AARHE 1939 map and rule files

air-only attack (normal combat)
Air-only attack was not removed “long ago”. Its a post-colour change. We allowed it in pre-colour.
Air-only attack is similar to air-only defense.
Usually one-cycle only, you have to retreat air units when enemy has land units and you don’t.
Better than completely remove air-only attack right?

Air only attack?… if you mean Counter Air thats what its called. This is a must. Its one round of air combat of only planes. no, land. Obviously no DAS ( which is round 2 or latter)

Note that during SBR this would also occur with defending planes in targeted territory. Of course ID rolls are made in both cases…

1. Your 1-to-1 retreat blocking rule. (Not consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory. Which is why we don’t allow OOB example attack of China from Manchuria+Sinkiang to all retreat back to Manchuria.)

2. Allow retreat to combat zone, units destroyed if combat is lost at the combat zone. (Only unrealistic in that units can be destroyed outside of combat action.)

3. Play out combats cycle by cycle to see where defender you can retreat. (Complicated.)

option 3 is out of the question. Option 2 is no good because a defender could be retreating alot of units intending to temporally vacate a territory and counter attack on his own turn. A territory retreated too may be of a battle involving 1 against 1 unit and now all retreating units are lost if that smaller battle is lost? i don’t think so.

Lets try option 4:

Units retreating to territory’s under attack themselves participate as reinforcements under the reinforcement rule. They are considering arriving on the second round.

4X IPC
Quote
i forgot about that rule. it needs to be written differently  … the total cost of each unit constructed in territories cannot exceed 4 times the original value of this territory… i dont even think that rule should hold. Aus cant build any ships.

Rule is important. OOB build limit is by no. of units.
Not realistic. 1 IPC territories can deploy battleship. 2 IPC territories can deploy 2 battleships!
This is why we had the 4X rule in the first place. Its for IC only because VC already has its only build limit.

++++ AS far as i can see the 4X rule is a limitation of the types of units that can be built. The Total number of units is a factory territory are still limited by the IPC value. The 4 times rule limits the types of units being built. A 2 IPC territory can only build * IPC or less costing units ( no carriers, no bombers, etc)  A  1 IPC territory with a factory can build INf, Art, and Mechanized only.

So to be able to build tanks at your new factory your territory must have a 2 IPC value or more.

To build a battleship your territory must have a value of 5 or more and a factory.

Example: UK can build any unit in the game ( value is 6x4=24) and it can place up to 6 non-infantry AND 6 infantry, but the cost of the 6 infantry is limited to its variable infantry cost index. ( some of these 6 will be 2, 3 and 4 IPC)

Its only weird now because in 1939 map Australia is more divided. I think its fair to just give most of the IPC to New South Wales. I think thats where the war industries were right?

Since you gave +1 IPC to Australia. Its now 4 IPC. It could be New South Wales 3, Queensland 1.

====right… Aus should be able to build destroyers and subs but not carriers and such…

Proper representation of Japan production instead of inflated East Indices, Borneo
Quote

++= sorry what you mean here?

======= ok write out how you would like it to read and well have a look.
The US mobilisation +10 IPC per turn hasn’t been formalised. Now we do it all together. This is just an example, you adjust the values to reality.

Each game round is 6 months. 1-2 1939. 3-4 1940. 5-6 1941. 7-8 1942. 9-10 1943. 11-12 1944. 13-14 1945. 15-16 1946.

+++++++ US Mobilization? you talking about wartime economy growth index? Remember USA starts at limited income and can only lend lease till specific turn. When she is activated then you start increasing gradually her income ( which is realistic) … So start that turn by turn beginning on her turn of activation…

1939 map rules, War industry
The following territories income increases per turn for the following values.

start          end                value
Eastern US        activation    activation+4    8 IPC 
Germany          turn 9        turn 13            4 IPC
Japan              turn 1        turn 4              1 IPC

where are you getting these numbers? Is this Mark Harrison numbers? My numbers are all Harrison based. Also, the only reason why USA goes up is because Germany has been calculated to go up relative to soviets. If Germany goes up then its out of balance again. Only that NA should address the possibility of German wartime economy. The only time the Germans got their economy into war mobilization was by the fall of 1944, so perhaps they get the turn 13 increase but thats it unless they draw the lucky NA ( Speer economy option)

Map
Quote
Map: I will add a point to Australia and reduce a point to Borneo
I will add the french point at FIC and west africa.
Just need you to confirm FIC is industrialised enough to be the 2 IPC territory in the region full of 1 IPC territories.

