Posts made by tekkyy

@Micoom:

I know, but I wanted to skip the NA…

Oh I see. Why is that?
So far National Units is about cost modifiers to model historic purchase trends.

@Imperious:

if anything let UK get cheaper battleships since they had the most modern battleships

Which one is that? http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm sugguests US’s Iowa with the best weaponary and protection. Should it be cheaper because of “modern”? I thought its about mass production or efficiency.

United States also sold 50 destroyers to UK in exchange for base rights. this was early 1941.

Thats another point for UK cheap DD.

Yep Katyuskas is already in the pre-draft baseline list thingo.

Ok I see.

Yeah there’ll likely be changes rather than simply add-on through the development phases.

Doesn’t matter.
Unless Imperioius Leader releases pretty chips or printout  8-) everyone’ll do there own things to represent.

Let start thinking about costs of units.

Many varients reduce cost of naval units such as the battleship.
Is that realistic?

This is going to be difficult as naval pieces represents fleets and no simple to compare.

To prevent strange situation of double-benefit or double-punishment in terms of income/economy/commerce we could switch to modelling on a global rather than local basis.
“Local” includes models like “Connected IPCs” resistance to convoy raid which can be unrealistic. Destroyed IPC are destroyed. Blocked sea ports are blocked. There is no two ways about it.

IPC FLOW
@tekkyy:

1. To store the IPC it must be able to go to your capital.
2. To spend the IPC it must be able to go to the IC, from capital for stored IPC or from territory for newly produced IPC.

Imperious Leader had something like it too for another game.
@Imperious:

Island “Hopping”
Each island that is held or captured for receiving IP or as a port/airfield must be in and next to an adjacent sea zone that is controlled by a friendly player. Control includes all islands or land as well as a sea zone free of enemy ships. That is to say your conquests must be “supplied” by a “chain” of supporting territories or no planes or ships can land/dock there (land units can however hold the island) or you do not receive any economic benefit (IP) from these conquests.

Reason: How can is it possible to receive income from New Guinea when enemy controls the sea zone?

CONVOY PATHS
@Imperious:

On the SZ idea i could easily add convoy boxes if thats what is needed. It could solve some other issues for the ability to interdict (sink income) from lend lease and otherwise destroy a nations economy. I figure that 1/3 of UK’s income is based on sea trade so they have 30 IPC start and thats 10 IPC in sea produced income= about 3 boxes… Japan would be about 2 boxes, While Italy stands at 1 box (in medd). Soviets should have two boxes (lend lease) to archangel and persia. USA would be about 3 boxes. Each box is worth 1-3 IPC roll one d6 1-2=1 IPC, 3-4=2 IPC 5-6=3 IPC lost for each attacked box.

We are using something like that for our lend-lease incomes.

GAME SEQUENCE
We collect income before combat to prevent 5 nations collecting income from 1 territory in the same round  :evil:.
Discuss this in the main thread if anything.

Wait, I think discussion on Italy already has a thread.  :lol:

“AARHE: Phase 2: Adding Italy to the game”
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6386.0

continuing discussing from main thread on this new thread

@Micoom:

JAP; 8 IPC figthers and battleships attack and defend on a 5

The battleship is already in the Yamato Japanese National Advantage.

US; Extra ccapacityon Liberty ships: Always 2 infantry + 1 other land unit. and CA for 13 each (still 2 hits)

Which carrier is that? The light fleet carrier or the light crusier hull carrier?  :lol:
I don’t think its too bad unbalanced to be 13 IPC and take 1 hit only. I mean we gave their Liberty transport an advantage.
We still let US build normal carriers.

Yeah what theduke said but actually what we are doing is not to create incentives for players to follow historic purchases (and historic outcomes) but to model characteristics of each nation.

By the way if anything is confusing this VCP thing is the one!
We need to separate VCP and IRC (infantry raising capacity) or something.
Its getting confusing to reference distance and VCP as we define infantry placement limits.

Are you talking about “counters under units” to represent new units?

@Micoom:

SBR rules with escorts etc to phase 3.

