AARHE 1939 map and rule files

Page 18. Ground Interdiction
…isn’t it weird the bomber remains in enemy territory and can’t be attacked? what are you trying to model?

ON this the bomber is merely acting as a marker. Its not sitting around for months “looking around for tanks and stop them from moving about”  The bomber is just carrying out interdiction of enemy forces. It could be back in its original territory and i guess you can use a marker to designate territories that are effected by this.

ON the 1.3 vs. 4.0 issues…

I lost my original files for the this when my C drive crashed. I hate to redo that work just for some small thing like an Identification. I would consider the prior files to be superseded anyway, and it looks like we went thru 3 drafts rather than 1.1,2.5,3.9 and finally 4.0 ( this could be up to 40 drafts using integers 1.0-1.9 etc.

Page 1. “AARHE 1.3”
I don’t understand. What does losing original files got to do with this?
How does calling it 4.0 make you have to “redo that work”?
We had many revisions. Three particular were released sort of as 1.0 2.0 and 3.0.

+++ i lost my original files for the set ups. All i have is PDF’s I cant edit them w/o making it look silly. If we have to change setups it will be a chore.

Page 6. Variable infantry costs, US
If you meant
Major: 2, 3, 4…
Minor: 3, 4, 4…
Then rename “Other Victory City” —> “Major Victory City”

++++ why then do we have 3 categories?  you want 2 categories the same with different values? Should i then remove the third category or represent it as “territories detached from contiguously connected land spaces leading to a factory”

If you meant
Major: 2, 3, 4…
Minor: 3, 3, 4…
Then rename “Other Victory City, 2nd” —> “2nd”

Page 8. 2 pages of 1939 rules
Nothing major.
Just that map specific rules shouldn’t be in the main section.

+++++I will move it to the back

Lots of changes were made all at once for this colour version.
I’ll leave formatting aside.
After we agree on the changes I am happy to contine the complier job and do the minor edits and deal with consistency in language, etc.

++++OK

Page 8. Conquest
You haven’t replied to this.
I think after you lose your last IC nothing should happen yet. in AARHE infantry is raised at victory city. They can even build new IC if they have the resource.

++++ i then have to add “you cannot build units of any type if you lost all your factories to the enemy” I guess we have to draw the line somewhere. France cant just continue to play, If USA lost north America… i don’t think they should be able to fight on in Hawaii or Philippines… at some time they must surrender or the game drags on.  The offset to this was the idea to not cause a total fall of income for losing your capital. Under this system you lose when you no longer have the capability to buy more war materials.

Remember the building of infantry actually represents guns and uniforms and equipment moving thru the factories to these territories. We are just representing it this way for play balance and not force people to have to transport everything to supply it. It removes the issue in AAR where once your navy is gone you cant ever do anything about detached land territories separated by water.

Page 13. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment
Yeah they all “shoot” via supporting INF +1. But its still weird the other battleships don’t get to shoot the opening-fire.
Capping the casualty models defender putting proportional force on the coast, exposed to bombardment.

+++++ BB’s still fire in opening  but the attempts by these ships is limited directly by the number of landed land units. Its more clear to apply this rule. Under your idea basically the odds are you WILL get a hit for every 4 units landed. WE only want to possibility of a hit on every 4 landed units. This will stop those pathetic land graps for IPC using BB as a battering ram to cause combat loses for the defender.

Is it the “hitting at 4” thats the problem. Too high?
Then we could tune it.
Say, simplify it to both attacker (battleships) and defender (IDs) hitting on 1.

++++ HUH? the AA rolls = the NUMBER of rolls you get hitting on a one… not 4. A cruiser has 3 aa rolls each hitting on a one (preemptively)

Is it unrealistic for battleship to kill pre-emptively (at division level)?
Just remove SB roll all together.

+++++ that was the idea behind the +1 modifier, but we allow the older OOB rule to creep in because people like it. I would not mind to see it go however. What do you propose?

Page 14. Battleships opening-fire
Just apply the hit allocation table. So hits by battleship is applied to capital ships first.
Longer range is still longer range.

