AARHE: Rule files

@Marty-R Welcome to the forum :slightly_smiling_face:

The items you are talking about are not part of the OOB games, so they are introduced with modifications of the games or house rules. Additionally TripleA offers a lot of user created maps where those extras might be included.

You can also check out the Marketplace where special items are offered, sometimes with an idea of how to use them.

I am moving this topic to House Rules for now.

As with another AH game of the past (Mustangs) - make it part of the game that a player can pass the 1st player token at any time to their opponent.  However, the US player can reject the pass with a dice roll of 6.  This simulates the US breaking of the IJN code.  Once broken the IJN must keep the 1st player token for the remainder of the turn.  Rule phase 3, step 6; Pass the token, is not used.

They’re here.  We’re also experimenting with allowing the Central Powers to turn down the armistice, but that’s not entirely official yet.

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

:-D these are all great ideas i am using many ofthem does any one have any more…?

Someone voted please tell me your reasoning(rakeman most likly)

Yes private emails and a few PM’s its been going on for about 4 months. Its usually ok, but that last one was rather long. I answerd the first 5 questions and felt it would take me alot of time which i didnt have.

thanks again.

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.