======= yes ill look at harrison… a few numbers wont change much however, unlike the war time mobilization idea…

Submarine fire
Quote
I now really favor your idea about detected subs= screening undetected=targeted attacks (no screening)

My idea was detected is targeted. Undetected is not targetted.
Your idea is no screening for undetected.

We could really simplify it (for more gameplay fun).
No more screening.

++++++++++ why is it "we found your sub and know where it is… so you have the leeway of attacking who you want at your leasure?

The idea makes no sence to me. it should be the opposite. If your sub is not found then  no ship can be able to protect it because they don’t know where you are and cannot make arrangements to stop you from picking off who you want.

Undetected submarine hits are targeted. Detected submarines hits allocated by victim.
Air hits are allocated by victim. (not too bad since you can’t allocate on submarines and transports are last)

OK now your saying it correctly… I agree with this.

Screening
Quote
The third sub is matched against the carrier. That is detected and the destroyer is used to screen it out ( note: the cruiser cannot be a screening candidate because its subject to attacks herself).
Well I don’t think subject to attacks herself would stop sthe cruiser from hanging around the carrier.
But as above, we could get rid of screening completely.

Lets get rid of screening and rather say… " if the sub has not been detected it can select the target of its attack and roll out and possibly sink a ship before it can fire in return"

screening is just another layer of complexity where ways of explaining the same idea are possible.

ASW search
Quote
The Japanese subs are now both detected automatically
We now both agree its not simply a warning but some known whereabouts.
So why auto detect on 2nd cycle of combat?

OK on the subject of 2nd round auto detect…a sub that launched its torpedo is basically gave away its position. This is found in other forms of combat as a tactic to location of enemy forces. Thats why it should be much easier… if not auto detect then the search number goes up to 4-5 range on a D6 roll.

Example
Better if examples were concise and consistent in style.
Attacker: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 2 SS, ASW tech
Defender: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 1 SS, 1 FTR (DAS), ASW tech
Headings in hold…
1st cycle: pre-combat
Screening
etc…

The point of my example was to see weakness in the structure of play. I immediately see problems with defending submarines… they don’t have any relevant interactions. It seems they are just combat fodder and thats not good. But isn’t it written that subs and transports are restricted naval combat loses?

Land combat anti-air
So we’ve simplified ASW search and ASW attack to non-targetted.
We could also simplify land combat Anti-air search rolls to non-targetted.
Anti-air attack rolls remains targetted otherwise bombers don’t get hit.

i am not clear on this . provide an example…

Air-only attack
I am talking about “normal combat” not “air mission”.
Both air-only attack and air-only defense are usually one-cycle only.
Because you have to retreat air units when enemy has land units and you don’t.

So I thought we shouldn’t have to get rid of air-only attack in normal combat.

==== OK ID rolls are one round, then if both sides have planes they fight round by round and side by side as land combat. Its easy to use, understand, and its fair. It can last as many rounds as necessary until 1) land combat is over, 2) one side gains air superiority, 3) one side retreats its air force. nothing wrong with this rule.

Defender retreat (land combat)
Defender retreat into combat zone as reinforcement breaks the basic rule of fighting in one space per turn.
All normal combats are meant to be at the same time in axis and allies.

We don’t allow all land units to reinforce. (To model not all units are ready to move and fight in passive.)
How can we allow all land units to fight and move and fight again in passive?

These are only cases where he is blocked from retreats. Its silly to not allow these to be blocked or dependent upon the results of yet another battle when the whole idea from the start was a deliberate attempt to block off retreats by bogus attacks on possible retreating territories. We cant reward such behavior. I maintain in these exceptions the rule allows them to be brought in as reinforcements allowing them to fight in new battles as the defender reinforces his position.

4X IPC
Quote
++++ AS far as i can see the 4X rule is a limitation of the types of units that can be built.
The current wording limits the amount of IPC.
This in practice limits both what you can build and how many you can build. In a simple rule.

Its important because OOB’s territory value limit does not care what is being built. Building 6 planes should be a different proposition to building 6 tanks.

======== well to clarify: 4X is a limitation of the highest  IPC value of individual unit cost… the number of units is still maintain as per AARHE ( # of non- infantry quantity placed in factories limited to IPC value of territory)  Additionally, the territory allows infantry to also be built AGAIN at these limits… Example: India at 3 with a factory can build 3 non- infantry units not exceeding an individual value of 12 ipc PLUS up to 3 infantry. Is that correct?