++++ all that has to go. Its too complicated on Naval hit allocations. each player should be allowed to take any ship other than transports as combat loses. Our past system was not playable and NOT fun.

page 17. Land reinforcement
What do you mean it kills too many units?
Its quite important. AARHE is so much more dynamic with reinforcement and defender retreat.

+++++ defender retreat yes… reinforcement from all adjacent territories of any land pieces is something better for a WW1 game. I introduced this reinforcement idea but playing it here causes too many loses and destroys the integrity of the front lines.

Its like when a gambler goes too far and risks his rent money and sells his car and get way over his head only to leave a bankrupt family behind. The idea is to allow LOCAL combat success representing a battle, while the ‘reinforcement idea’ represents a campaign over a year. In WW1 the ‘battles lasted 6-12 months’ In WW2 they lasted weeks due to the mobility factor in warfare.

Its not bad. Rememebr reinforcements start fighting from 2nd cycle. And they don’t get to fight if combat if over in 1 cycle.

++++++ yes but they are air units only.

Page 18. Ground interdiction
If the bomber isn’t hanging in enemy territory (during enemy turn) for months…then it should be able to fight (defend) during enemy turn?

OK it performs its only mission as a SBR attack and then it can be also used at the players choice for additional mission (GI)… It is performing its mission as a bomber. It may take escorts with it to fight. the escorts can still be used during the enemies turn for DAS. The bombers just sit and dont do anything during the ENEMIES turn. So why not let them stay in the interdiction zone only as a token to represent that area is restricted for movement?

Bombers do not defend under DAS. I suppose if the ORIGINAL territory they were in was attacked they would be rolling but these cases are too few. Nobody is leaving bombers is territories that can be easily taken.

I see your idea… namely bombers can escape ‘death’ and float over enemy territory… BUT these cases are not frequent, and the Bomber still must face ID rolls and enemy interceptors when its on its own turn performing its SBR mission.

Aleutian Islands is for SZ 63 not SZ 64.
Remember we are adding it not only because of “battle of aleutian”.
But also to make the addition of SZ 63 more reasonable.

By the way, can you get rid of most of the unused portions of North America on the left border of the map?
(The stuff behind the white border.)

I can do this but it look untidy. I dont know how to cut off the excess under Illustrator. I can do it for you when i send it out, but to print it with the junk uncovered would allow for prints to become offset.

I will fix SZ 63 BTW

map repair for SZ 63 done. I think the pacific needs to be stretched. it may be too small. Atlantic is about 12 inches, Pacific is 16 or so ( japan to west coast) it would ‘look’ better at perhaps 18-19, while Atlantic shrinks by the same to keep it at 72 inches. Its alot of work but its important. What you think?

http://www.mediafire.com/?bbi99mzmwcz

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=jcwdl2nnbpn

Rules:

http://www.mediafire.com/?fcdwfagfmrj

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=jjbxzbyzmbm

I corrected conquest, Variable infantry costs and 1939 rules

Germany and USSR have a small advantage over allies in infantry costs due to their better ability to recruit soldiers from captured lands, while the rest are more or less centralized.

I think it needs to be clear that infantry builds at capitals ( costing 2) take away from the nations total count on total units built. or this will become alot of infantry buys… something should be done?

http://www.mediafire.com/?710sjz3mop1

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=91dxak2jxsx

check out this file. I made some new ideas on limitations to 8 infantry costing 2 ( using the lowest common denominator)

Otherwise Germany can build alot more 2 ipc infantry than Russia and thats not accurate.

others have different costs due to the notion of unconnected and captured territories.

I think it works better and is more clear.

I also think you might want to make a quick start rules guide ( no more than 4 pages of basic rules) guiding people on basic builds, land , sea and air combat, conquest, neutrals and technology. It may prove difficult but worthy to get people started into this variant.

Page 1. “AARHE 1.3”
I saved all the illustrators files. Just tell me what you need.
I don’t see how it stops us calling it “4.0”.

+++++ ok great!!! you mean i sent them??? please post the link. I will fix them. I didnt think i sent the CS2 file but im really happy i did.

Page 5. Variable IC costs
Why 15 IPC for captured VC?
Population centre is still a population centre. Infrastructure is there.

