AARHE: Rule files

OK. Comment noted.
Don’t be afraid about numbers, they will be much less present since they found a way to be applied in a Triple A Redesign game.

I will try to refrained myself to not overflow too much threads.

For language difference, maybe someday it will improve…

Basically I have two kinds of players I play A&A with. For casual player and family I can con into playing A&A with during the holidays, it’s all about simplicity. When I can get an A&A junkie like myself and one of my brothers playing, we can do complicated HRs. For that middle ground game I use a little of both. Frankly most games I get in, because I only play FTF, are Revised and Classic with 42.2 coming in distant 3rd place. Global with “Toblerone’s House Rules” is solo and experimental.

So these house rules are geared for A&A 1914?

Since A&A 1914 came out, I’ve been looking to import some of the rules from there into the Global 1940 game. The rule I’ve been eyeing most is the contested territory mainly, but as this is mainly a result of the limited combat rounds I feel it may limit the game too much. That was until I thought this could be a perfect time to implement oil rules! If you used oil to “buy” extra combat rounds as needed, this could simulate supplying your army as they attack. This really allows the use of the contested territory rules without the limiting effects of a hard one-round cap on combat, as well as limit territory exchanges. I thinking something along the lines of:

**Oil Refinery
Cost: 12-15
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defense: 0 (AA ability)

Oil Refinery: Oil refineries give the nation that possesses it 3 oil tokens. These refineries can be built in any land territory you control that can support an oil refinery i.e. a territory such as the Caucasus or Romania (places that had a historical set of oilfields during the conflict); you can only have one per territory.**

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

Yes, very nice.  :-) :-)

no fractions. make it easy.

thats just fine.