Australia
Quote
====right… Aus should be able to build destroyers and subs but not carriers and such…
To double check the effect of current wording of 4X IPC…

New South Wales at 3 IPC can process 4x3=12 IPC.
That is…
3 artillery, 2 tanks, 1 submarine, 1 submarine + 1 artillery, 1 transport, 1 destroyer, or 1 fighter…etc

============OOOOOHHHHHHH! i see what this is… My god THAT really does need a good explanation. Its a total value of non-infantry units that can be purchased expressed in IPC.  then forget the other reply above.

[quoteProper representation of Japan production instead of inflated East Indices, Borneo
Quote
++= sorry what you mean here?
[/quote]
It started with me sugguesting East Indices and Borneo can be reduced to 2 IPC now that we have oil centres to separately oil from IPC values.
You said Japan needs them to stay at 4 IPC so Japan get to its historic production level.

So I thought that means Japan must have been mobilising.
Hence a rule for Japan and Germany and US.
I dont think it hurts the balance cos Germany’s rule comes in 1944. Japan’s rule is small IPC improvement to territory “Japan”.

++++ yes correct but thats an extrapolation thats reaches a bit. Borneo and east Indies are really just important to Japan and the oil rules require Japan to garrison them. AS you may know the allies didn’t retake them because once isolated Japan could not benefit from its income. We have rules in place regarding isolated island chains. I know they used to be in the draft. So the bottom line is these represent a significant income for Japan relative to her other island possessions which are less important. It has no relevence on Germany either. I can figure out a solution but in the end Japan needs to be in a similar IPC position as she would be at spring of 1942 if she took the SAME historical territories. I can get this done with some tricks…

Quote
where are you getting these numbers? Is this Mark Harrison numbers? My numbers are all Harrison based.
No I said “This is just an example, you adjust the values to reality.”.
You could just keep Borneo and East Indices high in IPC. But I felt the 1939 territory IPC has changed muich from OOB that you shouldn’t leave it half done.

in 1939 or 1942 that oil and hence income is still as important. nothing has changed in that respect.

Naval combat
Quote
Lets get rid of screening and rather say… " if the sub has not been detected it can select the target of its attack and roll out and possibly sink a ship before it can fire in return"
Yeah nice and simple now.

Detected submarine: fire in main-round, unselective
Undetected submarine: fire in opening-fire, selective
ASW search: pre-combat, unselective
ASW attack: main-round, unselective
Air: main-round, unselective

===right make it so!

2nd cycle of combat auto detect
Quote
OK on the subject of 2nd round auto detect…a sub that launched its torpedo is basically gave away its position. This is found in other forms of combat as a tactic to location of enemy forces. Thats why it should be much easier… if not auto detect then the search number goes up to 4-5 range on a D6 roll.

Yeah once a submarine fires it gives away its position.
Hence we should make it ASW attack roll is towards both “ASW roll detected” and “ASW roll undetected” submarines.

But if you fail to kill submarine, then it escaped. I don’t see how you can keep track of it for future rounds of engagement.

===yes exactly… the problem fixes itself because players with subs will retreat/submerge rather than risk detection so basically it would be one round.  This also brings up the issue of submerged subs wile the active player is moving over them. we need to look into this.

Quote
But isn’t it written that subs and transports are restricted naval combat loses?
Yes. No problems there.
Only ASW hits can be allocated on submarine.
hits are always allocated last on transports.

===ok good then. then my previous post for naval combat example is incorrect.

Land Anti-air search roll
Land combat anti-air “search” and “attack” rolls are currently selective.
Just wonder if it can be simplified to unselective too like ASW.
But doesn’t matter I guess. If its unselective the victim won’t be allocating hits on bombers.

====write this in an example form.

Quote
These are only cases where he is blocked from retreats. Its silly to not allow these to be blocked or dependent upon the results of yet another battle when the whole idea from the start was a deliberate attempt to block off retreats by bogus attacks on possible retreating territories. We cant reward such behavior. I maintain in these exceptions the rule allows them to be brought in as reinforcements allowing them to fight in new battles as the defender reinforces his position.

Yes we can’t reward bogus/suicide attack to block retreat. But letting them fight in two spaces might be drastic.

Imagine what if the other attack wasn’t bogus?
Defender: 2 INF at Persia. 2 INF at India
Attacker: 4 INF from Trans-Jordon to Persia, 4 INF from FIC to India

If we allow them to participate in further combat, they have arrive in the corresponding next cycle of combat because all normal combats are considered simultaneous. Those units (land+air) cannot retreat anymore.

======== ok then in all cases of this type: the defender cannot retreat. combat is too the death… that solves this cleanly. no mess no fuss.

