AARHE: Rule files

This topic is very interesting. Mainly because the German “Wehrmacht” hat great difficulties with fuel shortages.
I would say, as long as you are not in control of at least one oil field your tanks can not “blitz” and aircraft can only fly defensive missions (or there should be a restriction how many spaces they can fly - for instance -1 for bombers and fighters)
There should be a rule which allows you to make a strategic bombardement of the oil fields.

That is a very interesting idea. I would like to hear more of it :)

@Black_Elk:

For what it’s worth I still think this HR mod is entertaining.

Which options did you play test YG?

Given all the input and ideas in this thread, I think its still worth kicking around.

I would submit than any balance issues could surely be corrected through National Objectives. Perhaps your suggested NOs for UK, did not provide enough to compensate for the inclusion of the Commonwealth?

Did you play option 2 (with South Africa)? Or just option 1?

I also like the limited cash haul concept

I have played both options and I have found that much of the Allied income is pushed to the outside on spawning locations far from the fighting. I now perfer a system where the UK Europe economy is it’s own nation separate from the UK Pacific economy… I also like combining ANZAC income and territories with UK Pacific (with Calcutta as it’s capital) in the same way Canadian income and territories are combined with UK Europe.

Well these maps are OOB. IN a few cases, i added IPC for neutrals. Other than that, the only change from OOB was added Azores so with long range bombers Germany could reach the east coast.

@knp7765:

That is a good idea about limiting the Japanese Kamikaze use until they are kind of pounded down to a low income. The Kamikaze was a weapon born out of desperation after all.

Yes, and in addition to the pressure of Japan being in such a desperate situation, there was another related factor at play: the more the war progressed, the fewer top-notch pilots Japan had at its disposal.  Japan’s training philosophy prior to the war had produced an elite corps of pilots, which gave Japan an initial advantage but left it in a worsening position as the years went by and their casualties mounted.  The US Navy, by contrast, figured out that training large numbers of competent pilots was a better investment than training a small number of superb ones (especially since the US could produce enough aircraft to take advantage of its abundant pilot supply).  When Japan’s situation became dire enough in late 1944 for it to consider extraordinary measures such as kamikaze tactics, one element which worked in favour of the kamizaze concept was that it required very little pilot training: the pilots basically just had to learn how to take off, how to fly to their targets and how to go into a steep dive.  This kind of rudimentary flight instruction was the opposite of the elite-oriented training philosophy Japan had followed prior to the war, so it would make sense to have a rule saying that Japan can only make kamikaze attacks late in the game once Japan is on the ropes.  Maybe this could even be seen as a kind of tech – a capability which isn’t available at the start of the game, but which becomes available later when certain conditions are met.  With a normal tech, you need to invest money to gain the new capability; in this case, kamikaze attacks (a kind of reverse tech because it reflects a training downdgrade) would become available when Japan’s economic and strategic situation drops below a certain threshold.

Good implications for Battle of Britain etc.  At $10 it would basically take hits from 3 tactical or 2 strategic bombers to destroy a base (after AA).  The best part is it could kill some very gamey phoney baloney moves involving gratuitous bases.  For example:

J1 Japan takes Chahar
J2 Japan builds airbase in Chahar and lands bombers there
UK2 UK pacific bombs Chahar airbase
USSR3 Russia bombs it a second time, destroying it
J3 no Japanese SBR of Moscow

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.

Thanks Tekkyy

Well i love these house rules man 19 posts! in 1 chat board!@!

Anyways, i’m new here as well and imperious could tell you how bad i am when i 1st came here and i am.
Anyways love some of the ideas (i will admit that i scimmed)  anyways ya well maybe you could have done a few less posts unstead of doing pg: 1,2,3,4,5 … etc.