AARHE: Rule files

@MasterMark26 Glad I could share the ideas !

For the trucks, I 3D-printed some models on Shapeways and added them to my collection after painting them. Here is the link to the model in my shop :

https://www.shapeways.com/product/RK9QJAH6V/wwi-truck-x12?optionId=128058468&li=shop-inventory

You can see the end result on the Plastic Commando’s YT channel once he painted them (and he did a great job) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADQnU6f0gKQ

There’s other options like gun-mounted trucks, which could be a hybrid mobile-artillery / AA battery, armored cars, and more ! So if you want to make things more interesting, feel free to be creative !

For your tank idea, I wonder if the increased cost would make them appealing. They sure would boost your offensive power by boosting your infantry, it’s just a question of would you be able to buy enough to make a difference. Let me know how it turns out !

Happy gaming, good sir !

@Imperious:

Unit on both sites are drawing board, partially developed, or fully developed naval and air units. The LZ-135 was never built, only drafted on paper and in this sense it was real.

A fair point, though it should be remembered that some on-the-drawing-board concepts are less real than others.  Germany’s proposed H-Class battleships began as realistic designs in 1938 or 1939, and one or two of them were actually laid down.  When the construction work was suspended, however, drawing-board work continued on-and-off until 1944.  The design kept getting upgraded, and kept getting more and more unrealistic; from about 1941 onward, these designs can be regarded as purely paper studies, with zero chance of being built and thus little need to keep practicalities into account.  But at least they were being designed by competent naval architects, in contrast with Hitler’s propensity for sketching battleship designs on the back of envelopes.  (This fondness was an odd one, in view of his land-warfare orientation, but wasn’t entirely out of character: he believed that he knew more about warfare than his professionally-trained generals, and he similarly felt that he could come up with better battleship designs than professional naval architects.)  Hitler once proposed building a battleship armed with 800mm guns of the Gustav / Dora railway artillery type; in a rare example of common sense winning over Hitler’s fondness for gigantism (as illustrated by the 188-tonne Maus tank), an admiral managed to talk him out of the idea by pointing out that no existing German harbour was large enough to accommodate a ship big enough to carry guns of that size.

Lots of thoughts on this. I think that before you can neutralize a player’s economy you must capture all of their victory cities. Frankly since I play rarely and never online we usually play for capitals anyway and ignore VCs except for a few recent games with new players I’m trying to teach OOB.

As for second Capitals, I’m all for it. I really don’t care for games where minor victory is a winning condition. The whole point of the war was domination of an ideology, submission of foes, or unconditional surrender.

@toblerone77:

@Uncrustable:

I almost exclusively play using low luck dice

What’s the formula for that? Do you play that F2F? I’m not totally familiar with low luck. I’m looking to get some F2F games going during the holidays.

Thanks.

I play F2F very rarely, but i do when i can. I mostly play online.

But LL is pretty simple, add up the combat values of your units, divide by 6, roll for the remainder. Battles involving submarines sometimes get a little interesting
Even AA rolls use LL. So if your attacking with 5 fighters roll one dice a hit of 5 or less one of the planes dies.
i prefer to remove some of the luck and rely more on long term strategy deciding the outcomes of games, rather than a few crazy rolls.

Of course a casual f2f game will almost always be with regular dice.

LL dice is played differently from regular dice though, different strategies, as you can actually look quite far ahead and predict outcomes. It comes down to efficiency and mistakes.

ok ill make a third version with the changes you asked for. Tonight.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10338.30

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.

It might be a good idea, but you definitely need a pronunciation guide for bolshevickizationism…
…or whatever it is…
:roll:

the stalinwhatchacallit thing would make it awfully hard for the allies to win against a decent german, and in A&AE it would eliminate the need for the soviet patriotic movement.