@Imperious-Leader https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34909/1942-second-edition-house-rules-for-a-more-interesting-game/44
Here is my latest file I know that it was seen before but anyone looking at this post for rules may be interested.
AARHE: Phase 2: Victory Cities (VC)
-
@Imperious:
lets go with that for now and work on neutrals, VC and tech
So I opened a Victory Cities (VC) thread for phase 2.
I last sugguested a different people raising power between the powers.
USSR: 18
Germany: 18
UK: 11
Japan: 15
US: 15The justification and maths here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6470.msg105602#msg105602I also sugguested these new values.
USSR: 18
Moscow (6)–Russia
Stalingrad (4)–Caucasus
Leningrad (3)–Karelia
Novosibirsk (2)–Novosibirsk
Archangel (1)–Archangel
Almaty (1)–Kazakh
Vladivostok (1)–BuryatiaGermany: 18
Berlin (6)–Germany
Rome (5)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Warsaw (2)–E. Europe
Bucharest (2)–Balkans
Kiev (1)–UkraineUK: 11
London (5)–UK
Toronto (2)–E. Canada
Calcutta (1)–India
Sydney (1)–Australia
Tehran (1)–Persia
Cape Town (1)–South AfricaJapan: 15
Tokyo (6)—Japan
Changchun (2)–Manchuria
Singapore (2)–French Indo-China
Kuching (2)–Borneo
Shanghai (1)–Kwangtung
Batavia (1)–East Indices
Manila (1)—PhilippinesUS: 15
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (4)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Chongqing (2)–China
Ãœrümqi (1)–Sinkiang
Sao Paulo (1)–Brazil -
Woops i meant Victory conditions! national victory conditions to be exact.
-
lol ok
-
didn’t we change the vicotry cities? what you posted is the older version.
I now have Calcutta as the major UK VC and Toronto as a moderate UK VC.
I now have Shanghai as the major Japanese VC and Changchun as a moderate Japanese VC.Didn’t we agree on these changes before?
I made this change when it was decided to have number of inf per turn= number of VCPs, but vary the costs of each inf. Calcutta should be able to raize more inf than Toronto and same for Shanghai vs. Changchun. More importantly for the Japanese switch is that Shanghai is much, much more important. The only reason why I had Manchuria as the major VC before was becasue of the IC that needs to go there… I thought that the major VC should get the IC over either moderate VC. Now I think the IC doesn’t have to go with the major VC so hence the switch.
-
didn’t we change the vicotry cities? what you posted is the older version.
This is only my proposal of further tunning.
Phase 1 is posted at http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6743.0
Check that instead to see if it contains your latest changes.Now I think the IC doesn’t have to go with the major VC so hence the switch.
Oh no we forgot about IC positions in the phase 1 document.
I’ll go put it in.So no change from OOB being Manchuria gets an IC right?
-
This is only my proposal of further tunning.
Phase 1 is posted at http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6743.0
Check that instead to see if it contains your latest changes.++++ these changes were dukes…
Quote
Now I think the IC doesn’t have to go with the major VC so hence the switch.Oh no we forgot about IC positions in the phase 1 document.
I’ll go put it in.So no change from OOB being Manchuria gets an IC right?
++++no change at this time untill the other phases are done. then we will sweep everything for bugs and errata.
-
in my rules i have all 12 IC’s (that’s how many comes with the game) are placed on the board during the initial setup and cannot be created or destroyed. i added an IC to E. Canada, Australia, Manchuria and C. US.
-
Minor corrections: Rio de Janeiro should be the VC in Brazil. It was the capital of Brazil from 1763-1960. And instead of Tehran, I think Cairo (in Egypt) is more… I dunno, important?
Imp said threads never die… Sorry if I keep posting at old ones
-
Your correct on both counts! Rio needs to replace san paulo.
-
Good work, Impy takes correct naming seriously.
This is not an old thread anyway, we are still in phase 2.Egypt was a VC before.
But then I changed it to Persia because I couldn’t find casualty statistics for Egypt.
And then I read that Egypt is neutral. Its just that UK has rights to have troops in Egypt from 1922 treaty.
UK had to shift commonwealth troops to Egypt to have much of a chance defending the Suez Canal.
So I thought you shouldn’t be able to raise troops there. -
UK had to shift commonwealth troops to Egypt to have much of a chance defending the Suez Canal.
So I thought you shouldn’t be able to raise troops there.Yes they brought soldiers from the other colonies of new zealand, india, south africa, canada… everywhere… but they are in fact doing this as you may assume a ability to “raise troops” in egypt. Its quite a problem to remove UK’s ability to allow this in egypt due to its importance. i feel we should allow it to continue. The other problem is the board cant be changed and egypt is a UK territory and that exception is kinda strange.
-
I agree… If we remove Britain’s ability to raise troops in Anglo-Egpyt then Africa will basically be up for grabs.
-
How about:
Commonwealth Divisions: Britain may place up to 2 Infantry that it has purchased in the Buy Units Phase in any Tan Territory that doesn’t contain an IC and that Britain still controls
GG
-
Well that could also be for any other territory. Thats a good UK NA and we should add it to the list. Gen. patch take care of that please.
-
The only problem is, is NA’s all “usable” or are they random? Cause this is more of a “necessary” addition…
-
In this varient each player gets to pick about 5-6 of these NA’s… so if Uk dont pick the colonial garrison it will have to rely on the basic rules we added allready regarding infantry builds… which can be allowed in these territories… even w/o a IC. that 2 units rule will add value in territories where only one infantry can be placed so that will help.
-
The other problem is the board cant be changed and egypt is a UK territory and that exception is kinda strange.
Actually its not an exception.
Its not like you can raise troops in all tan territories.Commonwealth Divisions: Britain may place up to 2 Infantry that it has purchased in the Buy Units Phase in any Tan Territory that doesn’t contain an IC and that Britain still controls
Sorry for confusing you. :oops:
I’ll have the current stage of phase 2 compiled real soon. Working on it at the moment.
In our rules IC builds non-INF units. INF is raised in VCs, whether it has IC or not.All in all I want VC to present ability to raise troops RIGHT THERE. Its only realistic.
If we implicitly model shifting of troops we can end up with unrealistic reinforcements thru enemy lines for example. And VC’s infantry raising power is for every turn.
We could then make rules again to decide further conditions but it just gets complicated.Can you give more details about the particular operational of shifting troops to Egypt?
How did they do it quickly? To my knowledge India has a large population by UK failed to recruit too many. And the white policy prevented UK from recruiting as much as their could have in Soth Africa. Canada and Australia is quite far away.I hope further details help us consider along with the original map.
But yes we could just put Egypt VC back and prevent none of this came up :wink:
-
I like that last suggestion… the suez is a major thing for uk… its loss would be quite a blow… i think we could make it a VC
-
ok we’ll add back Cairo UK VC at (1)
and reduce Chongqing US VC to (1)
or just make it an NA
(this is a bit like US raising troops in China)
its not a given that UK can have troops to work with in EgyptUK could have put her commonwelth troops anywhere really, say Trans Jordon
US could have co-ordinated with the China less, and put resources else where -
ok good.
Suggested Topics
