Posts made by tekkyy

I am leaning towards e fewer new units and fewer map changes.

@B.:

Any German player that would get that NA will most likely win the game, since a pile of such artillery with opening fire will kill anything, since casualties can not counter attack!  :mrgreen:

For your information there is this other AAR varient “Enhanced” popular on AH forum.
(The varient is about balance and was pretty much created in an unstable and ad-hoc style.)
They found the opening fire didn’t save them that many return hits.

@B.:

I dont like the T-34 NA due to historical reasons, it was not better than a Sherman! But worse than a Panther or upgraded Panzer IV! German tanks cost 7 IPCs and  have a combat capabillity of 4/4 were as an allied tank has a combat capability of 3/3 and cost 5 IPCs! What do you think?

Yes I’ve something alone the lines that you need 5 T-34s to kill a Panzer but Russia usually had 6. :-D
T-34 is just a massed unit and this is what we are trying to model at the moment.

VCP = population, IPC = material, IC = production, not to be mixed up

IC only builds non-infantry units.
–-> I think cost of IC should not be dependent on VCP. Or are you are thinking VCPs means more accessable labour?

Why does IPC reduce cost of IC?
With the “4 times IPC” limit we have bigger and smaller ICs.
—> I think an IC at a territory with high IPC income should in fact cost more!

Non-infantry units still needs manpower. Tanks require crew.
But to what degree?
—> If insignificant compared to infantry units, then all is fine. If significant then VCP should affect production limit by number of units.

All ICs that were present at the start of the game are permanent (i.e. ICs that were never purchased can never be destroyed). Purchased ICs can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.

Nothing is indestructible by policy or physics. USSR is happy to reduce their own cities to ground on retreat.
Recall my other rule to allow IC to be selected for destruction in purchasing units phase.

Total Victory: The winning team is the first to control every territory by the end of any US player’s turn.

You need to update the victory condition wordings in accordance to your new turn sequence (replacing with “any US player” with “any player”) or the other way around update your turn sequence to show victory condition are checked per round not turn?

Unit Placement phase:

After reading this I think you should break it up Victory City Points into Victory City Points and Population Points or something. Its getting confusing.

Commerce Raiding

No comments for commmerce raiding and connected IPCs. I highly expect to be able to convince you to switch from “local” to “global” model of the supply chain.

Back to the income issue and supply chain again…

If you don’t mind complexity I would love such details…

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.

Collect income and purchase units may need to be merged though.  :cry:

@Imperious:

Heres a proposed german list:…hers a list for uk…If you just have like one unit for each player, then its kinda boring. the new units can be some sort of NA.

A list :? Lets play with units in phase 2.

To finish off the US national unit I agree on both the cheap weak carrier and the mech infantry.

@Imperious:

++++++++It is not based on any historical idea. The rule has to reflect some idea that is realistic. The Soviet intention was to keep the treaty with Japan … untill the war was settled with Germany. Japan was in a similar position… they wouldnt touch this treaty w/o the US surrender or a major colapse of european hold on asia ( india, austrailia)

Yeah although I don’t prefer hard limits, soft limits like the IPC penalty to fight internal resistance mentioned earlier can be somewhat fantasy.

This new idea, I feel like keeping on it on a small scale.
+++++++ yes very small… like 1/3 if what i posted

Yeah particularly air transport it should be limited to 1 infantry only like you drafted.

at times people will be frustrated and feel its not worth the time or feel overwhelmed… the trick is to take things slowly so the proper cognigation can occur and a refined result can be discovered.

Yeah I do feel overhwelmed when I see a page of discussion between you two.
We are also discussing many issues in the same thread (as we finish off phase one).

***So I think lets not introduce new things but focus and settle on disputed idea. Then start phase 2 so we can discuss in structured threads again.

We’ve made many changes and added many new stuff.
Are you writting it up as a standalone document or add-on for OOB or LHTR?

I mean, even our phases are different.

I hope there is historic basis for it.
Last I was upset about OOB’s “fast carriers” rule when they really meant “light carriers” which physically carried less planes, had weaker armor, and didn’t moved faster.

Cool.
Great to see its not to radical and has been made before.
I would love it.
Hope its not too complicated when applied to the both sending (IPC generating territory) and receiving (IC territory) end.

@theduke:

e) US Fast Carriers (change- specifics?)

Are we talking about light carriers or fast carriers or cheap carriers?

@theduke:

The Soviet Union  and Japan are not at war when the game begins. Soviet Union cannot attack Japan until Germany and Italy are defeated, while Japan cannot attack until Greater China,India and Austrailia are defeated.
********What about the idea of attacking whenever you have 3 times the IPC value of the defender in terms of ground troops? Russia should have to be on there guard even in the early part of the game.

Hm…are we using hard limits for non-agression now?

@Imperious:

Strategic Redeployment (SR)

This new idea, I feel like keeping on it on a small scale.

G) jet bombers?
I) A-bomb?
K) long range subs?

What? I last recall A-bomb being OFF the table.

********this is only phase 1, remember? The list for every tech we can think of is coming up in phase 2, right?
I though we are in phase two?

There are too many disputed issues so I also think we are still in phase 1.

