AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)

[Imperious Leader]

Post what rules you dont see as perfect so we can take a look.

[tekkyy]

VCP is currently used for a few things. Infantry deployment, IC cost, victory condition…anything else?

I feel we should be clear with what VCP is representing. Population? Resources?

And how about Russia’s mobile IC with respect to low income (<2 IPC) territories not able to build ICs?
The rules are not conflicting at the moment. Though the model might be. Are we saying these territory can’t build IC there but can support?

We haven’t cleared defined why low income territories cannot build IC? I mean we already have IC of different sizes (output limit proportional to its and its neighbours IPC income. And then we have this additional restriction based on the income of the territory itself and nots its neighbours.

Maybe fill me in with the logics behind the rules. What exactly does VCP represent? What exactly is an IC piece?

[theduke]

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.

[tekkyy]

No worries and no hurry.
This is not a one week project anyway.
We’ll wait for you.

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”.

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?

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.

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…

[theduke]

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.

[theduke]

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.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

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).

Yeah that would be nice.

( i don’t think there were any other restrictions).

Your right. I got confused.

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.

Yeah this is a tough one.
What I’ve sugguested in the income thread is fairly simple I think.
In phase 2/3 I’ll be excited and thinking about how to be “tighter”.
Current proposal only covers isolated single territories. A group blocked by enemy is unaffected at all even if it consists of just 2 territories.

*****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.

Yeah. But I also talked about deminishing returns. A boundard system rather than a progressive system I proposed would be simpler.
Say you CAN raise infantry over the limit, but at a cost of 5 IPC. This would model a forceful recruitment.
Although at the moment the only reason why you would do that is for the new amphibious assault rules of attacking tanks not fighting on round 1.

As with income we’ll have a table to make it look simple.

Location          Cost
Capital            2
VC                  3
Captured VC    4

Location                  Limit
Capital connected    VCP
Not connected          VCP -1
Captured captial      2
Captured VC            1
Captured minor VC  0

[theduke]

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.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max.

Did you mean non-major?
And why aren’t you using a table?  :lol:

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

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.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

can somebody post the entire phase one with this and the NA/ NA tactics list?

As for compiling…let do a bit each. And post in the corresponding forum.

How about this? We all have a part we are more familiar with!

Game sequence - Imperious Leader
Mobilisation - theduke
Income - tekkyy
Land combat - Imperious Leader
Naval combat - Imperious Leader
AA/ID - Imperious Leader or is that phase2?
National Units - tekkyy
National Advantage - tekkyy

Keep it be simple.
Use tables. Use point form.
The less words the better. Save the words for justification.

[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.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

Why’d you think non-major?

“captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected”
“All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max”
So we could end up with easier to raise troops in captured minor VC than captured non-minor VC?
I was thinking maybe you shouldn’t even be able go raise troops captured minor VC…

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.

Oh I see. I look forward to population and transportation being separately represented in latter phases.

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.

Yeah it would be unrealistic. I was just brain storming about how to represent US/UK polices. At the moment they can’t raise more than 3 inf anywhere right?
And with US and UK been always “connected” is that about them having better land and sea transport or is that also going to be modelled separately in latter phases?

[theduke]

“captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected”
“All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max”
So we could end up with easier to raise troops in captured minor VC than captured non-minor VC?
I was thinking maybe you shouldn’t even be able go raise troops captured minor VC…

Both quotes are correct, although I think you made a mistake with the math. captured minor VCs has inf=VCPs if connected or one less if not connected. Since VCPs for minors = 1, this means that if connected you may put 1 inf there and in not connected 0 inf. All non-minor captured VCs are 1, regardless of whether on not they are connected. This means that the number of inf made in captured minor VCs is either the same or less than the number of inf made in all other captured VCs (i.e. (0 or 1) is less than or equal to 1).

The only nations that are connected to minors are russia and germany. placing 1 inf at a captured minor will hardly ever happen since the criteria are too hard to satisfy.

