Best posts made by vodot

@argothair totally hear you wrt complexity, so then just examining the simpler version… Since every power has coastal ICs that are rarely if ever fully blockaded… if SZs count as zero, then wouldn’t almost every unit be in perpetual supply, as long as it was adjacent (or adjacent +1, for inf and art) to a coastal TT?

Supply in that scenario only seems to affect Siberia and China - the only places where deeply landlocked TTs exist - and maybe that is exactly the point.

sorry for the constant editing.

These are astounding. Well done.

@argothair said in Limited Supply:

@vodot Well, it may be easier than you’d think to set up a naval blockade. If you’re on an island like Borneo, and your enemies put a sub or a destroyer in that island’s sea zone, then your land forces and planes on that island are now out of supply. If you’re the Italians and you’re fighting in Italian East Africa and the British control even half of the Suez, you are likely out of supply.

But, yes, the primary goal is to reduce players’ ability to move huge tank stacks through the jungle mountains of western China and the arctic swamps of Siberia.

Well, taking the Italian East Africa question, if I’m understanding correctly, what stops them from tracing supply around the Cape instead and up to the Med from the west? To truly cutoff the Italians in Africa, Britain would have to block both Gibraltar and Suez - and the Italians are one of the easier powers to ‘blockade’ (imagine trying to cut British, US, or Japanese sea supply lines). Again, this could all be totally fine, it’s simply a consideration.

Taking the Borneo question, this raises the question of timing: are island defenders always out of supply in virtue of the fact that an invasion fleet must “blockade” the island in the course of invading it? That seems wrong; island defenders that began a turn in supply should probably repulse invasions at full strength, no? (An aside: this makes me think about how much more interesting it would be to have islands between sea zones, rather than enveloped by them… as you and I have discussed before)

In land operations, however, this does seem right - defenders more broadly probably should become OOS the moment their supply lines are cut (even over a single combat phase) to simulate rapid envelopments etc. (and also just to simplify accounting). Same question applies for attackers: some attacking units which begin a turn OOS might suddenly become supplied again as combats are resolved, so that they are in supply when their own combat is conducted. It seems logical that they should combat move with an OOS penalty, yet fight at full strength if they are in supply again when their combat begins.

Does anyone know the font used for the IPC value numerals? I’ve been recycling and cleaning up the IPC values that already exist on the map but a custom font would be great.

@Argothair I think this accomplishes what you’re after (hampering any isolated, thousand-mile armored thrusts through the Siberian/Chinese wilderness). The combat move is the right place, because that’s where the consequences of being OOS matter most.

These rules would also be relatively simple to extend with either dedicated logistics units like transports and trucks, or with some kind of payment system by which that logistics is abstracted - so you can take those tanks through the wilderness/fleet across the ocean… if you pay the price by either investing in vulnerable logistics units to support/accompany them or by paying 1IPC per attacking/moving mechanized unit, or something.

Regarding SZ lines, maybe every 2-3 SZ should count as one land TT, or something, rather than 5-for-free? That might force amphibious invasions to eschew 1inf 1tnk combinations for 1inf 1art for the extended range (maybe naval bases could play here as well). This should also help prevent the ‘sidestep’ cases I am thinking of where a force might be able to trace supply by pathing “sideways” a TT or two on land before switching over to SZs to dodge a blockade of the obvious logical shortest route.

@nodever2 Oh man, color-coding the battleboard to hit-dice is a stroke of genius for newbies - I make my dice to match YG’s scheme EDIT: Whoops, I guess my dice don’t match YG’s scheme :relieved: so in a white / green / blue / red for 1/2/3/4 - have you considered a recolor of this for that scheme?

@argothair Wow man, I love this. I can’t imagine trying to sell this to the A&A community because it’s so crunchy compared to the A&A system, but I love the choices and tradeoffs that have to be considered and made. It looks to me like you’ve basically invented a way of abstracting force disposition and combined arms without setting up an individual unit targeting/class system or a tactical map. Pretty sweet.

