AARHE: Phase 2: Neutrals

[tekkyy]

ok

[tekkyy]

currently

Power Diplomacy Rolls
Germany 2
Italy 0
Japan 1
USSR 1
UK 1
US 2

shall we make it one dice for every 20 IPCs?

the starting values would remain the same
but as Japan gains IPC it’ll have more political power
as Germany loses IPC it’ll lose political power

[Imperious Leader]

Thats a nice idea. I think its better to have this on the allowable buys… every 20 IPC above what you started with you can buy one additional tech roll. The problem with the other idea is the game favors the ability of Japan to gain faster money than Germany and this is not historical… the Historical based free rolls must be maintained, while this new idea still has play under the system. The key thing is “every 20 IPC above what you started with” this idea is important but the value ( should it be 20 or 10?) is the matter at hand.

[tekkyy]

so you like increasing diplomactic powers
but not decreasing diplomatic powers?

[Imperious Leader]

Well its a balance of history and  game balance. The allies have a slight advantage but the axis can equalize with the additional ability to buy more tech if they perform well. Otherwise the allies maintain a slight advantage. This situation reflects well.

[tekkyy]

so you saying let players buy more diplomatic rolls?

I think its better you just get the starting values
and 1 additional roll for every 10 IPC above starting income

P.S. specifically, is it realism or gameplay that we should not have a possible decline of diplomatic powers?

[Imperious Leader]

I think its better you just get the starting values
and 1 additional roll for every 10 IPC above starting income

Thats exactly what i just said except it wasnt 20 IPC ( i was just using that number)

10 IPC is fine… every 10 more than what you start with you gain the ability to buy one more tech roll. THis has nothing to do with the rolls you naturally start with.

P.S. specifically, is it realism or gameplay that we should not have a possible decline of diplomatic powers?

WAIT: i was talking about tech rolls… not diplomatic rolls Woops!!!

OK i spaced out… my entire input was dealing with tech rolls and the possiblity of getting additional tech buys based on increased income…

The idea your talking about is diplomatic roles and i feel no changes respective of income should be made. Income has little to do with the ability to get allies.

IN the earlier posts on diplomacy we discussed a number of modifiers that make neutrals easier to change and this alone should be the determining factor on this problem.

[tekkyy]

ok then

[tekkyy]

@dezrtfish:

One question, is it your intention that if a Player invades Spain from the sea they are required to clear the Spainish fleet prior to landing? I went with that in my last game, it wasn’t dificult fo rthe US, but it was an influence to wait a turn.

From the “Phase 2 Released” thread.

Where should the Spainish fleet be?
SZ 12? SZ 13? Or spread?

And if you don’t have to engage the Spanish fleet before amphibious assault…where should the Spanish fleet be placed after the battle is over?

[Imperious Leader]

The fleet deployment is the decision of the controling player as long as the fleet is placed in a sea zone adjacent to the neutral. Once the declaration is made which is before movement the neutral is set up then that player who performed a DOW can then move.

BTW we have a mistake on the modifiers for rolling to convert neutrals. it should read -1 rather than +1 on all the modifiers and secondly the -3 is too much for a modifier ( which says -3 if you control the enemy capital. I would eliminate this.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

The fleet deployment is the decision of the controling player as long as the fleet is placed in a sea zone adjacent to the neutral. Once the declaration is made which is before movement the neutral is set up then that player who performed a DOW can then move.

Ok.
So Spain can deploy its fleet in SZ 12 or SZ 13.
If Allies invade Spain via Sea, Axis can use Spanish fleet to try to prevent the landing…or try to save the fleet.

BTW we have a mistake on the modifiers for rolling to convert neutrals. it should read -1 rather than +1 on all the modifiers and secondly the -3 is too much for a modifier ( which says -3 if you control the enemy capital. I would eliminate this.

Oh. So easier or harder to convert a neutral to your team after your team controls an adjacent territory not controlled originally?

Ok I remove the +3 capital modifer.

[Imperious Leader]

yes and make the +1 or +2 into -1 and -2

the hit required is one and the modifiers are going the wrong way.

[tekkyy]

I tend to ask multiple questions in a post
and I tend to be uncertain which you are answering when you don’t quote me

I thought the modifiers are going the right way
its hits on 1, so +1 and +2  makes it hit on “2 or less” and “3 or less” respectively

specifcially, you want it easier or harder to convert a neutral after your team has taken an adjacent territory?

eg. Allies taken Southern Europe. Easier or harder for Allies to convert Spain?
(further, easier/harder for Axis to convert Spain in the above case?)

