AARHE: Rule files

@skhande2

I my view, tanks, artillery, and infantry units don’t just represent those things, but rather their units. Most tank, artillery, and infantry units during World War 2 contained some organic AA guns. While there are obviously differences in the size of divisions between the powers (Soviet divisions and corps were smaller than Western ones, one reason they were able to rack up such large numbers), I think a unit represents X number of soldiers, tanks, AA guns, etc. (while actual AA gun units are for dedicated anti-aircraft units which exist semi-independently of other divisions).

I’ve heard suggestions of giving artillery anti-tank capabilities, similar to anti-aircraft artillery in Global 1940 (North Africa’s anti-tank gun piece has something similar too). I think different win rates between different units is mostly represented well (as I hope I’ve somewhat demonstrated above).

@UltimateChaos:

Yea you are correct. I guess POWs would never really work in this game because unlike real war it does not matter how many men you lose

I’m not convinced the idea couldn’t work, only that the current idea of it wouldn’t work.

How about a situation where, for every 3-5 infantry you kill, you gain a PoW that can be placed anywhere. PoWs need to be protected from liberation and every PoW in a province over it’s IPC value costs you 1 IPC/turn in support.

Results:
You don’t muck with the balance around attack/counter attack and amphibious assaults.
You’ve got incentive to distribute the PoWs you capture and risk their liberation, rather than stock them in your capital.
The Axis, generally considered the stronger side, will take brunt of the downsides since they are killing large numbers of Russian and Chinese infantry. Might actually balance the game.

I went lower at 15/23 because after J1 the Chinese lose 4 tt’s normally, and 15/23 just about doubles what happens from there. I think that 18/23 (and is still divisible by 3 for inf BTW) would be fine though, and most likely would work for the game your in now. I feel that they should at the very least should be able to help to liberate India (part of the Burma road, and I believe some Chinese divisions did end up retreating to India) if they have their own affairs in order first (18/23 does that IMO). It’s really what your comfortable with.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Uzo is the Greek version.

Thanks for clearing that up FMG  :-D Though I would still rather use Red wine for Italy, there are already so many harsh liquours on the list sambucca seems a bit extream.

Can anyone think of an acceptable beer for the Soviet Union?

the cost of building bombers to deliver 1 infantry to a battle is too much to suatain during the early rounds, unless a game would go for around 20 rounds or more i could not entertain the logistics, the longest game that i played went on for 9 rounds top’s

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

well it is KISS.

just have defenders fire first in every round and remove loses then attackers fire.

for more realism…

You can also limit the number of units landing each round limited by the IPC value… so in france you can land 6 units 1st round, 12 second, 18 third.

The attackers cant get all the pieces on the beach in one load.

also cost the attacking player one IPC for each land unit used for this purpose. ( this is not a picnic son)

Another thing is to roll a die for sea conditions. 1-3 you can land, 4-6 you cant. Its not like "hey lets invade today… hows the weather?.. why do you ask?.. isn’t it enough that we just decide we are gonna land 1 million men today with no care in the world?.. To me this is asinine that they don’t have something in the rules to cover this.

by the way, its buggy at the moment

*some units can move in both combat and non-combat

*not landing friendly air units (which you can’t control) would render them destroyed
(eg. Japanese planes in the axis collided “turn”)

*you can SBR victory cities (which is not too bad since in AARHE SBR is not restricted to ICs)