Actually we last decided not to make players use their fighter pieces for SBR.
We went for implicit model.
We made LRA (Long Range Aircraft) technology includes esort fighters. You may choose to loose 10 IPC instead of the bomber.

We kept getting sidetracked into new ideas…
Lets focus on finalising phase1.

Is this correct?

Our Plan:
Phase1: Income, Production, National Units, Team Victory Condition, Non-combat Game Sequence
Phase2: Technology, National Advantage, Units, National Victory Condition
Phase3: Land combat, Naval combat

Yeah I sugguest a clean, compact, standalone document. Do not have to follow the OOB rulebook’s format.

Actually wait! Isn’t it too earlier to compile phase2 ?

We’ve been busy finalising phase1 that I don’t think bulk of phase2 is done yet ?

I recall the argument that major paradrop operations failed.
Good exmaple were often missions on a tactical level only.

@B.:

Massproduction bonus for T 34:
Your tanks basic price is reduced to 4 IPCs for every unit purchased after the first two tank units.

To catch up:
Yeah but we got worried about Russia’s small 25 IPC income and we last put it as 2 tanks for 8 IPCs. We were worried about Russia having to spend most of its income on tanks to take advantage of the rule. Russia raised lots of infantry too historically so we made it just a pair-discount-deal for tanks.

@Imperious:

They dont even bother to read a book on anything. AARE is only a balance issue not any historical based rules.

And they won’t listen when we sugguested their varient had too much of a fantasy factor as side effect of their ad-hoc development. Pulling things out of their ***.
Anyway, enough bad mouthing for now.

@Imperious:

So again we seek some basic treatment for each problem that we find in revised in a historical manner.

Yeah I think the variable IC cost is good enough.

@Imperious:

Japanese Kwangtung army: Japan gets one free infantry per turn

Only if they hold Manchuria/Manchuko.

Unlimited non-combat air move
No I don’t think we should have that. Unlimited is bad.
Just give them LRA ranges but in non-combat move only.
Weaken LRA slightly but LRA has been given fighter escort anyway. Of course LRA has longer range in combat move also.

@Imperious:

If a turn is 3-6 months and it takes one day to fly over germany from uk
and drop bombs, then i dont see how a plane could not “get” to any other controlled territory during the
time of ONE turn.

I don’t like that arguement. 3-6 months…the same can be said for tanks really. But letting them travel
from China to Europe would be a huge change.
By the way I don’t think its 3-6months per turn but round?

National Unit

I feel each nation should have two things that are cheaper not just one.

For Russia it seems necessary now.

Russia: Roll d6 for number of 2 IPC infantries. Roll d6 for number of 4 IPC tanks.

Germany: 6 IPC submarines

Japan: Cheap fighters sounds good. Those paper thin Zeros that are so agile.

UK: Cheap fighters also realistic here. Don’t mind the old destroyers rule either.

US: Lets do the Essex CV then, 13 IPC, one hit. Otherwise for the expensive (I think 10 better not 14 IPC) Liberty Transport let them “1 land unit + 2 infantry” instead of “1 land unit +  1 infantry”?

So some ideas for a US unit as CV…

(Cruiser hull) Light carriers: Cheaper at 12 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at normal speed. Probably attack on 1 defend on 2 as usual.

(Merchant hull, weak engines) Esort carriers: Cheaper at 10 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at 1  :lol: Probably attack on 0 defend on 1 like a transport.

World Aircraft Carrier List http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/

Cool. Do post it, or a summary if its too long.

@B.:

Well, I dont really get your message here “The varient is about balance and was pretty much created in an unstable and ad-hoc style”???

What I mean is the contrast. The “Enahanced” varient was not about historic accuracy but a goal of gameplay balance.
Just a useless piece of information. Its not important.

@B.:

Why have Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers at the same time as Blitzkrieg! They are pretty much the same to me and by historical reasons!

Yep I recall thats what we were leaning towards too.

It would be even better if you kept a AARHE prefix to all our threads.  :-D