Quote
===yes exactly… the problem fixes itself because players with subs will retreat/submerge rather than risk detection so basically it would be one round.

But you haven’t shown me why it should auto detect on 2nd cycle of combat.

You mentioned the submarine gives away its position on firing.
To that I said hence “ASW attack” rolls are towards both detected and undetected submarines. With detected and undetected description refering to before the submarine fires.

After it fires it runs away. If you don’t kill it now its escaped. I don’t see how you it remains detected for the next time it comes in to attack your fleet (next cycle of combat).

+++++++===Lets try again:  Attacking subs that are not detected get preemptive targeted(selected) shots, where if a hit is incurred the unit is sunk or takes a hit and does not return fire.

Attacking subs that are detected still roll out and their hit is preemptive, but the defender can select any ship to hit ( other than transport, air, or another sub as hit allocation. Then the remaining units ( not the sunk ship) can return fire as long as they are ASW capable at 2 or less.

This concludes first round.

Second round all these subs are now spotted, so they have the option to retreat or submerge

If they hang around they are all detected and follow rules for detected subs.

Now if they are not auto detected by round two, it makes the subs basically way too strong… because what will happen is the wolfpacks will force the defending force to retreat. and in the war their was never any case where subs hunting together were able to “DEFEAT” a enemy surface fleet forcing it to retreat. This is not modeling history. Subs could never stand up to ASW in an equal battle.
If you had 3 destroyers and 3 subs the DD must win every time… the subs cannot have an advantage or what will happen is Submarines become the infantry of the sea…

What i mean by ‘Infantry of the sea’ is to keep the realistic abilities of each sub and destroyer independent, but when matched against each other the Destroyer must win, even if its costing 10 IPC vs 8 IPC.

Subs are only good against transport rich convoys or surface ships lacking decent ASW abilities…

destroyers will become the primary unit in the navy which is what it should be on a cost per basis.

IN AAR people buy lots of subs and carriers and fight other groups of subs and carriers and this must stop. To have success you need carriers and true escorts… which are cruisers and destroyers… cruisers a bit better because they got 3 AA rolls.

Non- detection by second round gives subs a staying power thats not historical. They didnt fight in naval battles… as i said they are “scavengers of the seas”.

Quote
This also brings up the issue of submerged subs wile the active player is moving over them. we need to look into this.
I don’t see anything there.
Submerged submarines do not block movement as per OOB.
They also surfaced next turn as per OOB.

===== what i mean by this is as follows:

Naval Stall:
Neither Submarines nor Transports can stop the movement of enemy naval forces. Submarines can attempt to intercept enemy surface naval units as they pass thru their sea zone with a round of naval combat. Success occurs with a roll of 1-2, and a 3-6 = failed interception. Each successful interception in this manner’ absorbs’ one movement point for all naval units attempting to pass through. This is the only effect that subs can have in terms of slowing down the opposing enemy navy.

we need something like this or subs can be used to stall fleets… we could make a rule to just prevent this… but this may be more of a halfway point to give subs some tools to ‘slow’ down the fleet costing 1 MP.

Quote
====write this in an example form.
Don’t about it. ID rolls can remain targeted cos if victim allocated bombers won’t be hit (the reason for the change from classic to revised.)

I am still not clear what your saying…

I think your saying in an example where both Bombers and fighters perform SBR the ID rolls are going against bombers potentially and not the fighters. This is not really ‘targeted’ but the point is the bombers are performing the mission and need to fly level and slow in order to accurately drop their ordinance. I guess you don’t want fighters being selected as hits and thats probably kinda realistic, except Bombers cost 15 IPC and their real duty in war was to perform SBR and that rule is rather harsh…

Perhaps bombers drop in price to 12 IPC?

consider.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=326&start=16

heres something of what we were discussing relative to sub interactions…

Quote
======== ok then in all cases of this type: the defender cannot retreat. combat is too the death… that solves this cleanly. no mess no fuss.
Yes we’ll keep it simple.

ok add it

But I’ll word it so you can’t stop retreat via air-only attack. Because that bogus attack is too easy.

You may retreat to territories with unresolved combat if the attacker in that combat only has air units.

You may retreat to sea zones with unresolved combat if the attacker in that combat only has air units.

There won’t be change of control anyway from an air-only attack anway so its fair.

thats fine except when you say “when attacker has only air units” you do know that these are not allowed meaning air units cannot attack land units alone w/o matching 1 to 1 land units…

Quote
This is not modeling history. Subs could never stand up to ASW in an equal battle.
If you had 3 destroyers and 3 subs the DD must win every time
Ok I see.
In that case detected submarines must fire in main-round. (Otherwise the destroyers are still deat meat.)

