AARHE: Rule files

1-1.png

My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.

@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.

I think the allies need a lot of help in Global.  Trouble is, if the bid gets too big they can put it all in one theatre and unbalance the situation on one side of the map.  So what I propose is a rule for bids that says you must place 50% of your bid on the Europe map and 50% on the Pacific map.  If the bid is an odd number, you can place 50%+1 on one side.  So for example if the bid is $17 you would have to place 8 or 9 in each side.  This rule would allow bids to get a lot larger and give the allies a fighting chance, while keeping it reasonable on each side of the world.

the cost of building bombers to deliver 1 infantry to a battle is too much to suatain during the early rounds, unless a game would go for around 20 rounds or more i could not entertain the logistics, the longest game that i played went on for 9 rounds top’s

It DOES read one level of technology transferred between one SIDE per turn.

so if axis as a group obtain 4 tech slots, only one level can pass from one nation to another that turn.

Soviets don’t share or receive secrets.

It’s d12 not 2d6 so yes you can get a 1 :wink: a d12 is in the shape of a dodecahedron, twelve little pentagons :-)

Anyway, how the heck to you keep track of who has what with all these tech rules in an actual game?

Well in his defense i actually have 2 games (using d12 system) that have both a primary and secondary attack ( the primary is pre-emtive)

but the economy of scale is quite different from regular AA

Has anybody ever tried crossing rules between Axis & Allies with its Pacific and European counterpart. Such as Marines, Destroyers, surfacing subs, etc.? If so I am curious to know if the game turned out well. I agree it would make the game more complicated but I have no experience as to whether it makes it more interesting, fun, balanced, or simply a pain.