SBR Change

[Jennifer]

Instead of doing IPC damage with an SBR, in AAR, perhaps you could do this:

Bomber rolls 1d6 (2d6 if heavy bomber) and the resulting number is the number of units that IC cannot build that round, up to the land value.  For instance, United Kingdom builds an IC in India, Japan hits it with a bomber and rolls a ‘4’.  Since the complex could only build a max of 3 units, that means the complex cannot build any units.  If the bomber rolled a ‘1’ then the complex could build 2 units (3 land value - 1 SBR damage = 2 units)

If the SBR is against a capital, revert to standard rules.  Capital ICs can ALWAYS build units for the nation they originally belonged too.  (If Japan owns Moscow, it’s treated as a normal IC, if Russia controls Moscow it’s a capital.)

[tekkyy]

I don’t think “units” would be as realistic as “IPC” though.

We’ve taken Income a little more seriously in AARHE. No more extra income poping-up because of constantly switching control in the war front. You collect income towards beginning of turn now.

You can’t hit for more than the territories income.
(it was a joke to make Germany bleed this way in OOB)

Once the turn/round’s (for AARHE a team takes the turn together anyway) income is destroyed thats it.
The next applicable “collect income” for the territory the player simply collects nothing at all from it.

Note, you can end up destroying your potential income if you SBR and invade at the same turn.
(this is more realistic, you carpent bomb a territory then expect to get anything from it on invasion)

[Jennifer]

I kinda like the idea of everyone collecting their income at the end of the game round, instead of your country’s round.  Forces you to actually defend your land.

[Imperious Leader]

They should not collect income at any time other than what is in phase one. This creates the reality of a contested battlefield condition and end the practice of each side getting money for fighting taking/ retaking the same piece of land. Any other way and its back to the same old routine. We have to do something about 15 invasions of france per game. :-D

[Guest]

Going to have a dramatic effect on the use of Dead Zones for strategy too…

And is also going to give a significant income advantage to the side going last in turn sequence…

[Imperious Leader]

AS you may know its all axis followed by all allies except on turn one when Soviet go first and again after the axis (with the allies).
This has been playtested. Its just another wrinkle thats different. that rule alone reduces time by 35%.

[Guest]

I look forward to the final play-test version of rules… that one change on collecting income is going to radically change game play by Germany (and Russia), and is going to dictate slower advances by the Axis, automatically increasing the Allied edge, unless countered via other rule changes.

[Jennifer]

To even it out, maybe Russia should go last instead of first.

Germany
England
Japan
America
Russia

[Imperious Leader]

Not russia…  Soviets

anyway they go first on turn one and this does not impact the game at start. Uk is the only player that is impacted and this will include a modified setup which somebody is working on.

The allies and axis play as teams except the movement and combat phase is done at the same time… Its not where russia moves and attacks and uk and usa get to see what happens before they themselves can move and attack. That way its noting like OOB. In combat your commited and you cant use foreknowledge to adjust decisions. The great thing is Uk and USA actually get to play together as they should. D- Day when it happens will be a real invasion.

[tekkyy]

Back on topic ppl. Game Sequence can be discussed in the exisitng Game Sequence thread.

What do you think of my suggestions?
Especially the part about destroying your own potenial income if you invade and SBR at the same time.

[Imperious Leader]

Once the turn/round’s (for AARHE a team takes the turn together anyway) income is destroyed thats it.
The next applicable “collect income” for the territory the player simply collects nothing at all from it.

Note, you can end up destroying your potential income if you SBR and invade at the same turn.
(this is more realistic, you carpent bomb a territory then expect to get anything from it on invasion)

This is a radical change… permenant destruction of warmaking potential… Perhaps it can be done but as an optional rule…

say for every x amount of damage the territory is permenant reduced by one.

x= 6?

Remember germany ( not Japan) was able to actually increase output during the worst period of allies bombing.

[tekkyy]

well if Axis was able to increase output with the worst period of Allies bombing then we shouldn’t allow permanent damage

is this “permanent damage” thing your idea or did you misunderstood me cos thats not what I meant

THIS is what I meant:

*SBR damage at a territory limited to the territory’s income per turn
(no more negative income, of course we could make a rule where you can destroy store/saved IPC at Capital VC)

*SBR damage reduces the income amount of the territory’s next “collect income” phase
(in reality SBR in conjuction with invasion destroys your own potential resources)

[Imperious Leader]

so it does one or both of those items?

[tekkyy]

both actually

the second one is less important but it fits into our new income system (“collect income” phase before “combat” phase) nicely
rather than back tracking and negative income stuff

[Imperious Leader]

ok add them to the draft.