hawaii, Western United States, UNITED STATES {MTO}Eastern US, Algeria, Libya, Italy, Germany {ETO} Eastern US, Britain, Western Europe, Germany {PTO, Army}Western US, Australia, New Guinea, Philippines, Borneo, Japan {PTO Navy}Hawaii, Midway, Solomons, Okinawa, Japan {CBI} Western US or Germany, India, French Indochina, China, Sinkiang, Japan

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.