AARHE: Main Topic Board (Phase 1)

I don’t know yet whether I want to include national units in phase 1 or not. If we end up including any ‘optional rules’ in phase 1 (whih we obviously don’t have to) then I’ll probably be in favor of adding national units as one of those optional rules.

I think we need to tweak a lot of the rules involving money. Like IC costs, building limits, SBR limits, commerce raiding limits etc… I know we already shot around some ideas but I think we need to revisit all those again and declare what they all are so we’re all on the same page.

I’m going to be real busy with work for the next week. I’ll try to check the boards as often as I can this week. When I get back I’ll put in my 2 cents and try to tackle this issue and then hopefully soon after we’ll be able to write something up.

With all that income and mobilisation rules…IC cost, IC output limit, VCP’s effects, VCP output limit, SBR limit…we need to declare the models and justification for the rules. And they gotta be “consistent”.

*****I agree. all rules will be explicity justified in the same document (kind of like how OOB national advantage rules have justifications along side the actual rules).

eg. Why would IC output limit depend on income sum of the IC’s territory and neighbouring territories of same power, yet IC costs and whether you can build an IC depend on only the territory itself?

**** I don’t know what you mean by the output limit depending on neighboring territories. The output limits in my plan were:

1. total IPCs of units placed there per turn can’t exceed 4 times the territory’s IPC value
2. total number of units placed there per turn can’t exceed the the territory’s IPC value
   ( i don’t think there were any other restrictions).

As mentioned I push for a global (vs. local) model with these things. Pecisely you should not be able to teleport IPCs to an IC. It must be able to get there via land or sea.

******My goal is to achieve this, but as simply as possible. in latter phases we can be more complex about it, but we really need to keep the solution to this super simple for phase 1 in order to include it.

I am also thinking about infantry. Should there be infantry output limits at a VC? Should cost of infantry increase with bigger purchases? Like 1st infantry at a VC costs 1 IPC. 2nd infantry costs 2 IPC…5th infantry costs 5 IPC…

*****There are already limits… limit of infantry=number of VCPs…exceptions are 1) non-contiguous to capital subtract 1 inf 2) captured territories build 1/2VCPs rounded down, or 0 in minor VCs, 1 in moderate and major, and 2 in enemy capital. I know you don’t like VCPs for IC builds but I think VCPs for inf placement is totally justified and realistic. I was thinking of having all inf built in capital cost 2. all inf built in VCP territories of your color cost 3. all inf built in captured VCP territories cost 4 each.

I just wanted to add a minor change in the fighter movement rules from before:

-fighters that begin a given turn on a carrier must end that turn on the same carrier, unless the carrier is destroyed in combat on that turn.

-fighters that move into more than a sum of 2 SZ spaces among the combat and non-combat moves of any 1 turn must end their turn on a carrier (notice that carriers do not have to move before fighters anymore, and that the 2 SZ rule only applies to fighters that land in a territory).

-fighters that do not move in the combat move phase of a certain turn, may ‘move twice’ in the non-combat move phase of that same turn.

how about this new system:

location:                      cost:
capital                            2
all other territories           3 (applies to captured terr. and those of your color)

-All VCs of your color and captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected. UK and US exception is that all territories are considered connected but their capital VC max =3.

• All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max.

All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max.

Did you mean non-major?

No, non-minor VCs is what I meant. All captured capitals, major VCs and moderate VCs are grouped in a separate category. Captured minor VCs are grouped in the same category with the VCs of that nation’s color. Why’d you think non-major?

And with connected, whats the argument there?
Connected makes resources travel easier but the enemy’s civilians would still be unhelpful?

Reasoning is the same as has always been… that it is easier to shuttle troops to the front lines when they are connected (connected= short for contiguously connected) by land. It represents a railway without the need for railway pieces. It represents a partially mechanized infantry force without the need for new inf pieces. In the latter phases we’ll have explicitly different units representing things like mech inf, but for phase 1 the ability of placing limited inf directly on the front lin es are represented by the VCP system. VCPs is justified because number of VCPs is proportional to the level of built up transportation (roads, railways, etc.) to that territory.

Maybe we should say consider UK and US territories always “connected” but rather say that they have a different government policy with recruiting hence always 3 inf and always costs 3 or something.

It would be unrealisitc to allow US to place 3 inf in hawaii, brazil, or sinkiang etc… therefore i don’t like US building max 3 inf at any VC.

“captured minor VCs = number of VCP if connected, and 1 less than the number of VCPs if not connected”
“All captured non-minor VCs = 1 inf max”
So we could end up with easier to raise troops in captured minor VC than captured non-minor VC?
I was thinking maybe you shouldn’t even be able go raise troops captured minor VC…

Both quotes are correct, although I think you made a mistake with the math. captured minor VCs has inf=VCPs if connected or one less if not connected. Since VCPs for minors = 1, this means that if connected you may put 1 inf there and in not connected 0 inf. All non-minor captured VCs are 1, regardless of whether on not they are connected. This means that the number of inf made in captured minor VCs is either the same or less than the number of inf made in all other captured VCs (i.e. (0 or 1) is less than or equal to 1).

The only nations that are connected to minors are russia and germany. placing 1 inf at a captured minor will hardly ever happen since the criteria are too hard to satisfy.

Yeah it would be unrealistic. I was just brain storming about how to represent US/UK polices. At the moment they can’t raise more than 3 inf anywhere right?
And with US and UK been always “connected” is that about them having better land and sea transport or is that also going to be modelled separately in latter phases?

US and UK can’t raise more than 3 anywhere is correct. The reasoning they are always connected is primarily because many of the VCs they start with are minor Allies. Minor Allies have a much easier time raising their own troops than the other nations’ VCs have to raising theirs. Germany and japan have their starting VCs because they stole those territories militarily. It should be harder to raise inf in a territory you stole militarily. US and UK didn’t do that with their VCs since thier VCs are mostly minor allies.

alternatively, we could group russia in with the western allies and then say that all allies get to raise number of inf=VCps if connected or not. this might be simpler because then all the allies would have 1 set of rules and both axis would have another set of rules. russia still needs to be able to raise 5 per turn though. UK and US shouldn’t be able raise more than 3 per turn. after second thought, maybe you can’t have same inf placement rules for all allies.