Congrats to AARHE Team!

National Objectives

Germany NO
+5 IPC’s not at war with spain 5

+5 IPC’s atleast 1 german land unit is in egypt

+5 IPC’s germany controls Denmark Zweden norway and finland

+2 IPC’s germany controls Iraq

+2 IPC’s germany controls Persia

+2 IPC’s germany controls North west persia

+5 No allied warships in the Mediterranean sea

+5 if the Axis control at least 3 (Gibraltar,S-france,Greece,Egypt

Russia
+9 IPC’s if russia controls Novosibrisk and is no longer neutral

+5 IPC’s SZ125 is free of allied warships and they control archangel

+3 for every caputered territory ,Turkey,West India,Egypt, saudi arabia

US
when at war
+25 IPC’s if your control all of its orignal territories

UK
+5 IPC’s if your control all of its orignal territories

Italy

Spain
+?

@oldsalty:

OK.  Cost of the IC is not an issue.  Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15.    Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?

They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then).  I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.

yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15

“4 x IPC  income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both

*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build

Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism?  Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.

no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out

AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible

simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it

unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map

but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism

1.  Do Vichy France, Algeria, Madagascar, Indo-China, and Levant States each become separate and independent countries, or are they all considered one nation?  For example, if UK attacked Morocco or Algeria to secure a shorter path to Egypt, would the other territories convert to -5 Axis or remain independent.

They are treated independent, so you can attack one its now against you at -5, but the Vichy states officially are axis -2 diplomatically at start, while free french are +5 British

remember the 4X rule in these places and also the variations on costs for infantry depending on VC.

1.  Is there a limit as to the number of infantry that can be built at VCs?

yes of course, the 4x rule…

2.  If China is incapable of replacing American aircraft or building armor, why are they given a factory in the game?  In reality, China had only the capability to build infantry - which was poorly trained and equipt.  The presence of a factory in the game allows for China to build any type of unit.

4x rule allows them to only build artillery or infantry ( or mech)

As infantry are built at victory cities, I propose removing the factory from China.

but what about artillery? China had artillery and they are but an army of misfits w/o them

The funny thing is if you look at the 1939 map and you read about how the A50 game seems to be about you easily conclude:

Somebody must have gotten a bunch of ideas from AARHE and used some of these for the A50…which is fine. It was designed to be as complete as possible so people can rip from it and it can influence the coming pattern that emerges.

I fully support AARHE and so does Tekkyy. I have provided everything you and Bierwagen asked, and but a few more items like the setup sheets your working on and those cards for NA…we should be complete except for minor clarifications that Tekkyy is doing.

I think AARHE is way better than A50 or anything else w/o a doubt.  But if you want to as they say “turn off the brain” and play a very light treatment then A50 will also be played.

Of course you know the coming storm must erupt and renew and i must again make a phase 4 map for this new game, or at a minimum create a AARHE rules catered deliberately for A50.

The A50 already has flaws: no diplomacy, no defender retreats, not real new units, etc… these must be addressed.

Id like to make a random card system for A50 and come up with a few minor things

Id include: fighter-bombers, fortresses, mechanized infantry, heavy tanks, and dedicated airborne units.

thats just fine.

Ok that explaination makes more sence. Can you reword it in such a manner that it captures both the examples and the language of your description?

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.