Sounds about right.
(Russian Winter fixed in time only, only randomness being the effect.)
We could roll dice 1-3 for -1 attack, 4-6 for -2 attack…

Should planes be affected?

And we haven’t progressed further in terms of geographics of Russian Winter.

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

Sounds good. A solution to my worry of collecting income from isolated regions.

But we got to be careful not to model flow of IPCs based on ideas from normal economy. 1/3 economic income or 1/3 war material (IPC)? I understand they are closely related though.

With the connected IPC idea……I understand the reasoning that ICs with connected IPCs has less reliance on sea transport but destroyed IPCs are still destroyed and should be reflected. Or not destroyed IPCs but blocked transport path, in which case maybe it can’t spend IPCs not reachable by land…but no thats bad you can transport war material via sea to a clear area and then transport by land to the IC.

The main thing I am thinking about is the flow of IPCs on the map. If we model it locally (eg. connected IPC) rather than globally we get strange situation where one can be double punished for the same thing, or punished for a path of IPC flow it did have to take.

How about we just don’t collect income from a territory totally blocked off by enemy by land+sea. But happened historically? Do production or income generation stop? Should the IPCs be stockpiled? Should it be then capturable by enemy?

1. Cannot collect IPCs from territories totally blocked off by enemy via land and sea.
2. Cannot spend IPCs on ICs totally blocked off by enemy via land and sea, except for IPCs of its own territory.

Then again, are there air convoys  :? to worry about…

@theduke:

Much less rolling but it’s still randomized.

Even randomized is controversial.
Random is not historic. Yet if its foreseen its not historic either.
I can’t think of a solution at this point.

@Imperious:

1. declare presisely when a tech comes into effect ( historical based)

To refresh this is what I thought last: purchase dice before combat, roll dice after combat, comes into effect beginning of next turn

@Imperious:

2. demonstrate some historical timeframe so we know when we are in the war

Althought we shouldn’t over do it. We setup up the “settings” of the story/game to much historical realism but after that anything goes for the “plot”.

Like the Non-agression treaty. There should be different degrees of penalty rather than hard conditions on when one can break the treaty.

I am actually looking into the production limit. Not unlike the OOB’s production limit total number of units limited to the income number of the territory. The sugguested total number of IPCs limited to 4 times the income number of the territory is still largely abstract mean of modelling.

The now variable cost of IC is another breakthrough in realism.

There is also that thing I said earlier about imitations on WHERE IPCs can be spent and how to deal with income of isolated/blocked-off territories. (Maybe use the certain SZs representating certain convoys thingo from lend-lease solutions.)

So we’ll have to get back to Non-agression treaty later.
@Imperious:

5. Soviet Winter
   Russian player rolls 1 die. If a 1 then Soviet Winter is active. All Soviet ground units defending any red territory defend at +2 than they would otherwise .The roll is performed after the Germans have announced attacks.

With rolling of dice added, we are not keeping it to once per game right?

This is what I think you are modelling…windfall for Russia (rolling dice) and unforeseen difficulty for Germany (hence roll after Germany announced attacks not in Russia’s turn).

But then how many times per game? When should this be declared?

I am thinking limit it to the climate/geography relevant territories and actually let this happen EVERY turn. Radical but I am just thinking out loud.

@Imperious:

The lend lease ruloes will take care of that… BTW the land lease money should be able to only purchase armor, artillery or planes So if the land lease is looking at 10 IPC the Soviets can build 2 tanks or a plane or a tank and artillery… that seems correct based on what the other member posed regarding the types of equipment sent.

Wait not so fast. That was still under discussion I thought? I thought there was lots of general supplies to justify for building infantry with lend-lease IPCs.

@theduke:

Against air units:
No more than 3 AA guns may fire in any 1 territory. Anytime an enemy air unit flies over a territory, either in combat or non-combat move phases, the AA guns may fire against those air units. Each AA gun (up to 3) rolls 1 die to target an air unit. For every roll of a 1 or 2 an air unit has been targeted. For every successful target roll roll another die to determine the number of air units shot down. An air unit is shot down on a roll of a 1.

The AA piece can shoot in non-combat now?
Imperious Leader sugguested adding the “damaged but not killed” effect for SBR. Should we have it for normal combat as well?
I still think prefer AA to shoot more than once, maybe up to 2 air units can be targetted? I think historically flak fire a lot and only hit sometimes. (At the moment flak fire rarely and only hit sometimes.)

Against amphibious assaults:

Thats cool.

@theduke:

Why do we need to denote CVs with US markers? All CVs should be represented the same.

I was thinking they are allowed to build normal (stronger) CVs if they wanted to.

If the enemy AA gun hits a bomber with LRA, it should at least be registered as a full hit on a fighter escort unit (=10 IPCs). Not half an escort unit. Where are you getting 5 IPCs from?

I don’t know the scale of things. I was thinking an escort unit has less planes than a fighter unit. I was also thinking escort units cost less than full blown fighter unit.

I don’t think it should apply to regular combat, but it’s still on the drawing board.

Thats fine. I don’t think planes needs to be detected in regular combat either.

Actually, the little piece looks like a smallish anti-tank artillery.

Should it represent self-propelled tank looking artilleries too?