+++++ an industrial complex created from scratch from a former conquered enemy land involves the employment of former combatants and slave labor to build such infrastructure and its a slow process due to the severity and hostile environment ( sabotages, slow work output, and bringing of material from great distance brings the cost up) 15 IPC also makes the point that you should be sure about your ability to hold this new factory centre.

Page 6. Variable infantry costs
Whats the justification?
Why Japan and Italy are grouped with US and UK?
Why get rid of the increasing cost model for democratic US/UK?

++++++++ OK during the war really only 3 nations had no trouble raising new troops relative to the issues facing the other nations ( Soviets, German and Americans) but to balance out things i had to pick out only two ( one each side) or USA would become a huge infantry building machine with its 3 huge territories and capital at like 18 IPC ( 18 infantry costing 2 IPC… ouch)

I suppose going with 2 allied and 2 axis nations building at 2 ipc in capitals may work as well ( Germany/Japan… and USSR USA??)

The ability for allies to raise troops is a centralized system… soldiers in American Army were 99% American citizens, while British are less so. Germans got a lot of foreign troops raised even more than anybody else. Soviets can raise troops easily because they even make former criminals into penal battalions.

England was not in the cheaper tier due to her smaller overall contribution in total men raised, she is in the same category as Italy and Japan. Japan only allowed Japanese in her army.

Don’t know why we need a limit of 8 for those 2 IPC infantry.
Per turn, each capital VC has their own limits. 5-6.
Per game, too much accounting.

++++++++ the German and Soviet capitals have a different capacity (IPC value) thus imbalance arrives. The 2 IPC cost/value infantry builds are capped at 8. How is this difficult?

“each capital VC has their own limits. 5-6” — what does this mean?

Page 8. Conquest
Well you could say the basic infantry unit uses small arms. That and uniform probably do not require war industry.
The problem of game dragging is not the same as OOB. Our victory conditions are different.
Combat rules also makes things different.

++++ i am unclear what needs to be changed? the rules don’t waste time with the rationale behind the rule. How is the rule to be altered?

With substantial force You could build or capture new IC.
With minimal force the game is over no need to enforce it with some special rule.

So I felt rules like that are best left to per-game agreement me thinks.

+++ once you lose your factories your nation should be nothing more than ‘freedom fighters’ an army cannot march on empty stomach, it needs supplies and cannot mount serious opposition. That was the plan behind Barbarossa. Once Germany established her line
(archangel to astrakhan) the soviets would become nothing more than loose collection of raids . Something like the savages the Romans faced above Hadrian’s Wall in Scotland.

Page 13. Shore bombardment
Quote
BB’s still fire in opening  but the attempts by these ships is limited directly by the number of landed land units. Its more clear to apply this rule. Under your idea basically the odds are you WILL get a hit for every 4 units landed. WE only want to possibility of a hit on every 4 landed units.
If you recall me old argument is that logically there is nothing stopping the other (excess) battleships from having a shot. Hence a casualty cap model.

But its fine. We’ll use your rule. Its at least simpler.

+++++The rule DOES stop excess battleships from firing a shot. You may only allocate one roll for every 4 infantry landed. Mountain landings don’t get to have any effect because your only landing 2 infantry per. At Monte Cassino that proved the insular ability to sustain ravages from artillery and remain unaffected from damage. The model works perfectly in this regard.

Simple is best. The older rule was not very clear how to apply the rule.

Quote
HUH? the AA rolls = the NUMBER of rolls you get hitting on a one… not 4. A cruiser has 3 aa rolls each hitting on a one (preemptively)
No not referring to anti-air.
What I meant is that if odds are too high for every 4 units landed…then the correct fix is to reduce % chance of hit per BB. We would simplify it to: every BB gets a shot at 1, with casuality cap. Every ID gets a shot (at ships) at 1.

But its fine. We’ll use your rule.

+++++++ well exactly what do you propose? state the rule exactly how you would have it look.

Page 14. Battleship opening-fire
Quote
all that has to go. Its too complicated on Naval hit allocations. each player should be allowed to take any ship other than transports as combat loses. Our past system was not playable and NOT fun.
Ok we’ll discuss naval combat later. Among with things like submarine, there was quite a few things to discuss.