I have some questions:

1. Is your vision that both sides would choose their dispersion of forces ‘blind’ and then simultaneously reveal, or is there some kind of give and take or progression e.g. one row at a time?
2. What about units in in excess of the six-die limit to each band? Would they need to be
   “pre-allotted”, automatically moving up to take the place of losses, or could they be conceived of as “reserves” that can be dynamically allocated after seeing your opponent’s disposition or after losses?
3. Do you have any analysis on the relative power of each band?
4. This would fairly dramatically alter the attacker/defender balance, since units no longer roll with any attack/defense values (or any “values” at all, for that matter). Have you given thought for compensating the defender for this loss of strength?

I’ve gone mad - I made a simplified version for AA50 etc. as well. :)

The four setups I want to evaluate for this rule are 42.2, 42.2TR, Anniversary '41, and Anniversary '42. For starters, for each of these setups, I want to look at a few obvious destinations for the OC (India, Australia, Egypt, SA, Hawaii, and SFE), and for each examine the strongest possible Axis response on turns 1-5, compared to Allied reinforcement potential. The result will be a table I’ll post below as I test. You veterans, are there other locations you think are worth checking for the first round of tests?

@argothair RE: Wheat, well, I do happen to have the resource tokens lying around. :) But rules-wise, totally - they would both want to just fall under a “Resources” heading with identical simple mechanics, like:

Resources (optional rule)

Securing special resources like oil, wheat, iron, and rubber was crucial to the war effort for every belligerent power. Territories where these special Resources were particularly abundant are marked on the map with a corresponding symbol or figure.

During the “Collect Income” phase of your turn, each Resource you control grants you +1 additional IPC.

Resources do not increase the number of units that can be mobilized in a particular territory, and they cannot be moved or destroyed by any power.

RE: China, I’ll try the ‘guerillas/no blitz’ rule in my next solo game, along with the ‘Version 3’ map above.

RE: VCs, I agree different thresholds is fine and totally historical.

I may also try adding a Siberian territory and re-jiggering those IPC levels as well. Buryatia goes to 2 for Vladivostok and lend-lease, and maybe Far East stays at 1, but the rest could be zeroed out in favor of the Ukrainian resources discussed above, or a boost to Archangel for lend-lease?

I love convoy rules, of course, but I think that’s too much for AA50.

@all-encompassing-goose this reminds of when one of the guys in my RISK Legacy group spilled the salsa bowl all over Europe. We went on a holy war against him that game, and he essentially got permanent butt-monkey status for the rest of the campaign :)

@argothair here’s a china update; this moves Chinghai to where it actually belongs (by splitting Ningxia in two), and then adds Xinjiang and Tibet in the West by splitting what was previously Chinghai. Net of +2 chinese TTs. Manchu-Xinjiang and FICT-Tibet distances (across-the-top and across-the-bottom) remain 3, but the FICT-Xinjiang diagonal is now 4, at least. The +2 TTs means an extra infantry for two turns or more, and gives a “corner” where Xinjiang is adjacent to both Novo and Kazakh + three last-ditch Chinese TTs.

@imperious-leader Thanks IL, I’ll update the summary above. I like that idea from the KISS principle, and also that in your rules oil is something you can - but probably shouldn’t - ignore. I also like that denying oil to your opponent functions like a free SBR raid…

@reloader-1 done:

also, a fixed version with my color-codings:

Here’s my stab at an updated table adding just Aluminum and Rubber, sticking with the “3 IPC” resource equivalency; again just using G40 OOB units and costs for comparison and compatibility.

@reloader-1

looking amazing, @Bigwatcher! Let us know when the rules are ready for perusing.

UPDATE: Added a version 4 full map with China, Rio, Cape Town, and Siberia changes. Also tweaked the Aleutians to visually justify giving them an IPC=1 to match the rest of the pacific.

@FranceNeedsMorePower fwiw most people use bright orange to represent the Dutch. Fully agree we need some more Dutch oomph!

UPDATE: added Overlays 16 & 17 to post #1

• NW China changes
• Add Rio and Cape Town as VCs

I also redrew the Burma Road (#15) and added an improved overlay.