Posts made by theduke

All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max.

Did you mean non-major?

No, non-minor VCs is what I meant. All captured capitals, major VCs and moderate VCs are grouped in a separate category. Captured minor VCs are grouped in the same category with the VCs of that nation’s color. Why’d you think non-major?

And with connected, whats the argument there?
Connected makes resources travel easier but the enemy’s civilians would still be unhelpful?

Reasoning is the same as has always been… that it is easier to shuttle troops to the front lines when they are connected (connected= short for contiguously connected) by land. It represents a railway without the need for railway pieces. It represents a partially mechanized infantry force without the need for new inf pieces. In the latter phases we’ll have explicitly different units representing things like mech inf, but for phase 1 the ability of placing limited inf directly on the front lin es are represented by the VCP system. VCPs is justified because number of VCPs is proportional to the level of built up transportation (roads, railways, etc.) to that territory.

Maybe we should say consider UK and US territories always “connected” but rather say that they have a different government policy with recruiting hence always 3 inf and always costs 3 or something.

It would be unrealisitc to allow US to place 3 inf in hawaii, brazil, or sinkiang etc… therefore i don’t like US building max 3 inf at any VC.

how about this new system:

location:                      cost:
capital                            2
all other territories           3 (applies to captured terr. and those of your color)

-All VCs of your color and captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected. UK and US exception is that all territories are considered connected but their capital VC max =3.

• All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max.

I just wanted to add a minor change in the fighter movement rules from before:

-fighters that begin a given turn on a carrier must end that turn on the same carrier, unless the carrier is destroyed in combat on that turn.

-fighters that move into more than a sum of 2 SZ spaces among the combat and non-combat moves of any 1 turn must end their turn on a carrier (notice that carriers do not have to move before fighters anymore, and that the 2 SZ rule only applies to fighters that land in a territory).

-fighters that do not move in the combat move phase of a certain turn, may ‘move twice’ in the non-combat move phase of that same turn.

With all that income and mobilisation rules…IC cost, IC output limit, VCP’s effects, VCP output limit, SBR limit…we need to declare the models and justification for the rules. And they gotta be “consistent”.

*****I agree. all rules will be explicity justified in the same document (kind of like how OOB national advantage rules have justifications along side the actual rules).

eg. Why would IC output limit depend on income sum of the IC’s territory and neighbouring territories of same power, yet IC costs and whether you can build an IC depend on only the territory itself?

**** I don’t know what you mean by the output limit depending on neighboring territories. The output limits in my plan were:

1. total IPCs of units placed there per turn can’t exceed 4 times the territory’s IPC value
2. total number of units placed there per turn can’t exceed the the territory’s IPC value
   ( i don’t think there were any other restrictions).

As mentioned I push for a global (vs. local) model with these things. Pecisely you should not be able to teleport IPCs to an IC. It must be able to get there via land or sea.

******My goal is to achieve this, but as simply as possible. in latter phases we can be more complex about it, but we really need to keep the solution to this super simple for phase 1 in order to include it.

I am also thinking about infantry. Should there be infantry output limits at a VC? Should cost of infantry increase with bigger purchases? Like 1st infantry at a VC costs 1 IPC. 2nd infantry costs 2 IPC…5th infantry costs 5 IPC…

*****There are already limits… limit of infantry=number of VCPs…exceptions are 1) non-contiguous to capital subtract 1 inf 2) captured territories build 1/2VCPs rounded down, or 0 in minor VCs, 1 in moderate and major, and 2 in enemy capital. I know you don’t like VCPs for IC builds but I think VCPs for inf placement is totally justified and realistic. I was thinking of having all inf built in capital cost 2. all inf built in VCP territories of your color cost 3. all inf built in captured VCP territories cost 4 each.

I think we need to tweak a lot of the rules involving money. Like IC costs, building limits, SBR limits, commerce raiding limits etc… I know we already shot around some ideas but I think we need to revisit all those again and declare what they all are so we’re all on the same page.

I’m going to be real busy with work for the next week. I’ll try to check the boards as often as I can this week. When I get back I’ll put in my 2 cents and try to tackle this issue and then hopefully soon after we’ll be able to write something up.

Do people have to register to savefile.com? If your rules and such aren’t that big, could you just cut and paste them into the post directly?

I don’t know yet whether I want to include national units in phase 1 or not. If we end up including any ‘optional rules’ in phase 1 (whih we obviously don’t have to) then I’ll probably be in favor of adding national units as one of those optional rules.

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

So let me get this straight… under this rule, a fighter could take off from a territory, move through 2 SZs in combat move phase, conduct combat, and then also fly over 2 more SZs in non-combat move phase. That means all 4 moves could be spend going over SZ spaces. I don’t think this is realistic. I propsed 2 SZ spaces max per turn, not 2 per combat move phase and 2 per non-combat move phase.

Two Sea Zones
Air units may enter only two sea zones when flying to attack and may enter only two sea zones when returning to land during Returning Air Movement.

Since the max total moves are 4, if we have max 2 SZ moves in combat move phase and max 2 moves in non-combat move phase then what’s really changed? All that’s pretty much changed is that you can’t move 3 SZ to attack and then move 1 to land. That’s hardly a change. In the rules I proposed, the max number of SZ moves per turn is 2, not the total number of SZ moves per each move phase.

If the max SZ moves is 2 per turn, then:

fighters can still move from EUS to UK (provided they fly over E CANADA)

fighters can still move from UK to Africa (provided they land in either Algeria, Libya or Gibraltar. Note that we changed Gibraltar location so it boarders SZ 12 and 13).

fighters can’t move from EUS to Brazil and conduct combat, unless they fly over Venezuela. But since that’s neutral, and you can’t fly over neutrals, they therefore can’t fly to Brazil and conduct combat. They can make it in non-combat by the ‘move twice’ rule (EUS to temporarily land in Panama, and then move again to Brazil).