+++++ ok fine well get back to that soon enough.

Page 17. Land reinforcement
Axis and allies allows unlimited combat cycles.
So timeline is defnitely wrong even if we say WWII battles are much shorter than WWI battles.

The reinforcement rule makes you want to overwhelming the enemy fast, or else reinforcements arrive and you are in a bad shape. I thinks thats realistic.

+++++ the overwhelming part of that equation can also be expressed by having more forces to attack with in the first place
(overwhelming enemy fast) In WW2 lines were broken in days and pockets were surrounded in a matter of weeks. Each round of combat
is a separate battle over a period of further weeks, but not enough to become a hurricane sucking an entire nations army into the abyss and chewing it up. No single campaign in the war was a knockout blow aside from small neutrals and white flag loving france.

Maybe the old system is too much. We could tuine it.
Lets say only 50% of land units may relocate.
(Remember you cannot relocate units that are under attack themselves.)

During my playesting it also provided a means of getting units across quicker.
Land and naval units can move one space during passive turn. It makes long trips less ridiculously long (eg. infantry from far east to moscow)

++++ what do you propose? write it out. edit the document.

Page 18. Ground interdiction
Quote
I see your idea… namely bombers can escape ‘death’ and float over enemy territory
Actually I didn’t think of that. How that you said it we have to fix it. I don’t want AARHE to introduce strange things like this.

They are not floating over target territory. Its only a token to say in effect: i got a bomber the successfully performed interdiction so don’t move any pieces thru this territory.

I have a new idea: perhaps the bomber rolls for Interdiction success, second the value of the result reduces the Strategic Redeployment number during that turn. You like that better??

Quote
The bombers just sit and dont do anything during the ENEMIES turn
but you also said earlier
Quote
Its not sitting around for months "looking around for tanks and stop them from moving about

You have to tell me exactly what the model is.
I think GI mission should be declared during your turn and happen your turn.

To have GI mission declared during your turn or enemy turn and happen ENEMY turn is too complex. (You must deal with enemy fighters during ENEMY turn rather than dealing with it during YOUR turn and have the air space to yourself during ENEMY turn.)

+++++ look above for another solution. bomber rolls 1-4= number of SR moves the enemy cannot now make. Solves the problem. Agree?

Page 1. “AARHE 1.3”
Quote
+++++ ok great!!! you mean i sent them?Huh please post the link. I will fix them. I didnt think i sent the CS2 file but im really happy i did.
You are so happy. Don’t be so happy yet. I am still lost in regards to why you need them.

I have illustrator files for all 3 battleboards, technology chart, neutral chart, hit allocation chart, and 6 national player aids.

–------ If you have the Illustrator files that were used with the same backround as the current 1.3 rules format ( e.g the watermark) then those are the ones i need. I don’t need those old ones for the earlier versions.

Or, are you talking about some player aid you made for the new colour version rule file?
That I don’t have.
But all I saw was one table for Chinese setup?

-------- then i guess we are out of luck. I would have to bastardize the old files and make silly edits OVER them or redo the entire thing… i cant do that forget it. it took way too long to get it done.

Page 5. Variable IC costs
Ok. I buy the point about sabotage and slave/enemy labour.

Now, when you added an entry for captured VC you wiped out other territories. We still allow IC in non-VC right?

------- good point! perhaps we should not allow this.

Page 6. Variable infantry costs
Quote
OK during the war really only 3 nations had no trouble raising new troops relative to the issues facing the other nations ( Soviets, German and Americans)

The old system let Soviet and Germany raise lots (6) of 2 IPC INF at capital. Those two are fine.
US can’t build lots of 2 IPC (under the democratic model) but they have the money to pay for troops. Partially fine.

Then the problem with the old system is that Japan can also raise lots (6) of 2 IPC INF at capital. But I thought maybe its Japanese fanatism.

------------I think the fewer Infantry at 2 ipc the better. It should not be offered to others because thats why we have NA’s . it also leads to too many infantry buys as everybody is going to max out of the 2 ipc thing and thats a huge difference in effecting other unit buys. We put alot of effort in reducing the costs of higher prices units ( naval and air) and we are throwing these gains away by introducing alot of cheap junk infantry. The infantry stack mechanic should be laid to rest. its not fun and extends the game and allows for too many WW1 'ish style campaigns and model of play.

