AARHE: Phase 1: Final Draft

I haven’t post many lately, only because I didn’t had much to add… But these seem to be great rules. Certainly for a Phase 1.

Yes that looks good! Micoon not to worry you will have many opportunities to add in phase 2 and 3.

i vote against including national units and national attack in phase 1. if we do end up including them there are problems with some of the ones you listed:
-radar is a tech, right? it can’t be a UK advantage then.
-instead of russian shock trops, a more accurate/historical advantage would involve the massive number of men, not the ability of some of the best men. I don’t know what you would call it, but the massive number of men would allow 1 russian infantry per battle to act as a 2-hit unit.

did i ever propose my ideas for optional rules on oil, foreign policy and techs?

SS hits can no longer be taken by SS. It still cannot be taken by FTR or BB.
subs can’t hit battleships? since when?

i don’t think we “need” to reduce the cost of DDs and BBs. I think for phase 1 the prices should be left alone.

i think production interruption requires too much info for players to keep track of. i vote against it.

-radar is a tech, right? it can’t be a UK advantage then.
-instead of russian shock trops, a more accurate/historical advantage would involve the massive number of men, not the ability of some of the best men. I don’t know what you would call it, but the massive number of men would allow 1 russian infantry per battle to act as a 2-hit unit.

++++ Ok the idea here is to promote some historical based idea that encapsulated that nations contribution to the war in terms of the ability to change its outcome. The Soviets great contribution to the war in terms of some battlefield tactic would be remembered as the allocation of Zhukovs Siberian “Shock Troops” from the orient that represented Stalins best soldiers… If we were going to be realistic to a fault then Soviet infantry should be at 2 IPC and they should be at 1/1… but that is a major game change because even defending at 1 would allow them to make too many infantry… The other “invention” if thats the correct term would be the Katyuska rocket… but this was hardly a battlefield breaker. Only these “shock Armies” had any effect and this effect turned the tide of war against Germany at the crucial moment. They were involved in the operation to push the germans from Moscow after the failure of Typhon of dec 5th and they also were the catalist for surrounding the germans at Stalingrad. In both cases they were expert soldiers at winter fighting and Hitler had nothing to stand in their way.

This symbolicially is akin to a similiar ability for the British to defend their homeland against the Luftwaffe blitz of 1940… in that case Radar was equal to the performance of the few pilots that served in the RAF. w/o both England would have been invaded.

did i ever propose my ideas for optional rules on oil, foreign policy and techs?

SS hits can no longer be taken by SS. It still cannot be taken by FTR or BB.
subs can’t hit battleships? since when?

++++++ SS can be taken by Fighters and BB’s where does it say they cant?

i don’t think we “need” to reduce the cost of DDs and BBs. I think for phase 1 the prices should be left alone.

++++++++++  This could be included with the rules for new units under phase two… they dont have to be in phase one…but why not?  Phase one is quite small in terms of changes.

i think production interruption requires too much info for players to keep track of. i vote against it.

IT can be easily solved with player aids to keep track of it for you. Its also not too difficult to employ these rules… perhaps phase two could have it?

SS hits can no longer be taken by SS. It still cannot be taken by FTR or BB.
subs can’t hit battleships? since when?

++++++ SS can be taken by Fighters and BB’s where does it say they cant?

I don’t understand. Are you proposing that subs cannot hit battleships? If so, why?

I like the idea of massive infantry better than shock troops. I think the massive number of men played a more important facotr in the outcome/tactics of the Soviets.

We can’t have radar as a UK advantage and a tech.

as production interruption stands as of now I think it’s too much. That doesn’t mean I won’t like it if we can make it simpler.

Why do you mant to change the cost of DDs and BBs?

You didn’t include a lot of stuff that I thought we were going to include in phase 1. Is this a complete list of what you wanted phase 1 to be?

I don’t understand. Are you proposing that subs cannot hit battleships? If so, why?

I like the idea of massive infantry better than shock troops. I think the massive number of men played a more important factor in the outcome/tactics of the Soviets.