[Imperious Leader]

I tend to ask multiple questions in a post
and I tend to be uncertain which you are answering when you don’t quote me

I thought the modifiers are going the right way
its hits on 1, so +1 and +2  makes it hit on “2 or less” and “3 or less” respectively

====I can see that somebody may look at it THAT way but its easier to keep the philosophy of the modifiers in the same logic as the rest of AARHE which is clearly the modifiers are on the dice roll and not the result needed to succeed. So if a one is required to hit that does not change. What changes is a modification on the die roll so if you roll 4 and you got a modification of 2 then you have missed the score.

specifcially, you want it easier or harder to convert a neutral after your team has taken an adjacent territory?

+++++++++++ of course it should be easier to convert if you control adjacent territories, but the maximum modifier of 3 is too much. This is borne out in playtesting and too many neutrals are converted in a typical game. A max. modification of 1-2 seems right.

eg. Allies taken Southern Europe. Easier or harder for Allies to convert Spain?
(further, easier/harder for Axis to convert Spain in the above case?)

++++ no modification because its not adjacent. Only france will yield a +1 for allies if they take it. Of course germany can roll to push it back but they wont get any modification unless they retake france.

sorry about not replying in proper form.

I have had acute bronchitis for a week now.

[tekkyy]

I can see that somebody may look at it THAT way

oh I see it now
the way I format that section confused myself

of course it should be easier to convert if you control adjacent territories

right
yeah the confusion above made me wonder
back to normal now

I have had acute bronchitis for a week now

you’ll get well soon

[tekkyy]

This is what we write like at the moment…

Wolf pack
When the number of friendly SS exceeds the number of enemy DD+CA by more than one, the friendly SS fights with a +1 modifier.

Air supremacy
When only one side has air units, these units fight with combat values, all with selective attack except for BMR (bomber). BMR cannot attack sea units. All targets are selected before any rolls. FTR (fighter) gives ARM (tank) +1 bonus on a 1-to-1 basis.

Advanced Submarine: All SS (submarine) attack and defend at +1. ASW search rolls targeting them have -1 modifier.

Land Combat in special terrain
All attacking land units in a snowy or mountainous terrains fight with -1 modifier, but not reducing below 1.

So I’ll write it like that. Instead of just saying +1 or -1…I’ll say +1 bonus.

A max. modification of 1-2 seems right.

Oh, thats mean you didn’t want the two bonses to be used at the same time.

“Team control of each adjacent territory not controlled originally”
“Team capture of each adjacent territory this turn”

Maybe specify the two bonuses are not used at the same time?
Maybe reduce “team capture this turn” from +2 bonus to +1 bonus?

[Imperious Leader]

“Team control of each adjacent territory not controlled originally”
“Team capture of each adjacent territory this turn”

Maybe specify the two bonuses are not used at the same time?
Maybe reduce “team capture this turn” from +2 bonus to +1 bonus?

Perhaps we should only keep the first, while the second is kinda redundant.

the modifier is the proper term . it is not a bonus

Id say:
Team control of each adjacent territory not controlled originally provides a -1 modifier to any diplomacy rolls.

diplomacy rolls score on a result of one.

[tekkyy]

Perhaps we should only keep the first, while the second is kinda redundant.

Oh is it redundant? When you came up with the list I was guessing you wanted it to have extra effect if it was captured THIS turn.

But ok lets remove it.

the modifier is the proper term . it is not a bonus

LHTR does not use “modifier” nor “bonus”.
AARHE use many terms (I made a mess).

In LHTR…
“attack increases to 2”
“defense increases to 2”
“attack on a 3 (4 if you have”

In AARHE…
“+1 bonus”
“with +1 modifier”
“attack and defend at +1”
“fight with -1 modifer”
“have -1 modifier”
“fight with -1 modifier”

So…maybe don’t use “modifier”. We shall use “increases by 1” and “decreases by 1”.

[Imperious Leader]

In LHTR…
“attack increases to 2”
“defense increases to 2”
“attack on a 3 (4 if you have”

In AARHE…
“+1 bonus”
“with +1 modifier”
“attack and defend at +1”
“fight with -1 modifer”
“have -1 modifier”
“fight with -1 modifier”

So…maybe don’t use “modifier”. We shall use “increases by 1” and “decreases by 1”.

+++++ Then i feel we should use the same pattern in AARHE to fit with LHTR. The language should be similiar so as not to confuse. Please modifiy this throughout the text.

The diplomacy modifier of -3 was too much and leads to many neutrals converting too fast.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

+++++ Then i feel we should use the same pattern in AARHE to fit with LHTR. The language should be similiar so as not to confuse. Please modifiy this throughout the text.

Ok.

The diplomacy modifier of -3 was too much and leads to many neutrals converting too fast.

Yeah I can imagine.
Thats hitting on 4 or less, which is 66%.
Allies has 4 dices per turn.