AARHE: Phase 2: National victory conditions

Panzer Grenadiers: 3-2-2 costing 5 ipc. Germany can have no more than 6 of these at any time.

Super Battleships: 5-4-2 costing 24 ipc and takes 3 hits to sink. They fire preemptively each round (losses are applied and do not get a chance to return fire) Cannot be built until turn 3.

Heavy Carriers: 2-3-2 costing 18 ipc and takes 2 hits to sink. Three planes can be carried, and while damaged they cannot launch planes. Cannot be built until turn 3.

Q-ships: 1-1-2 costing 10, these are armed transports and can be used to take combat losses like any other warship. They carry the same cargo as regular Transports.

Optional starting Technologies: UK gets Radar, Germany and USSR gets Self Propelled Artillery, Germany starts with Mobile Warfare Doctrine, USA gets Naval Radar on turn 3.

Yes Dorowar my token system works really well. It adds a mission based element to the game that probably can’t be duplicated with any other type of house rule. It is such a game changer that you don’t need to put in a bunch of other house rules. Rolling the D6 first and then choosing the chart takes more chance out of WD than you might think and everyone should give that a try no matter how they play R&D. My guess is your play group will want to adopt that for sure.

I don’t know if you’ve ever played the 1914 Tournament Rules, but they have something there that is a specified threshold for each nation that puts them in economic collapse. Perhaps an idea for you might be to determine an IPC level for each nation that must be met in order to develop weapons in lieu of NO’s. That is kind of the same thing as what I do - force a nation to be worthy of developing a weapon. That combined with your research token and some cash and you start rolling for a weapon.

Whatever you decide to do let us know how it works. Some of the best ideas are the ones we get from others here.

Ps. I would submit that there is already a relative scale of forces represented in the OOB starting unit distribution, such that 1 inf in one territory (or one region of the map) doesn’t necessarily equate to 1 inf in another territory (somewhere else on the map) in terms of how many actual men that sculpt is supposed to represent.

The game is intentionally vague about this stuff, and if you try to force a one-size-fits-all analogy onto every sculpt on the board, such that 1 sculpt = X number of actual historical forces, the game immediately breaks down with a number of wild inconsistencies all over the place.

This is not just the case for infantry, but for all unit types. A fighter sculpt in Russia or Germany might represent thousands of more individual aircraft than one in China would. Likewise a starting ship in one part of the world might represent a force that is much larger than a starting ship in some other part of the world. Even Ipcs on the map are like this, where the value of one territory tile vs another, can only be really be understood/accepted as anything even remotely accurate if you evaluate it in relative terms on a more localized scale.

For the purposes of a historical gameplay narrative, 1 infantry unit on the map represents whatever it needs to, for the game to make sense. And we are basically already suspending disbelief, when we accept the OOB set up. This rule would just build on that by adding the 1 inf per VC thing into the equation, leaving the player free to imagine that the unit scales in whatever way makes the most sense for a given VC.

Based on your feedback, I’ve made a couple of tweaks to the variant. The most recent version is attached for play testing.

Changes from the original version are indicated by underscoring:

Revised Russian National Objectives

1. Spread of Communism: Bonus for Russian control of originally Axis/Pro-Axis territories is confined to mainland Europe (excluding Africa, Iraq, mid-east Islands, etc.).

2. Lend Lease: Russia receives +5 PUs, when at war with Germany/Italy, if at least one of three historical Lend-Lease lanes is “open” (i.e., the lane territory is friendly-controlled and there are no enemy warships in the corresponding sz). The Lend-Lease lanes are as follows:

a. Archangel, sz 125
b. Persia, sz 80
c. Siberia, sz 5

As in the original version of the NO, the presence of non-Russian allied units in originally Russian territory cancels out the objective.

(Hat tip to calvinhobbesliker and ItIsILeClercs for this change. I enjoyed reading up on the subject)

Other Allied National Objectives

1. Western Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark.

(Hat tip to The Hessian for this change)

2. Southern Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives UK + 5 PUs: Southern France, Sicily, Sardinia, Greece.

3. Vital Forward Bases: Allied control of all of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Wake Island, Midway, Caroline Islands, Marianas, Marshall Islands.

(Hat tip to Gencre for this change)

Air Raids

Fighters attack and defend at 2 during air raids. Strategic and tac bombers attack at 1.

Play-Testing

Over the last week, I had the chance to play test the variant a half-dozen times times, both as Allies and Axis. Some observations:

1. Axis players generally were more proactive in defending Western Europe against small-sale allied incursions.

2. In two games, Italy used its surving transport (after Taranto) to move defensive units to sicily and sardinia.

3. In all but one of the games, the changes to the Lend Lease objective effectively extended Russia’s +5 PU bonus until entry of allied units into Russia (usually by round 6 or 7). Mostly, no serious effort was made to contest the objective. However, in one game I was able to defeat it by getting a sub to sz 80 by round 4.

4. The 2 attack/defense value of fighters during air raids significantly reduced the frequency of unescorted bombing raids. Dark skies was not attempted in any of the games I played (whether due to the changes, or a coincidence, I don’t know).

5. The “Vital Forward Bases” objective encouraged “island-hopping,” as well as early naval engagement in the central-pacific, which was fun.

Thanks again for ur feedback guys. Am curious to hear your thoughts on the changes. Shoot me a message if you’d like to arrange a play test.

RegularkidG40BalanceVariantv5.tsvg

I have always been in favour of the incremental research system whereby each Power begins the game at some point along a ‘ladder’ in achieving a given tech. When they reach the end of that ladder, they have achieved the tech. Each tech lader would be say, 10 points (or steps) long and it would cost 5 IPCs to move your Power’s control marker one step further - but perhaps you could only attain one point per tech, per turn.

So for example, Germany may be at 7 or 8 towards Super Submarines, and maybe 6 towards Rockets, but only 3 for Heavy Bombers. And this would be based on the historical situation.

I’m sure this system has been proposed before by people but I think it needs to be raised, now and again, as a possible house rule.

@oldsalty:

OK.  Cost of the IC is not an issue.  Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15.    Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?

They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then).  I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.

yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15

“4 x IPC  income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both

*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build

Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism?  Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.

no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out

AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible

simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it

unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map

but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism

oh wow. thats not how i played it. Otherwise Germany can build fighters and get all her planes instantly as jets?

thats really strong Tech….

Perhaps you can convert one fighter per turn or build a new fighter that will be a jet?

Naw its a small point… let it stay how it is… I guess its a balance issue vs. Historical thing and a minor one at that.