++++ Giving each Soviet infantry unit “2 hits” is a game breaker. Everything in this category has to be some +1 thing for some type of combat for some type of unit either in combination or alone…  The Shock troops ARE a tactic because they are specifically trained soldiers for winter combat and were given better leadership, training, experience, equipment. WE cant underscore the contribution of those “Ivan” rifle divisions because they were poorly trained troops w/o training and given a few bullets and told to fight germans or be shot in the head… why would be attribute the eventual Soviet victory to these… all they offered was liquid courage and nothing more. The Soviet siberian army was the turning of the tide… otherwise we go down the road of national costs for everybody … If you really want to have those comrade ivans as the “hero” then we can change the T-34 Soviet tank rule and modify it to something similiar to what japan has ( cheap infantry)… WE did offer two such benifits for each nation in the past… so perhaps we can go back to that and now each nation has 2 different cheaper unit deals…?

We can’t have radar as a UK advantage and a tech.
'ok how is it a tech as well? where are these rules?

as production interruption stands as of now I think it’s too much. That doesn’t mean I won’t like it if we can make it simpler.
OK what makes it too much? how is it a problem of deducting a few bucks from some attacked territory? Its pretty simple as it looks. what problems does it create for the game?

Why do you mant to change the cost of DDs and BBs?

Hell Yes! Its a major problem with the game… the naval aspect of the game is very dry. Everything is infantry and more infantry… all naval must go down in price. it was allready established on a cost basis that 10 IPC 2/2 ship and a 20 4/4 ship (with 2 hits and free first shot) gives these units or values balanced.

AS far as each phase goes… their are two directions we can go:

1. gradually introduce each rule with greater complexity in each phase
2. introduce the complete specific rule starting with easier to digest rules leading to more complicated rules
3. introduce the most glaring problems with oob first leading to less important subjects on latter phases.

You didn’t include a lot of stuff that I thought we were going to include in phase 1. Is this a complete list of what you wanted phase 1 to be?

I never said each russian infantry is a 2-hit unit. Do you actually think that I would propose something that rediculously powerful??? You apparently don’t know me very well if you would think for even a second that I would propose anything like that. What I said was that we should allow 1 infantry, and only 1 infantry, per battle to be a 2-hit unit. If this is still too powerful relative to the other advantages, than it should be limited to only 1 infantry per turn (not per battle), but for any battle chosen by the russian player. I think russia should get 1 2-hit infantry on attack and 1 on defense on each turn.

This would be an easy rule to imploy that would replace 1 normal unit of infantry men attacking/defending at the normal ability with twice the number of infantry men attacking and/defending at half the normal ability.

Justification: The Soviets sent massive number of untrained men to fight= 1 infantry per turn on offense and defense as a 2-hit unit but still attacking/defending at the normal number.

I got it from here: “I don’t know what you would call it, but the massive number of men would allow 1 russian infantry per battle to act as a 2-hit unit.”

I dont think you would propose a rule as giving “soviets a 2 hit infantry” my paraphrasing is lazy… i was only commemting on the potential problem of how the soviet player would use this to his advantage and produce a game breaker.

If this is still too powerful relative to the other advantages, than it should be limited to only 1 infantry per turn (not per battle), but for any battle chosen by the russian player. I think russia should get 1 2-hit infantry on attack and 1 on defense on each turn.

+++++ I think it would be misused to the point where the soviets would engage in lots of infantry attacks for the basic carnage. I think your idea is better of only allowing infantry in ONE battle be able to do this… but it would also hurt Germany because taking moscow is like impossible with 2 hit infantry. The problem is Infantry are the most purchased unit and its alot of cheap plastic thats getting the benifits… I think the t-34 tank thing is better… Do you like the idea of 2 benifits per nation?

This would be an easy rule to imploy that would replace 1 normal unit of infantry men attacking/defending at the normal ability with twice the number of infantry men attacking and/defending at half the normal ability.

++++ i think its easy but its also not too balanced IMO… can you give an example of how it would look like with equal value of German forces and Soviet forces? perhaps a 50 Point battle for moscow with the germans getting their goodies Vs. the soviets and this infantry idea? I think the germans would get trumped big time…

Justification: The Soviets sent massive number of untrained men to fight= 1 infantry per turn on offense and defense as a 2-hit unit but still attacking/defending at the normal number.