====dead meat for one round is ok, a hit and run is the only tactic subs have. If they stay around they are discovered and they lose. Thats what the rule is modeling. At least they get one round to prove themselves. At least give them that. Why main round? they are preemptive attacks ( for the most part) and must be resolved before because loses done fire back. thats why its done before the main attacks.

So, it remains as the latest list I posted.
Quote
Detected submarine: fire in main-round, unselective
Undetected submarine: fire in opening-fire, selective
ASW search: pre-combat, unselective
ASW attack: main-round, unselective
Air: main-round, unselective

yes correct….

Quote
Naval Stall:
Neither Submarines nor Transports can stop the movement of enemy naval forces. Submarines can attempt to intercept enemy surface naval units as they pass thru their sea zone with a round of naval combat. Success occurs with a roll of 1-2, and a 3-6 = failed interception. Each successful interception in this manner’ absorbs’ one movement point for all naval units attempting to pass through. This is the only effect that subs can have in terms of slowing down the opposing enemy navy.

we need something like this or subs can be used to stall fleets… we could make a rule to just prevent this… but this may be more of a halfway point to give subs some tools to ‘slow’ down the fleet costing 1 MP.

Well absorbing 1 MP makes most naval units enter combat (Only 2 MP to start with.)

Yes that was under another game of mine where ships move 3 spaces… it was just an idea to get other ideas.

How about…

Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only hostile submarines or transports. Each defending submarine rolls its combat value. Each successful roll forces one naval unit to enter combat, allocated by the defender. Unforced units may choose to enter combat as well in that sea zone or continue their original movement.

this is perfect! I knew if i posted the above you would find the solution

Oh how about all submarines gets to fire once, selectively. (Rolled during combat move.)

Quote
I think your saying in an example where both Bombers and fighters perform SBR the ID rolls are going against bombers potentially and not the fighters. This is not really ‘targeted’ but the point is the bombers are performing the mission and need to fly level and slow in order to accurately drop their ordinance. I guess you don’t want fighters being selected as hits and thats probably kinda realistic, except Bombers cost 15 IPC and their real duty in war was to perform SBR and that rule is rather harsh…

Yeah was trying to simplify land combat AA rolls to unselective, while being realistic.
Auto detection is only during SBR but applies to all air units.

Quote
Perhaps bombers drop in price to 12 IPC?

Hehe I recall 12 IPC as a figure in recent discussion in revised forum.

====yes and thats where i got it. That guy is right. 12 ipc bombers (or anything less than 15 will promote massive SBR raids) which is good.

But then our bombers can perform air transport, ground interdiction and even air evacuation (defender retreat). It also has ASW search. I am hoping its worth the 3 extra IPC.

==== well not really… they don’t perform ‘air evacuation’ and transport planes take over the first duty. So they just SBR, GI, and attack land units (surviving ID rolls and possible air combat)

OK what value do you think they should be? 12 sounds right… but perhaps 13

At 12 IPC you wonder if fighters are too expensive. Problem is we can’t adjust fighters cos we have naval fighters and dive bombers at 6 IPC. Any less and it costs the same as a tank (5 IPC).

fighters are 10 ipc and naval fighters and transport planes  are 8 Ipc, bombers at 12 seems ok>> :-)

Done if no further comments
*retreat to combat zone (disallowed in general)
*ASW simplification
*Bomber price remain

====except the bomber thing, yes

Waiting comments
*Sub stall rule

Anti-Air
Can’t think of a way to simplify Anti-Air to unselective yet.
However my calculation seems to say “search roll” hit value need to go back to 1. (You increased it to 2.)

==== its a typo… location on 1, hit on 1, damaged and does not perform mission on 2-3…thats what it should say.

SBR
After calculation, I think my “auto search success” during SBR is too much.
Definitely have to get rid of it.

==== huh? whats this SBR is only one round… you mean ID rolls are automatic? no they must search first by getting a 1.

Technology
I think too difficult at the moment.
Consider UK…
1 free + 1 purchaseable die.
~3 turns to get a tech box
~9 turns to get a minor tech

I suggest
*hit value of 2
*simplify purchasble table

Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
Germany              2                2
Italy                    0                2
Japan                  0                2
Soviet Union        0                2
United Kingdom    0                2
United States      2                2

US/Germany spending 10 IPC per turn

every nation must get one free roll minimum. Use the free dice roll info. from our rules. The math is just a function of adjusting hit point… i guess try this:

4 die hitting at 2 = 1.33 boxes
2.3 turns to get a minor tech
3 turns to get a major tech

US/Germany 0 IPC + others spending 10 IPC per turn

2 die hitting at 2 = 0.66 boxes
4.5 turns to get a minor tech
6 turns to get a a major tech

the second group is better…but please use our OOB numbers for calculations.