Quote
but to balance out things i had to pick out only two ( one each side) or USA would become a huge infantry building machine with its 3 huge territories and capital at like 18 IPC ( 18 infantry costing 2 IPC… ouch)
You misunderstood. 18 IPC doesn’t mean 18 infantry. Infantry uses 1 victory city point. Washington is 5 VCP.

+++++ then i got to change the current rules or change that rule. For 1939 alot of the VC are not under control of the main nations and this will make a big change on who can buy what. The old VC system was based on 1942 and 1939 map has new borders and until the axis take these 1942 conquests the allies have an advantage. This has to be fixed. Perhaps going back to the OOB rule of units placed =value of territory, 1/2 rounded down on conquests, plus non infantry only at factories also at limit of territory value.

Quote
The ability for allies to raise troops is a centralized system… soldiers in American Army were 99% American citizens, while British are less so. Germans got a lot of foreign troops raised even more than anybody else. Soviets can raise troops easily because they even make former criminals into penal battalions.
Yes. Commonwealth troops were involved. Lots from Canada and Australia but hardly any from South Africa and India.
Quote
England was not in the cheaper tier due to her smaller overall contribution in total men raised, she is in the same category as Italy and Japan. Japan only allowed Japanese in her army.

So new system would have the new break up you wrote already.

Group 1. Germany + USSR
Group 2. US + UK + Japan + Italy

Group 1. Can raise troops in foreign for cheap.
Group 2. Can’t raise troops in foreign for cheap.

That models what you want.
But what the old system modelled (democracy, hence increasing costs) would be missing.

So we would have US and UK in Group 3.

Group 1. Can raise troops in foreign for cheap.
Group 2. Can’t raise troops in foreign for cheap.
Group 3. Can’t raise troops in foreign for cheap. Increasing troop cost.

The numbers would be:
Group 1: Capital->2 IPC Other->3 IPC
Group 2: Capital->2 IPC Other->4 IPC
Group 3: Capital->2,3 IPC Other->4 IPC

You got rid of major/minor VC in the equation.
I like that too. (Major/minor VC is mostly population size and hence capacity. It shouldn’t affect costs.)

-------- I sort of understand what your saying. your groupings dont make sence to me:

Group 1: Capital->2 IPC Other->3 IPC
Group 2: Capital->2 IPC Other->4 IPC
Group 3: Capital->2,3 IPC Other->4 IPC

what is this? Can it be written in a way w/o the > ?

what is cost in home capital? what is cost in normal VC? what is cost in conquered VC?

Quote
++++++++ the German and Soviet capitals have a different capacity (IPC value) thus imbalance arrives. The 2 IPC cost/value infantry builds are capped at 8. How is this difficult?
Quote
“each capital VC has their own limits. 5-6” — what does this mean?
Oh I see. So thats why you have the cap at 8.
Its ok now you know the limit is not 1 INF per IPC.

------------- yes the cap is not related to VC number. its too complicated. Its only limited by IPC value which is like the old system. Factories allow builds of non- infantry, and VC allow builds of Infantry, sometimes both of these are in the same territory and sometimes they are not.

Page 8. Conquest
I am just saying its not needed.
Seriously would worried about games dragging on. It just won’t in AARHE because of the new dynamics (in land combat for example) and game mode / victory conditions.

I read your historic examples. But being only able to build INF is good enough to me. A rule saying game over might be unrealistic for some situations.

If you have sustantial force you can liberate or capture an IC. If you have sustantial money you can build an IC.
In cases other then the above then yes a game over rule is partially fine.

------ ok then what is the new wording. type it and ill cut/copy/ paste it

Page 17. Land reinforcement
Quote
is a separate battle over a period of further weeks, but not enough to become a hurricane sucking an entire nations army into the abyss and chewing it up. No single campaign in the war was a knockout blow aside from small neutrals and white flag loving france.
Yes. And several weeks should be enough for reinforcements to arrive right? Hence land reinforcement with 1 cycle delay.

Quote
++++ what do you propose? write it out.

Old system but simplified and more restricted.

