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).

@midnight_reaper that’s a cool idea and I might have to try it. However I don’t like the idea of getting advancements for free, which is why I like some sort of facility to buy. Since the G40 R&D board seems to have the better advances on one side I’d say you have to roll a 1-4 to get the 1 column, and 5-6 to get the second. Maybe even through in an added cost to get 1-3 & 4-6. But again with that, I think countries should have to build the facilities in their capitol instead of anywhere and starting with them.

True, but it also represents the other German cruisers on the loose in the Pacific, South Atlantic & and Indian Oceans that cannot be represented. These were a serious concern for the Allies until eliminated.

"END TIME RULE: (See End Time Rule Handout) this is how game will end within the time constraints of the event.
"

Do you have any idea where to find this End Time Rule Handout?

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.

@Imperious:

heres some manageable rules to use:

I most like the part about destroyer and crusier negate submarine’s preemptive fire on a 1-to-1 basis (rather than unlimited in AAR).

Simple enough to implement for even first time players. Yet quite effective in improving gameplay dynamics.

Yeah you’re right, finished, not finalized…

@Rommel:

I like it.:D If I were you,I’d use the Cap (Combat Air Patrol) rules from A&A:Pacific for your house rule.

Could someone post the Cap rule from A&A Pacific.
Really appreciate it, thanks.