Quote
thats fine except when you say “when attacker has only air units” you do know that these are not allowed meaning air units cannot attack land units alone w/o matching 1 to 1 land units…

The reason why defender can retreat to a combat zone where attack only has air units is that because there won’t be territory control change. Hence no issues.

Now, regarding air-only attack I thought you agreed already just this same page.
Lets go again…

Air-only attack and air-only defence should be allowed as per OOB.
AARHE has the rule that you must retreat air units when the enemy has land units and you don’t.

Land units can’t kill air units but it won’t be too powerful. Because the air units only get to fire at the land units for one cycle.

Otherwise you have to create yet another air mission to model an air attack. This is one cycle only and I think its simply enough.

==== I don’t understand this… we already have this and its called Counter Air mission. Thats the military term for air to air combat. WE don’t need any changes because what your talking about is already in the rules.

Quote
Why main round? they are preemptive attacks ( for the most part) and must be resolved before because loses done fire back. thats why its done before the main attacks.

1st cycle
Undetected submarines fire in opening-fire and selectively.
Detected submarines fire in main-round.

2nd+ cycle
All submarines detected, fire in main-round

==== ok thats fine. THAT was not clear in your last post. I thought you meant ALL rounds they fight in main round. Right… detected means they fire in main round. good.agreed

Quote
====yes and thats where i got it. That guy is right. 12 ipc bombers (or anything less than 15 will
promote massive SBR raids) which is good.

SBR is no where as bad as OOB.
AARHE promote SBR.

*rewards sending multiple air units to combat
*lets you SBR all territories

=====ok so your position is? No change in cost for bombers?

Quote
==== well not really… they don’t perform ‘air evacuation’ and transport planes take over the first duty. So they just SBR, GI, and attack land units (surviving ID rolls and possible air combat)

Its not called ‘air evacuation’ but AARHE allows

attacker to retreat from amphibious assault  via transports, converting to INF
defender to retreat via transport planes, converting to INF

===== no no this is not a Vietnam game. No retreating land units on transport planes. This was not a mode of retreat in WW2. Converted units only can either retreat to territories ( legal) or if invasion they reembark on transports and i think we have a NA allowing for Japanese to go into destroyers ( 1 inf per ship)

Transport plane
Come to think of it. When we made setups for all the optional units, we left out Transport Plane.
I say add one next to each BMR.
Germany, UK, E.US, and Japan.

==== yes its a mistake. I think that should be fine, none for Italy and Soviets? The Soviets dropped Airborne in early 1942 after German assault on Moscow failed. Perhaps Germany gets two and Soviets get one so its equal? 3 and 3…?

Quote
OK what value do you think they should be? 12 sounds right… but perhaps 13
With a better understanding of SBR (as above) you should find 14 IPC reasonable.

Sending single BMRs to SBR big territories with VC+IC…yes you can still gambling like OOB.
But sending multiple BMRs on SBR…is now a viable strategy.

=========== yes lets do 14 IPC for bombers… now we have 8,10,12,14 for plane costs… i like this symmetry

Quote
every nation must get one free roll minimum. Use the free dice roll info. from our rules. The math is just a function of adjusting hit point…

Yeah at least one free die is more realistic.
I wonder about Italy though. Maybe they shouldn’t get a free die?

============= yes every nation is viable for technology. We cant leave anybody out of this.

Quote
the second group is better…but please use our OOB numbers for calculations.

AARHE values. I am sure you didn’t mean “OOB” lol.

Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
Germany              2                3
Italy                    1                1
Japan                  1                2
Soviet Union        1                1
United Kingdom    1                1
United States      2                4

the maths…for die hitting on 2

free die
Germany/US 2@2, 0.66 box/turn, 4.5 turns for minor tech
Others 1@2, 0.33 box/turn, 9 turns for minor tech

Now, I think the purchasable could be relaxed…

Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
Germany              2                4
Italy                    1                2
Japan                  1                2
Soviet Union        1                2
United Kingdom    1                2
United States      2                4

hmm….well this is easy to remember, except lets make it this:
Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
Germany                  2                  4
Italy                      1                  2
Japan                    1                  3
Soviet Union            1                  3
United Kingdom        1                  2
United States          2                  4

what you think? also what do the numbers look like on rounds per tech?

tech push
Germany/US, 20IPC/turn, 6@2, 2 box/turn, 1.5 turns for minor tech
Japan/USSR, 15 IPC/turn, 4@2, 1.33/turn, 2.25 turns for minor tech
UK/Italy, 10 IPC/turn 3@2, 1 box/turn, 3 turns for minor tech

this seems reasonable. you agree?