Units not under attack may relocate to adjacent space.
(They fight from second cycle in target territory. If combat is over in first cycle they retreat back to original territory.)
GI mission can interrupt.

-------------Ok since you feel that strongly about it lets put it back in.

Page 18. Ground interdiction
Quote
I have a new idea: perhaps the bomber rolls for Interdiction success, second the value of the result reduces the Strategic Redeployment number during that turn. You like that better??
Quote
look above for another solution. bomber rolls 1-4= number of SR moves the enemy cannot now make. Solves the problem. Agree?

Yeah. Solves the airspace question.

------------ ok ill make the change

GI missions happens during your turn.
Quite sustantial damage to affect next turn (enemy turn).
So SBR and GI should be separate.

---------------- im am not sure about this. The SBR thing is not alot of bank for the buck roll one die after surviving ID rolls and fighter escorts only to watch your 15 ipc bomber get shot down…  we need to give them the ability to carry out another mission. SBR and Interdiction are closely related missions… bombed out territories were also devoid of transportation and communication networks as the buildings didn’t support refueling etc. I maintain they are linked and 15 ipc is alot to spend for these bombers. Using them will give playability for Strategic bombing campaign as it was historically

Besides the SR movement damage you said, GI also interrupts reinforcement into or out of the territory.

=--------------- no under my new system the last part is deleated. it does not do this. NCM is uneffected . Only the SR total is reduced (e.g rail points)

Ok heres another version. Fixed some of these issues.

One thing i really have problem with is reinforcement because it allows only the defender the opportunity to bring in extra junk, and if we allow the attacker to do this we basically have added one movement point to everybody on land and thats a huge no no. It will become a way to cheat the game.

http://www.mediafire.com/?7wnnm91f3uk

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=lmhbm59ung2

also fixed GI, Infantry costs Second tier allows up to 6 infantry at 2 ipc.

Page 5. Variable IC costs
If you want to disallow IC in territory without VC seems reasonable.
Just double check cos the new map has more territories. Not saying anything wrong with FIC but eg. FIC is now broken up into 3 territories and majority of its income (2 of 3) is in a territory without a VC.

=====you can build a IC in any territory but it costs 15 IPC. Nothing has changed on that.

Page 6. Variable infantry costs
Quote
I sort of understand what your saying. your groupings dont make sence to me:

You wanted Germany and Russia to have cheap infantry, and cheaper foreign infantry.
–-> group Germany+Russia together

Old system models democratic nations, increased infantry costs with further units.
—> group US+UK together

Germany+Russia
Japan+Italy
US+UK

======= this makes some sence but what DIFFERENCE is the 3 groups going to have?  what is cost in each catagory?

1. home capital
2. VC
3. non-VC
4. occupied VC?

Quote
I think the fewer Infantry at 2 ipc the better. It should not be offered to others because thats why we have NA’s .
Right. Only Germany and USSR. Others don’t get 2 IPC infantry. Japan has NA for fanatism.

Ok. One step at a time.

You’ve mentioned is Germany and USSR raises foreign troops.
So connected VC discount.

Germany+Russia      $2 @ Capital; $3 @ Connected VC; $4 @ Other VC
Japan+Italy            $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
US+UK                  $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC

=====the last two categories have the same values. why group them if they are the same?

Looks very simple. My “democracy” concern not yet added.

========== please post it here using cut copy past from original document before and after.

Quote
yes the cap is not related to VC number. its too complicated. Its only limited by IPC value which is like the old system. Factories allow builds of non- infantry, and VC allow builds of Infantry, sometimes both of these are in the same territory and sometimes they are not.

“1 VCP per infantry” model population.

IPC values varies great and can’t really be used to cap infantry (if you remove it you’ll introducing other limits like you did anyway.) in LHTR Germany often build 10 INF at Germany. In AARHE we do not.

Don’t remove them because of 1939 map.
You’ll fix 1939 but make 1942 unrealistic.
Individual rules shall be realistic, else it’ll come back and bite us.

=============== this is a good point what do you propose. post it exactly as it should be written.

Page 8. Conquest
Quote
ok then what is the new wording. type it and ill cut/copy/ paste it
If you got all that I said…
new wording would simply be you lose your capital you lsoe 50% income next turn. No mention about IC.

