AARHE: Phase 3: Income

[Imperious Leader]

Yea that offboard thing is better… because it does not involve players to change their maps. Player aids are the way to go. WE only have to delininate the different oceans so that when you have a sub or ship then they can roll for the possibility of sinking “abstracted” ships in shipping lanes… so only the location need to be identified.

[Guerrilla Guy]

The Location is “known” (a chit represents its path, allowing players to cover them…).  Strays in shipping lanes rarely were hit, they usually traveled together to avoid that… After a Convoy reaches the Home Factory, it can cash in the IPC’s and is removed from the board, to be used later when they want to start a new shipment… This allows for several convoys to be shipping out at once, and since they all move in combat move it doesn’t complicate it anymore… The Convoy is now placed face up representing its arrival in port, and is considered unloading… The enemy still gets a chance to interdict, but now it is covered by CAP and AA Guns… That is my basic idea…

GG

[tekkyy]

whether its actual convoy box or just identify locations
its still like convoy

the question wouldn’t convoy reroute to go around hostile sea regions?

---

we could try to incorporate that convoy aspect by tuning the current blockade rule

currently the blockade rule basically imply that if a territories naval port is blocked, it uses a different naval port at adjacent territory

if thats not realistic we can change that

if possible I am hoping a simple global-style rule to model convoy

[tekkyy]

I suspect germany would not take part in this, but lend lease aid to Soviets could take a hit.

Lend Lease is already sinkable by combat

[Guerrilla Guy]

The "Dodging of Hostile SZ’s would be represented clearly if you had a chit represent convoys… The player could do that directly…

GG

[tekkyy]

draft some details for your rule
I feel the blockade rule does a bit of that already

[Guerrilla Guy]

The blockade rule only allows income to come in, it doesn’t represent Sub Fleets preying on Allied Shipping. As of right now, I am still formulating the idea for the convoy, so I will get back to you on that, mainly cause I think even making it a chit would make it more complex, so I am having to rethink how it works… Possibly making it all ofboard would be better…

GG

[Guerrilla Guy]

Convoys:
Convoys are represented offboard as the transportation of IPC’s from Commonwealth and Foreign Holding Territories to the “Home Country” for distribution in the wartime economy; They are represented by playing chits, representing 5 IPC’s. These chits are payed for during the Purchase units phased and are placed during Place new units, just like Military units. These units can start on particular spaces designated for there country, and “transport” the IPC’s of Adjacent Territories or Islands in SZ’s adjacent. These IPC’s are now mobile IPC’s. These have a movement of 2 and move during Non-Combat. They can be attacked by Air and Sea units via search rolls. Basic Draft, comments?

GG

[tekkyy]

so these chits go from where to where?
movement of 2 per turn means how long before the income arrives?
the starting map now includes chits in the ocean?

the blockade rule covers both saving and spending of income, to capital or IC/VC respectively
currently its a on/off system
we could introduce die rolls

[Guerrilla Guy]

so these chits go from where to where?
Britain has a “Port” in India, AE, Australia, South Africa, and East Canada… Japan has one in Kwangtung, Philipines, and Solomon Is. The Americans have one in Brazil and Hawaii. And the Italians (if used) have one in Lybia. Instead of having a “set amount”, there amount is represented by the chips.

movement of 2 per turn means how long before the income arrives?
The movement could be increased to 3-4 I would have no problem with that…

the starting map now includes chits in the ocean?
no they are bought later…

the blockade rule covers both saving and spending of income, to capital or IC/VC respectively
currently its a on/off system
we could introduce die rolls
I understand, but it doesn’t allow for preying by Sub Fleets and I think that my system would represent that in a simple system that meshes with the current movement and combat rules… Convoys can still be protected by fleets, giving the British and Japanese an even greater incentive to buy shipping…

GG

[tekkyy]

you can make it 3-4 but then now you can’t esort them very well

so is this like extra income?
like you pay 3 IPC and get a chip (worth 5 IPC) and place it at India?