Thats fine. We can get rid of it.
It was introduced it at one stage and the italic text referenced Stralingrad.
But in the end its not common.

For Airborne Drop, should the transport planes be subject to Anti-Air or dogfighting? And should this it before or after unloading the airborne infantry?

Stalingrad had air supply drops. only a few wounded got back and that was when it was possible to land which was before the envelopment was really strong.

Herman’s air drop was a total unmitigated failure worse that Dunkirk or any of Goering’s other blunders.

on the second issue, Yes the ID rolls as usual and any air combat (one round) is performed. And of course any DAS missions called from other territories do fight air units on the next round when they fly in.

I think we are done, except we need to check the NA’s to make sure they don’t violate the rules or overlap the rules that already exist.

I playtest and it seems the Soviets are too weak against Germany by 1942. As you know they are at 24, while the Germans are at 50-52.
The Soviets compensation is lend lease, but i think they need a few more ipc so that it looks like the Harrison numbers.

from Harrison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Soviet Union 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343

Germany: ( includes Austria and France)
Austria   24   27   27     29     27      28      29      12
France  186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310

so in 1942 Soviets were 274
Germany was at 417+116+27= 660

I guess this is reflected in the ratio of 24 vs 51 so its historical, so perhaps it should stay…but i think some kind of “siberian army” option should exist for the Soviet player considering the NA that allows Japan to attack the Soviets. This would prove a major issue for the Soviets who plan on defending themselves only against Germany.

I propose an optional rule as follows:

Siberian Army:
Historically, the Russian position in the fall of 1941 was critical. German forces were approaching Moscow, encircling Leningrad, and generally overrunning and destroying all remaining European Soviet military power. The Russians however had an ace up their sleeve in the form of their Asian armies. These tough Siberian units had been held in Asia to guard against any aggressive moves by the Japanese. However, Russian intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had made the decision to attack the US and avoid conflict with Russia. This allowed Russia to transfer these formidable forces west. These units arrived in the Moscow area just as the German forces were appearing on the outskirts of Moscow. These forces, along with the Russian winter, finally stopped the Nazi advance.
    At the beginning of the second Russian turn following a German invasion or immediately following a Japanese attack, the Russian player rolls a die. The result determines the size and composition of the Siberian reinforcements.

Die Roll: Siberian Reinforcements:

1 8 x inf, 4 x tank, 4 x arty, 1 x fighter
2 8 x inf, 3 x tank, 4 x arty
3 7 x inf, 3 x tank, 3 x arty
4 7 x inf, 3 x arty
5 6 x inf, 2 x arty
6 6 x inf

The resulting reinforcements are immediately placed in Moscow. If Moscow has been captured, the reinforcements are placed in any original Russian territory still under Russian control.

And the long awaited General cards:

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=c2fi3lhkxim&thumb=4
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=ocogvjgdd9t

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=ddo98znj2tu&thumb=4
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=l4ly7bljkz7

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=38dnxjchpmb&thumb=4
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=4ytjy3ydxnt

I can make more but basically each nation chooses one card per turn and you cant use the same card again until all the other cards of that nation have been cycled ( played) once.

I could make one for China, but they suck

france at least wont be in the game for more than 2 turns. The card they have is a joke anyway. Gamelin was a loser and Degualle was no better.

Tech dice
Yeah should be fine now. Just needed UK restriction relaxed.

========== Restriction? what do you mean?

Airborne Drop
Ok. To make it subject to ID and dogfighting hits…
The wording is simple. The transport plane attacks the territory and does so at transport plane combat values if its a bomber.
On attack its 0 combat and 0 for dogfight. So you would retreat transport planes after one cycle. Realistic.

And the airborne infantry is offloaded before combat.

====ok fine.

Siberian Army
I think you showed me similar like before.
My comment remains that “8 INF + 4 ARM + …” is just a bit too much.
This is not a small bonus like other NAs.

Wording is too long. Our other NAs are typically 4 sentences (2 for background + 2 for rule.)
This one would need to be longer. But a bit too long as the moment.