============== ok i will leave it like that. fine

Page 17. Land reinforcement
Your other concern of cheating the system was actually a good thing
As I mentioned cross continent trips are no longer ridiculously long like 6 turns.

As long as you combatted you can’t move. So not so much “cheating”.

========= does this mean you still support ‘reinforcement’?

Page 18. Ground interdiction
Quote
The SBR thing is not alot of bank for the buck roll one die after surviving ID rolls and fighter escorts only to watch your 15 ipc bomber get shot down…

Oh I see.
Just clean it a bit so you don’t repeat all that about ID rolls and escorts in both SBR and GI.

Under GI heading, simply say you get to roll for GI after SBR rolls.
Other things are like you could make it ID can prevent SBR roll. But escort dogfight can’t. But escort dogfight can prevent GI roll.

=============== i can make it more clear. sometimes it good to repeat a rule because it may apply in more than one instance

Quote
no under my new system the last part is deleated. it does not do this. NCM is uneffected
Oh no I don’t mean GI stops NCM. I mean GI stops land reinforcement.

GI does not stop any NCM that movement is normal movement and not rail etc. GI is meant to stop the more ‘strategic movement abilities’ hence rail lines, ship transport, etc.

You have a copy of the rules lets try a new system of covering these things:

you list the problems and post them right here example:

Variable Infantry Costs
Regular Infantry units are constructed at victory cities. Airborne Infantry are constructed in your home capital. Other units are constructed at your Industrial Complex.

Germany and USSR Infantry*
Your Capital Victory City……   2
Connected Victory City  to Capital*…   3
Unconnected Victory City…   4

Japan, United States, United Kingdom and Italy Infantry**  
Your Capital Victory City… 2
Victory City, 1st built… 3
Victory City, 2+… 4
Unconnected Victory City… 4

*connected to Capital via contiguous land territories controlled by you or friendly nations.
Capital Infantry costs at 2 IPC are limited to 8 total infantry.

** Capital Infantry costs at 2 IPC are limited to 4 total infantry.

Conquest
When you lose your capital you lose 50% of your income for the next turn, while the enemy only receives the territories value in return. You may still fight on in the hopes of eventually capturing your capital or having your partners do it for you. You may still build as long as you have at least one factory under your control. You cannot build a factory if you do not have at least one under your control. Neutrals are conquered when their home territory is enemy occupied. Neutral forces cannot leave their home territory.

are these ok? post and edit how they should read according to your view.

all other topics are to be handled in a similar fashion. This process needs more structure as you have pointed out.

when we agree I just copy and paste in the new original. Good?

Also, i feel i need to place the VC city values on the map and second make a list and new set ups for 1942 scenario so this map can be used for either. I then need a new list of who controls what starting in 1939 and any possible changes. I leave this up to you to work on. I would use the older setups as a guide for 1942, but the new territories may prove some changes on setup. Also, you will need to add the new units into the set up.

Perhaps you can take that old file with the icons a post your proposal before a proper set up sheet is made. I can even make the actual setups and edit OVER the 1.3 files since i lost the original files.

Starting Victory Cities (1942 Scenario):

GERMANY (18)
Berlin (6)
Rome (5)
Paris (2)
Warsaw (2)
Bucharest (2)
Kiev (1)

ITALY (7)
Rome (5)
Bucharest (2)

JAPAN (15)
Tokyo (6)
Hsinking (2)
Singapore (2)
Kuching (2)
Hong Kong (1)
Batavia (1)
Manila (1)

SOVIET UNION (18)
Moscow (6)
Stalingrad (4)
Leningrad (3)
Novosibirsk (2)
Archangel (1)
Almaty (1)
Vladivostok (1)

UNITED KINGDOM (12)
London (5)
Toronto (2)
Cairo (1)
Calcutta (1)
Sydney (1)
Tehran (1)
Cape Town (1)

UNITED STATES (14)
Washington (5)
Los Angeles (4)
Chicago (2)
Chungking (1)
Ürümqi (1)
Rio de Janeiro (1)

NEUTRAL (4)
Madrid (2)
Ankara (2)