AARHE: Rule files

This is what we do in game. Each neutral has a territory value and some kind of army and a few ships. You can attack them if you want. But u need to capture each neutral territory to get icp income.
If you lose battle then just that lone neutral joins other side.
But we also have a cost to try and influence a strict neutral to your side and you receive the territory value towards income and what is there for the ground troops and a possible ship. Nothing stronger than a Destroyer.
Not all countries can influence the same neutrals. We roll a d20 and a 4 or less u get neutral.
This is just an idea u may look at.
Spain and Turkey have the biggest Amy but cost more for those 2 to try and get.

@TheAandAClassicDude:

Germany: The Waffen SS: Costs 4 IPCs. Attacks and Defends on 2 or less. Moves 1 (Use Germany�s Infantry pieces from Axis and Allies Classic to represent them.)

Could we leave out the Nazi unit? The last thing I want are people falsely thinking this is game and website is some kind of alt right meeting place.

Besides, Germany doesn’t need any HRs help when they can churn out 5 IPC tanks.

@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.

Sorry for the late reply. I told Seancb I would post his PDF for him. It got lost in my dice mailbox :)

A&A Global realism rules.pdf

"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?

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.

…which were quickly wiped out by Japan and not replaced.

The Soviet Navy had to build ships in Russia then sail them out to form the Pacific fleet.

I don’t buy the idea of complexes as staging areas - this can apply to any area where you build up forces, and doesn’t need a factory.  To me, “Industrial Complex” means a vast industrial base of economic production in which weapons of war are forged.  To establish such a base overseas from scratch is simply not realistic. Much, much cheaper and quicker to ship/rail the units from their base of origin in your home territory which is exactly what the game should reflect.

Industrial complexes (at least building new ones and using other player’s) are one of those hangovers from the original game design that somehow haven’t been updated because they feel like too much a part of the A&A tradition.  But, like the Sinai peninsular being in Trans-Jordan, or the disturbing re-appearance of the Hiberno-Caledonian land bridge, they don’t belong in a game which purports to represent World War II.

Naw its a small point… let it stay how it is… I guess its a balance issue vs. Historical thing and a minor one at that.