AARHE: Phase2: Game Sequence

Another point of intrest is about the Russians doing there turn along with the other allies. When you think about it, the US and UK always worked together, and the Russians were always doing their own thing. I guess that the other allies not being able to go into Russian territories can make up for that, but do you think we should have the Russians go on a different turn at all times? if the turn sequence goes

R1          R2
Russia      Axis
Axis        Allies
Allies

Then the axis go twice in a row before Russia’s next turn.
From what I understand, this is the turn sequence. Wether it is or not, we should create a topic for completed ideas so everyone is on the same page, I have already said a few things that were already said and already incorporated into the project, there is just too much stuff to read now and this could be a potentially great way to stay organized. Just throwing out some ideas!

RD

Tekky is doing just that. Soviets should not get any lost turns. It works quite well if only on turn one soviets only move first and also with the rest of the allies.

I have playtested it 3 times. Everything is perfect. if the Soviets were somehow to not play with the allies first turn the game would turn into a german slaughter of Russia.

BTW where is the other rules for combat and naval combat? also of invasions?

Playtested the turn sequence and it is sound.

In WWII countries didn’t really wait for their enemies to move first. What if we just let the players take their turns at the same time, for example write their moves? I know this is not original but this is AAR ‘Historical’ Edition, right?

Write moves = long essay game. Thats what plotted axis and allies is. Each nation held a specific initiative to dictate the course of the war to others. The Allies eventually changed this by early 1943. A simultaneous approach makes things “too much to swallow” The variant has to be palatable for a broad spectrum. On the other hand its a good thing to think outside the box… so keep doing that and post your thoughts.

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.