You also made this other Siberian rule.
Soviet ‘Siberian’ Army
All Soviet forces located in Buryatia S. S. R. are frozen in place until her 5th turn. All other forces can be moved as desired. The Soviet player also receives 12 IPC to be spent freely for additional units at this time.
I guess you want the new rule to replace that?

====== but isn’t that 12 IPC thing a NA? If NA’a are random and if Japan gets to attack Soviet Union, then the Soviets are bust.

I just copied the entire rule as it basically appears in my rules for another game. The idea is just a framework for the optional rule in case the Soviets are too weak. Of course the numbers can be changed or we just adjust that 12 IPC to increase it depending on balance.

Playtesting

You’ve been playtesting? Oh. Post all the 1939 setups and artworks.

==== huh? you have these. I posted them a long time ago.

Generals Cards
Yeah China don’t need any.
Chang held Shanghai for 3 months against Japan’s prediction of 3 days. But made him lose most of China’s real divisions before the war.

By the way I hope thats just for preview. Cos its not print quality. Text was blurry.

============ no its just a jpeg. The file is vector. Actually if you print it will look much better. try it.

Air unit hits
Besides ID, only air superiority (in land combat) gets selective rolls now.
Wonder if we can get simplify that too.

A. Would planes bomb tanks and artillery easily but have difficult killing infantry division?
B. Would tanks and artillery be almost always the higher priority targets over infantry divisions?

A: They always go after armor or any large moving target. Infantry are much harder
B: Yes, so i guess air power will be very important in this game.

If yes, maybe air unit hits in land combat air superiority can be back to OOB unselective. Hits allocated on tanks, artillery and mech before infantry and airborne.

++++ yes right. its too powerful. the defender must basically select a hard target, before soft target. make that the rule, or air power is too strong

Air only attack
Quote
==== I don’t understand this… we already have this and its called Counter Air mission. Thats the military term for air to air combat. WE don’t need any changes because what your talking about is already in the rules.
No I am talking about air units attacking alone in normal combat.
Why air units can’t attack alone?

Air units can defend alone against land units (until forced to retreat or destroyed all attackers, which makes it one cycle only). I think attacking should be given the same too.

===== air units need supporting ground based units to help out. When planes fly over they cause the defender to stay in place and wait until the planes are finished. Then they come out of their holes.  Planes of course do kill lots of exposed units but they work better with land units to cause disruption against the enemy and pin him down, while tanks and men take his positions and over run them. Air units attacking alone and w/o chance of being killed is way too strong. thats the 1/1 rule and its rationale.

Die Roll:  Siberian Reinforcements:

1  6 x inf, 3 x tank, 3 x arty, 1 x fighter
2  5 x inf, 2 x tank, 2 x arty, 1 x fighter
3  4 x inf, 1 x tank, 1 x arty
4  3 x inf, 1 x tank, 1 x arty
5  2 x inf, 1 x arty
6  2 x inf

ok how bout this?

Siberian Army
Oh yeah thats right. Its for 1939 rule not national advantage.
But trim the paragraph anyway.

6 x inf, 3 x tank, 3 x arty, 1 x fighter = 49 IPC (w/ INF@2 IPC)
Thats not a guard against Japanese aggression. Thats enough to take China fom Japan’s hands all together. Its also Germany’s income for a whole turn. On the other hand 2 x INF is a joke.
I am thinking max 35 IPC on top. Like  5 x inf, 3 x tank, 1 x fighter. At least 2 x inf, 2 x arty on the bottom.

Lastly, the condition. Seems a bit funny at the moment. Why on Japan’s first attack on Russia the Siberian Army travels back to capital?

well its just allocated as the soviet player wishes. I will redo it.

Artwork
Quote
==== huh? you have these. I posted them a long time ago.
I’ve only seen the setups via certain versions of the 1939 map.
I still haven’t seen the artwork(s) with “1.3” written on it, besides the watermark on the rule file.

====thats what i got 1939 set ups with 1.3 on them.

Air unit 1-to-1 to land units
Just dont’ know if its necessary to restrict it to 1-to-1. You must retreat when you have no land units left anyway.

====yes but in combat you may lose land units bringing it under the 1 to 1 threshold. thats why its needed so you don’t have 3 fighters and 2 infantry

Using a 1-to-1 rule…
If you have 1 land unit and 3 air units left, are we gonna force the other 2 air units to retreat?
If you have 3 land units and 2 air unit left, are we not allowed to retreat more than 1 land units?

1. yes
2. yes is the short answer , except no more air units can roll then you have matching land units. They can be around for combat loses, but they don’t roll if they exceed land units.