Yeah it would be unrealistic. I was just brain storming about how to represent US/UK polices. At the moment they can’t raise more than 3 inf anywhere right?
And with US and UK been always “connected” is that about them having better land and sea transport or is that also going to be modelled separately in latter phases?

US and UK can’t raise more than 3 anywhere is correct. The reasoning they are always connected is primarily because many of the VCs they start with are minor Allies. Minor Allies have a much easier time raising their own troops than the other nations’ VCs have to raising theirs. Germany and japan have their starting VCs because they stole those territories militarily. It should be harder to raise inf in a territory you stole militarily. US and UK didn’t do that with their VCs since thier VCs are mostly minor allies.

alternatively, we could group russia in with the western allies and then say that all allies get to raise number of inf=VCps if connected or not. this might be simpler because then all the allies would have 1 set of rules and both axis would have another set of rules. russia still needs to be able to raise 5 per turn though. UK and US shouldn’t be able raise more than 3 per turn. after second thought, maybe you can’t have same inf placement rules for all allies.

[tekkyy]

Well explained. I understand now.

Thats vote for USSR having different INF placement rule to US/UK for realism. Its not too complex.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes the Soviets should have different rules on placement. the western allies actually spend time and resources to properly train soldiers. The Soviets just combed entire areas of males and gave them a gun and a bullet and said “go toward the Germans” if you get killed the comrade behind you picked up your gun and continued the fight. Of course i am taking some liberties with this characterization which is not entirely correct but its pretty damm close for 1942 Soviet Infantry situation. Only the Shock/ and Guard troops got some real training and equipment.

[theduke]

Here’s an idea that i want to throw out there:

western allies VCs are always considered ‘connected’ (like before), but now no VC may build more than 2 inf per turn. this means that max of 2 inf per turn are made in eastern and western us and uk and eastern canada (instead of 3 at all those places). this would make the 3 us territories can make only 6 inf per turn among them (instead of 8). is this more realisitic?

should western allies also get the advantage of inf made in the capital costs only 2 each?

[theduke]

here’s another idea:

how about we do away with the rule that if a VC is attacked before the defenders first turn, the defender can place inf there before the attack. we replace it with the rule that anytime throughout the game when a VC is attacked, the defender doesn’t have to assign a casualty on the first hit. this means that the defender gets one free hit per battle defending a VC.

i think a better way to say basically the same thing is to say that when defending a VC, 1 inf is a 2 hit unit (like a battleship).

either of these new rules will make the game more realistic IMO by modelling the extra defense in these VCs and reduce the occurence of these being traded back and forth costantly. now players will more likely hold off 1 turn and attack a VC next turn extra strong and only giving the defender 1 free hit instead of attacking a VC weak 2 turns in a row and giving the defender 2 free hits (one per turn).

if we want to go even further with this, we could say that VCs with more VCPs get more 2-hit infantry. number of 2 hit inf=number of VCPs might be too powerful…. 5 2-hit inf defending each capital might never make capitals taken. we could reduce the effect by limiting it to only the first combat round. after the first combat round all inf turn ack to regular 1-hit inf no matter if they were hit on turn 1 or not.

[Imperious Leader]

Its okay to have some defense modifiers to account for built up areas such as cities. Only that it should be explained as such and not bundled into what is allready been established. That way people looking at playing this will “see” what and how we arrive at historical realism. If we just insert this into the template of other rules “ad hoc” we would look quite arbitrary.

It should have its own section:

Terrain and weather:

1. VC territories have a built in defence of one causaulty before any other hits are assigned.
2. Soviet Winter: at the end of any German combat movement phase the Soviet player can declare a one time “harsh winter” providing the modification of +1 for all defending Soviet infantry…or something like this…

of course this can be elaborated to effect say jungle islands in the pacific ( dug in defenders etc)  or Italian mountains

[theduke]

every rule should definitely have its own explanation.

[tekkyy]

Shall we do that for phase 1 while they are fresh in memory?