Yes i agree with the idea… only how its packaged is the problem…

ok try this:

each turn both the soviets and germans roll one die. The result equals the number of infantry that can be created for 2 IPC each this turn.

example germany rolls 4 and soviets roll 5… Germany can spend 8 IPC and get 4 infantry, Soviets can spend 10 Ipc and get 5 infantry this turn… you can extropolate this to other nations… you can even have some fixed system… check this out:

1. axis get 4 infantry per turn at 2 IPC ( its the axis decision who gets what combination)

2. allies get 6 infantry per turn at 2 IPC ( ditto on decision)

does this not reflect the accurate manpower situation of both sides? Or do you like a national based system?

Germany
Japan
USSR 
UK
USA

I don’t see how this is a game breaker:

Once per turn, Russia may declare 1 infantry either on attack or defense to be a 2-hit unit.

What is this worth? Well, if Russia got 1 free infantry to place anywhere at the site of any battle, that would be worth about 3 IPCs. It would be worth a little better than 3 IPCs because the infantry can be placed at any battle, not at any VC. The reduced criteria for infantry placement would increase the value of this to be about 3.5 IPCs or so. However, the above rule that I’m proposing isn’t as good as 1 free infantry because although, it counts the same as 1 extra infantry hit when assigning casualties inflicted by the opponent, there is no “extra infantry” firing on attack or defense. Therefore, the rule above is not as good as even getting 1 free infantry per turn. I would say that the inability of the “extra infantry” to fire would reduce the worth of this advantage down to 2.5 IPCs total (including the +0.5 IPCs for the unrestricted placment. Is an advantage worth 2.5 IPCs per turn a game breaker? IMO it is not.

AS you state allowing one unit per turn to get a 2 hit deal… is not really anything that gives the Soviets any benifit at all… its like a table scrap for them… Its actually too little of a benefit compared to say what Japan gets or USA.Now look at the current line up: the Soviet gets something that they can build a playable strategy with. As you know they are relegated to the defense… this allows them to get some attacking punch with infantry. The other idea as you propose gives them more defense… which is a closed as opposed to active benifit… So what we do is spice up Soviets options so they will perform a bit more aggressive… I also note the UK gets a defense thing as well… perhaps they should get some offensive trait… ( e.g. bombers?)

Heck everybody is getting nifty offensive tactics and the Soviets get squat…If we can come up with some benifit that is balanced with the other nations then post something that has the same “value”

USSR (Shock troops) = 1 INF gets +1 attack modifier and fire in opening-fire instead of main round in the first cycle of combat. No more than 3 INF can get this bonus per turn.
Germany (Blitzkrieg) = FTR get +1 attack modifier and each gives 1 ARM +1 attack modifier when enemy FTR are not present.
UK (Radar) = FTR gets +1 defense modifier in United Kingdom, Canada, India and Australia.
Japan (Lance Torpedo) = FTR gets +1 attack modifier in naval combat, DD fire in the opening-fire instead of main-round for first cycle of naval combat.
US (Marine)= INF gets +1 attack modifier in the first cycle of combat of amphibious assault.

Once again, I don’t like radar as a UK advantage, but as a tech replacement for combined bombardment. I’ll post all my new ideas together so everyone knows how my rules will play off each other, compliment each other and I don’t have to keep posting each new idea separately in a confusing manner.

having cheaper DDs and BBs is the type of things that we can add in at the last minute after playtesting. There’s no point in really debating cheaper units until after we playtest it.

SS hits cannot be taken by BB
Sorry typo. Its meant to say BO. Edited.

What exactly do you mean by BO??

Previously I’ve only seen bmb or bmr for abbrev. for bomber, which is why I was confused. When I see BO I think “battle orders” or something. When I write up my version of phase 1 rules, I’ll start the writeup with a key to all abbrev. and terms.

If you haven’t started playtesting your rules yet, please start. I’ve still got to work out some stuff with mine before we can compare them.

Yes important distinction. good point

Yes! by accident!