AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)

[theduke]

Simplied rules for ICs:

-Every nation starts with an IC in their capital and major VC.
-Whenever any territory containing an IC is captured, the IC may be destroyed at the defender’s discretion.
-ICs placed at capital and major VCs cost 5 IPCs each.
-ICs placed at moderate and minor VCs cost 10 IPCs each.
-ICs placed in a territory with no VC cost 15 IPCs each.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

The issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.

Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.

Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.

The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

Simplied rules for ICs:

-Every nation starts with an IC in their capital and major VC.
-Whenever any territory containing an IC is captured, the IC may be destroyed at the defender’s discretion.
-ICs placed at capital and major VCs cost 5 IPCs each.
-ICs placed at moderate and minor VCs cost 10 IPCs each.
-ICs placed in a territory with no VC cost 15 IPCs each.

I think we should still be able to destroy your IC otherwise.
When enemy keeps SBRing one of your unused ICs, at least you can destroy it to stop this strange situation.

Of course I am still worried about tiring population, transport as well as industrial to our abstract Victory City Points.

[tekkyy]

@B.:

The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

Yep we have something like that in mind in the land and naval combat threads.
And it probably won’t be optional.
We are very keen on the rule for both land and naval combat in phase 2 or 3.
Its quite important for historic realism.

[theduke]

Thoughts on switching UK’s major and moderate VC designation so India is now the major VC and Canada and Australia are the moderate VCs? Canada would still start with an IC and India would not.

Why do this?
-India had a larger population and military than Canada. With India as the major VC, India could assemble up to 3 inf per turn and Canada up to 2 inf per turn instead of the other way around.
-I assume possession of India was more important than possession of Canada (i.e. worth more VCPs), even though Canada was industrialized. I don’t know what real stats to compare to measure VCPs, but I’m thinking it would be a combination of GDP, population, resources etc… Thoughts on which territory should be worth 3 VCPs and 2 VCPs?

The only downside to this change is that now ICs don’t start exclusively in all capital and major VCs. If UK major VC=India, then UK wouldn’t have an IC in their major VC, but have an IC in one of their moderate VCs (Canada). This makes things slightly more complicated.

While we’re at it, should we change Japan’s VCs so Manchuria is a moderate VC and Kwangtung is a major VC? We would still keep a starting IC in Manchuria and still not have one in Kwangtung.

[tekkyy]

Varied VCP

I think we don’t need to limit ourselves to 15 VCPs for all powers.
Its not like it achieves game balance on its own anyway, axis 30 vs allies 45.

Lets adjust VCPs of each city according to population.
Russia just had more people power than UK or US. Its as simple as that.

VCP and IC

@theduke:

…Canada would still start with an IC and India would not…
keep a starting IC in Manchuria and still not have one in Kwangtung.

Here we don’t have to model industrial power within VCPs. If it was just population we would be fine. Leaving IC on its own. India certainly has more population. Canada is certainly more industrialised.

Victory

Maybe we can have economic or population mode.
By the way why is Major victory 45 for axis and 55 for allies?
So axis needs 15 more while allies only need 10 more?

[theduke]

It is easier for Axis to take VCs that they didn’t start with.

Letting Axis win with 15 and Allies with 10 is to level out the difficulty of winning, not the overall number of VCPs.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

It is easier for Axis to take VCs that they didn’t start with.

Letting Axis win with 15 and Allies with 10 is to level out the difficulty of winning, not the overall number of VCPs.

Yeah of course its for difficulty of winning not overall number. So fair enough if you say Axis take additional VC easier.

[tekkyy]

So for this Canada/India and Manchuria/Kwangtung situation I say ICs start where they should depending on 1942 situation.
Instead of major and moderate VCs.