---

by the way as you mentioned “port” I thought about the blockade rule
currently it allows a path containing any combination of land/sea

like Australia’s income go via sea to any of East Africa, then go via land to any of West Africa, then go via sea to UK
or it would go thru the Pacific, then via land through US and Canada, then via sea to UK

is that realistic?

maybe we need to identify WWII sea ports

[Guerrilla Guy]

How do the subs hunt these convoys then? (under your system)

These are actually paid for, there is no additional cost besides the transfer of IPC’s, so technically your just delaying when you’ll get them so you can get more income… Since several convoys are going at once, the enemy will always have a chance to prey on them…

GG

[Jennifer]

@Imperious:

Thats not realistic. Tank Factories dont stop churning out tanks of the capital falls. The raw materials dont come from the capital. The nations resolve to conclude peace or its ability to stop making military hardware are the crucial factors. Even the french fought with their own units as free french years after losing Paris. They even landed entire armored divisions ( primarilly outfitted from britian, but also helped from income from french colonies not axis occupied.

Hmm, no they could still be producing, but when the capital falls odds are the entire production system grinds to a sudden halt because people are worried.  The idea of building infantry would be to represent guerillas and partisans in non-domesticated provinces that are recruited to help liberate their capital.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok heres the first scenario:

In 1940 Germany invaded England and took it over… Churchill and the British people fight from her colonies and from their additional troops and equipment are constructed. Do you think for a second that if england falls … thats it… they just roll over and cry uncle Adolf?  NO they fight on from their colonies where much of their support comes from. Only the people on england now have a different fight as you stated … as partisans…

If Moscow falls Stalin takes the train to Gorki or Kazan and fights from his base in the Urals. The ability to raise additional troops is not encumbered only in the respect that Stalin still has factories and a population to draw recruits from. Once all the factories are gone its a completely a different matter… no equipment = no army. thats the key difference.

If Canada, India, Australia, have fallen then i would agree with you. these colonies are all part of the roots of the British Empire. They are interdependant economically and militarily. Capital falling as a means to conquer a nation is a fossilized concept that is better regulated to a “romantic war” like WW1. Of course it has some effects but a modern nation is not that dependant upon one or two key cities.

[Jennifer]

IL,

I think you are argueing my point.  You lost your factories, so you can only produce light infantrymen.

[Imperious Leader]

we don’t have this unit… its not in this variant. Factories don’t build “infantry” they make tanks, aircraft etc… You should be able to make anything you want as long as you own a factory. In world war two the Soviets moved her factories to the Urals to avoid capture and avoid being captured so they can still fight the war. If your point is their is no effect other than you lose IPC when a capital falls then YES i am arguing your point.

[tekkyy]

@Guerrilla:

How do the subs hunt these convoys then? (under your system)

I was thinking moving from on/off system to dice rolls.

So you may now route your income through hostile sea zones (not hostile territories).

If UK has to route income through SZ 27/28.
And Japan has 3 non-transport units at 27.
Each of those units gets to roll with certain values destroying certain amounts of IPC.

I understand your rule is more realistic.
But it may be too much details.
It would feel weird 1st and 2nd turn UK gets reduced income.
Or you have to place “convoys already on the way” at game startup in a complex way.
How thats for UK, Japan, US. I mean think about how we’ll get chips from China to Eastern US.

[Guerrilla Guy]

Chinese income stays in China…

I would be willing to start with convoys enroute, and it doesn’t have to  be complex… 3-5 for Britain, 2 for Japan, 1 for US… also this way also you might be more willing to purchase oversea factories so you won’t risk losing it… What is the general feeling on this?  Too complex?

GG

[tekkyy]

if we disallow “sea, then land, then sea transport of income” in the blockade rule
then our rules start to converge

adding convoy boxes is not too complex (as I think need to to cater for the fact AA sea zones are much bigger than AAP or AAE sea zones)

having to handle all these chips (moving convoys) is a bit complex

case
much of UK’s income have to go through either sea zone 19, 18 or 17 if Mediterran has hostile navy
if Gemany has units in one of the sea zones, UK simply go through the other two

our convoy boxes have to be a little more sophisticated then those in AAP/AAE

[Guerrilla Guy]

Moving your income is your main qualm, gotcha… I dunno, to me it seems as more of an extra Historical addition which makes more military units alive at once, but then again it is going to add another movement level… I concede to how you and Imp feel about this, at this stage…

GG