You’ll notice that these ‘move twice’ rule and max 2 SZ move per turn rule compliment each other rather well. fighters can still move over 2 SZs per turn, but only in non-combat and only if they own a territory (or CV for carrier based planes) between to the 3 SZs to temporarily land in. This effectively puts much more importance in ‘island hopping’ and also indirectly enhances the realistic importance of Gibraltar, Panama, etc… IMO I think it will be hard you’ll find another set of rules very different from these that are as simple and as effectively realistic.

Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft carriers may carry Fighters of their own country. Such planes launched from a carrier may move only two sea zones or territory to attack. However, the carrier itself may move up to its full movement capabilities before launching a plane. A carrier must end its movement after launching a plane. After combat, all planes must return to their original carrier if possible. In addition, air units may be assigned directly to carriers during the Place New Units Action Sequence.

What is the motvation behind changing the movement rules so carriers move before fighters and effectively allowing the fighters to get a couple extra move pts.? Don’t you think it’s too big an advantage over land based planes?

Should we restrict fighters to land back on the same carrier they started the turn on? Why can’t fighters land on a different carrier (still owned by the same nation)?

1. Carrier based fighters are tied to the Carrier until its sunk and
2. Planes have 4 MP per turn, so the carrier can move first hereby extending the range of planes as long as they during the entire course of a turn do not exceed 4 MP

I’m not sure yet if we should allow carriers to move before their fighters and thereby extend the fighters’ range.

Is it realistic? It takes a long time for the carrier to move two SZ spaces (i.e. half an entire ocean). If carriers move before their fighters, then we are basically saying that the carrier’s movement takes no extra time.

Also, it introduces a new complexity to the game. Before, all units moved in the combat move phase at the same time. Now you are saying that units move in a certain order within a certain combat move phase. It’s not a hard idea to add in, but is it really necessary enough to go out of our way to change the rules for it?

Can this extension in movement be exploited? It seems that if CV based fighters can effectively move 6 instead of 4, this might give an unrealisticly big advantage for the CV fighters over land based fighters.

Up until now I have advocated revising fighter movement by saying that combat in a SZ counts as one extra move. I think a better solution is to have the following restrictions to fighter movement:

The sum of total moves in the combat and non-combat move phases in any given turn cannot exceed 4, and of these 4 moves no more than 2 may be used flying over SZ spaces.

Any air unit that does not move in a given combat move phase may ‘move twice’ in the non-combat move phase of that same turn. Moving twice means that an air unit may move up to 4 total spaces (still including no more than 2 SZ spaces), temporarily land in a friendly space, and then again move up to 4 spaces (including no more than 2 SZ spaces) to land in another friendly space.

Once a fighter starts it turn on a CV, or temporarily lands on a CV just before the non-combat move phase bonus move, that fighter cannot land, or temporarily land in a territory until the CV is destroyed.

we’ll have to look into preemstive air attacks a little more before we decide to put them into phase 1. I believe we have already agreed on changing naval warfare so subs can’t attack or defend along with surface units.

We have some rough ideas for sub interdiction floating around somewhere in one of these topic boards.

add to phase 1: AA fire, naval warfare, sub interdiction, defender retreats, simple version of techs (we can’t keep the OOB ones). hopefully i’m not missing anything else.

The game starts in early 1942. At that time most of the neutrals remained neutral until the war was basically over (1945). With this reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to model this by just saying players can’t invade neutrals. As I said before, if you feel that you have to have invasion of neutrals you should make the penalty be so ridiculously high that practically no one would ever do it.

There’s a reason why neutrals weren’t invaded. It wasn’t worth it for any of the major players to declare war on any of them. If you really feel the need to include that possibility then you have to make it really not worth it. Maybe like as many as 6 free enemy infantry placed there for free. We can’t make it worth that much for anyone to invade or else players will be invading neutrals in every game and that’s not realisitic.

I want simplicity for phase 1. I don’t want the complexity of phase 2 or 3 creeping into phase 1. I like not beiing able to invade neutrals because it shouldn’t be that important to the war anyway.

Since no neutrals were ever invaded after 1942, it seems that the simplest solution would be to say that neutrals in the game can’t be invaded. This would simulate history.

If we do decide to allow invading neutrals, then we shouldn’t make it complicated by saying that each neutral has a different size military. I think we should make all neutral military foces consist of an average force. Naturally, some neutrals should just remain impassable.

I think I vote for saying for phase 1 neutrals can’t be invaded. We could then introduce declaring war on neutrals as an option in phase 2.

I’m starting to think that we should introduce these optional rules in phase 2 (and maybe some in phase 3). Phase 1 doesn’t need any of these national units or attacks, etc…

I dont think that “fighter” thing for each nation will work as the third option because having just two is simple, while adding just one to cover specific air units seems kinda strange compared to other national unit ideas. I suppose the balance can be covered under Anderssons section of NA’s in phase two.

I’m not following you here. having 2 what is too simple? why does 1 fighter advantage per nation seem strange compared to 1 unit and 1 attack advantage per nation? it seems to compliment the other rules rather well to me.

wow, that seems overwhelming!

I think these 3 lists of optional rules are good. there are some things we still need to work on:

UK unit: Spitfire can’t be national unit for UK if we have fighter advantages. what should the new UK national unit be?

Russian attack: Russia needs a good national attack. katyusha rockets might not be the best option. one other option to think about is that Stalin encouraged a compitition among his generals to get to Berlin as quick as possible. I don’t know how to use this military tactic in the game or what to call it.