[tekkyy]

http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-29.html
provides losses and losses as % of population. In excel I calculated these population

Ukraine 41,884.82
Germany 71,428.57
Russia (RSFSR) * 199,344.83
Poland 25,510.20
Japan 69,117.65
Yugoslavia 16,037.74
France 40,000.00
Italy 45,454.55
Romania 13,513.51
Greece 7,258.06
Hungary 9,347.83
Great Britain 50,000.00
Czechoslovakia 11,333.33
Austria 6,678.57
USA 150,000.00
Holland 8,750.00
Finland 3,703.70
Belgium 8,000.00
Canada 10,500.00

*Total USSR military loss in World War II was 8,668,400. (This does not include civilian loss.)

http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1939.htm

Population and industrial capacity
Population in 1939 Steel output in tons
UK 47.961.000 13.192.000
France 41.600.000 6.221.000
USSR 190.000.000 18.800.000
USA 132.122.000 51.380.000
Germany 76.008.000 23.329.000                        (both including Austria)
Italy 44.223.000 2.323.000
Japan 71.400.000 5.811.000

Population and industrial capacity by the British Empire Forces
Population in 1939 Steel production in tons (1939)
Canada 11.682.000 1.407.000
South Africa 2.161.000 250 (both white)
Australia 6.807.000 1.189.000
New Zealand 1.585.000 –
India 374.200.000 1.035.000
The British Commonwealth and Empire possessed further resources for war. Canada and Australia had significant industries, and their populations, like those of New Zealand and white South Africa, were well-educated and physically and mentally capable of providing high-quality recruits. These 4 self-governing ‘dominions’ followed the British lead and declared war 1939.

[theduke]

What was your point? That Australia should also start with an IC?

[tekkyy]

Sorry I didn’t get around to analysis it yet.
But posting the stats first from two sources.

[tekkyy]

More details (though still far from complete) are found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

Using the following mapping:

Australia Australia
Romania Balkans
Bulgaria Balkans
Brazil Brazil
China China
Canada Eastern Canada + Westerm Canada
Newfoundland Eastern Canada + Westerm Canada
Poland Eastern Europe
Lithuania Eastern Europe
Latvia Eastern Europe
French Indo-China French Indo-China
Burma French Indo-China
Thailand French Indo-China
Malaya French Indo-China
Singapore French Indo-China
Austria Germany
Czechoslovakia Germany
Germany Germany
Denmark Germany
Luxembourg Germany
India India
Indonesia Indonesia
Ethiopia Italian East Africa
Japan Japan
Korea Manchuria
Mexico Mexico
Mongolia Mongolia
New Zealand New Zealand
Finland Norway
Norway Norway
Iran Persia
Iraq Persia
Philippines Philippines
Italy Southern Europe
Yugoslavia Southern Europe
Hungary Southern Europe
Greece Southern Europe
Albania Southern Europe
Estonia Southern Europe
Malta Southern Europe
Portuguese Timor New Guinea
United Kingdom United Kingdom
South Africa Union of South Africa
United States US
Soviet Union USSR
France WesternEurope
Netherlands WesternEurope
Belgium WesternEurope
Spain Spain

I came to these populations for the game territories:

Australia 7,000,000
Balkans 26,200,000
Brazil 41,500,000
China 530,000,000
Eastern Canada + Westerm Canada 11,600,000
Eastern Europe 39,300,000
French Indo-China 63,600,000
Germany 95,700,000
India 386,000,000
East Indices, Borneo 70,500,000
Italian East Africa 14,100,000
Japan 72,000,000
Manchuria 23,400,000 (Korea only)
Mexico 19,800,000
New Zealand 1,600,000
Norway 6,600,000
Persia 17,700,000
Philippines 16,400,000
Southern Europe 78,100,000
New Guinea 500,000 (Portuguese Timor only)
United Kingdom 47,800,000
Union of South Africa 10,300,000 (only whitemen were recruited, better to use  2,161,000)
US 132,000,000
USSR 168,500,000
Western Europe 58,800,000

So for each power we are looking at:

USSR 168,500,000
Germany 304,700,000-
UK 110,100,000 (excludes India, but only 1/4 million of 375 million recruited anyway)
Japan 246,400,000- (excludes much of Manchuria’s population, but doubt they recruited many Chinese)
US 193,300,000 (excludes Chinese forces, who caused 75% of Japanese Casualities but were defensive, shouldn’t be modelled as mobile infantry divisions, better modelled as a NA for US)

USSR has powerful recruitment system. Effectively well ahead.
Germany has huge numbers, but much are enemy civilians. But still well ahead.
UK lacked numbers. Not much of India joined up. Only whitemen were recruited in South Africa. Below average.
Japan, much are civilians of enemy colonies rather than enemy civilans, thus better than Germany’s case. Banzai patriotism also makes up for it. Average.
US. Average.

