AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

YG,

Could you please share with the community the Axis vs Allies win ratio when using your House Rules from your group? Obviously group dynamics effects game play, outcomes, and strategies. Currently on triplea live, it seems the allies are winning more lately and only with a small bid (being used against Japan now or no bid at all).

J1 attacks are failing more often now. And when doing a J1 attack, I’m more prevalent to stack FIC instead of concurrently hitting Yunnan. I run out of fodder too quick. I think the game has now gone full circle. Perhaps I’m way off? Anyways, the allies just shove everything. Japan may win a battle in one spot but they get overrun in the others.

My next table top G40 game won’t be until the 1st weekend of October (I’m jealous of you guys that have a G40 table top group). Â

Ichabod

@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.

No I was going to play tonight, but I just got TOI for my b day so I probably will be playing that to night instead.

you can muck around with the abattlemap map I pulled together in a hurry
download at the http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

a while back I intended to take part in TripleA to open ways for support of house rules such as AARHE

however TripleA had no intentions to provide a proper framework to support the newer axis and allies games let alone house rules

there was a possibility of great things to happen for TripleA 2.0 but I am not busy with life things

FYI TripleA supports Classics natively, after that even Revised is a bit of a hack

Ok I’ll make it more precise.

I am touching up the the player aids atm.

right.

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.

@Loki:

I heard someone mention the idea sometime of allowing tanks to take their second move after combat if they had one left. That might be interesting because in essence it would allow tanks to strafe like fighters can do. Maybe it would suck, I don’t know.

Its fun playing like this, definetely makes Germany better, but also helps the Soviets repel the Japs and Nazis after they move into one of their territories and it keeps Tanks with a def of 2, which means the enemy will probably use their fighters to bomb them when the bulk of your infantry is in the next territory blocking the enemy from hitting your tanks. I dont see tanks as a 3/3 unless they’re the heavier versions that appeared towards the end of the war (tigers/IS-2’s etc…)