So instead of a flat 15 VCP per power I propose:

USSR 18
Germany 18
UK 11
Japan 15
US 15

Then we have distribution of VCPs to deal with:

Japan needs to be highly concentrated in Japan.
German needs to be highly concentrated in German and Southern Europe.
A few low population territories such as those in the Pacific Islands shall receive 1 or 0 points.

My propose new VCP distributions:

Russia:
Moscow (6)–Russia
Stalingrad (4)–Caucasus
Leningrad (3)–Karelia
Novosibirsk (2)–Novosibirsk
Archangel (1)–Archangel
Almaty (1)–Kazakh
Vladivostok (1)–Buryatia

Germany:
Berlin (6)–Germany
Rome (5)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Warsaw (2)–E. Europe
Bucharest (2)–Balkans
Kiev (1)–Ukraine
Oslo (0)–Norway
Kursk (0)–W. Russia

UK: (after looking at population and deaths, many reductions are placed, and introduced Persia)
London (5)–UK
Toronto (2)–E. Canada
Calcutta (1)–India
Sydney (1)–Australia
Cairo (0)—Anglo-Egypt
Damascus (0)–Trans-Jordan
Tehran (1)–Persia
Cape Town (1)–South Africa

Japan: (Japan can’t no longer easily recruit Chinese)
Tokyo (6)—Japan
Changchun (2)–Manchuria
Shanghai (1)–Kwangtung
Singapore (2)–French Indo-China
Kuching (2)–Borneo
Batavia (1)–East Indices
Manila (1)—Philippines
Guadalcanal (0)–Solomon Islands
Milne Bay (0)–New Guinea

US:
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (4)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Chongqing (2)–China
Ãœrümqi (1)–Sinkiang
Honolulu (0)–Hawaii
Sao Paulo (1)–Brazil

[theduke]

I think having varying VCPs/nation isn’t worth the added complexity. With the even VCP system it is much easier to play the game without consulting some table. Players don’t want to have to consult tables, etc… I don’t have to consult a table for the 15 VCPs/ nation system… I instantly know where the VCs are and how many VCPs each are. Granted, I’m the one who came up with the system so it would be easier for me to memorize them, but I think others will also instantly remember where they all are after playing 2-3 games.

I vote for the simpler, but probably less exact, even VCP system.

[Imperious Leader]

Lets keep phase one as it stands and look at things after the other two phases are done. A clearer idea of what direction we should travel will present itself to us depending on what other ideas we come up with. Just move forward with phase two stuff.

[theduke]

My ruleset probably won’t be available for a while anyway on account of how after tomorrow I won’t have access to a computer for a week. Let’s go with the phase 1 rules we already have written up and I’ll just eventually post what I’m currently writing up with under some other name to avoid confusion. I think the writeup we have already will probably end up going along better with phase 2 anyway. I just don’t want to abandon what I have since it has a ton of new ideas that I just came up with.

I can’t wait to come back in a week to be completely overwhelmed by the number of new ideas everyone’s come up with.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

I don’t have to consult a table for the 15 VCPs/ nation system.

Yes I agree that the current system is a bit easier to remember.
But I think it don’t be easy to memorize 7 (5-3-2-2-1-1-1) cities/territory per nation anyway. I think we’ll still have plenty of table lookups.

@Imperious:

Lets keep phase one as it stands and look at things after the other two phases are done.

@theduke:

Let’s go with the phase 1 rules we already have written up and I’ll just eventually post what I’m currently writing up with under some other name to avoid confusion.

Ok I’ll finish off writing up the justifications and go build the phase 2 thread structure.

We’ll include the new simpler infantry mobilisation rules anyway since all 3 of us said it was good.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes and make it all in table format right?

[theduke]

I’m probably going to win the award for most random question ever by asking this, but how many aircraft movement markers come with the game and how many are labeled 1, 2, 3, etc…?

I don’t know the answer myself because I think I lost a few of them over the last couple years (probably because I don’t worry about keeping them on account of how they are worthless).  :-P  I’m asking because I’m looking into making a change to the game that would utilize them for something else.

Thanks for your help.

[tekkyy]

I have the 4th edition from Avalon Hill known as “revised”.

There are 15 of those aircraft movement markers.

4 x 1’s
4 x 2’s
3 x 3’s
1 x 4’s
1 x 5’s
1 x 6’s
1 x 7’s