House Rules (Think tank)

@Cowboybob:

Another thing i would really like to get started is a good system for supply lines.

i think that type of a system could work, i would use colored token’s for each supply point, the token’s could be free, determined by the i.p.c. value of the territories that are controlled by the national power, the movement cost could be fuel point’s, a convoy could be mobilized from an i.c.,
here is an idea for a general card/ability, inspiration, when attacked the defender can use their attack abilities during a number of combat round’s

oh man you got to slow down… a book worth of posts was posted and alot of ideas need to be considered before new ideas added or you get chaos.

i think lets look at the first huge post and work on that first.

i have been thinking about another system for general’s, each national power start’s the game with 3 general’s, each general has card’s, when a general complete’s certain objective’s , i.e. capture’s a victory city, that general can move up a level and recieves a new card that can be played, when the general reaches the next level, that general recieves another 2 card’s, although a maximum of 3 card’s can be played on a turn/2 turn’s, when the general is defeated they are replaced with a new general starting at the first level,
i have not had an idea of what the 2 starting card’s would be, although i have for the 2nd level, defensive retreat, when the card is played the player can use defensive retreat, third level, 2nd offensive when attacking, a player that play’s this general card can use armor to attack the next territory, or blitz to take control, if it would be unoccupied or cleared by way of an air attack, the attacking player must declare what armor would be used during the offensive, and that armor could not be used for a non combat move,
another 3rd level card could be the inspiration card that i wrote about in this thread,
at most 3 card’s in play at a time, when the card is played the effect’s are resolved, the card stay’s in play for 2 turn’s

yah, scratch political leaders, but lets work on Military leaders, I like the diferent attributes you have come up with, how many rounds of combat each leader can lead his men into, the amount of caaulaties that can be sustained, liklyhood of being able to make a second attack,

also, how about units not attaking with a leader can only attack for 1  round of combat

Each country should have a diffrent number of military leaders, each with their own paticular stats

For the national morale i think you need to look into a different system, otherwise people are not going to be able to build that much, also I would think the Soveit Union would have a much higher national morale that lets say the US. The Russians, took far more losses and went through much more pain yet still were very effective on the battlefeild. The Germans and the Japanese thought the west was soft and could be weakened by significant casulaties.

I think National morale should be respresented buy how many losses a nation can take before it pulls out of the war

On supply, your system seems very complex for such a simple thing, why not just have one type of supply that does everything, instead of three. you get basicly the same thing and it is still a really cool idea.

I think if we do all these changes right, then combine them with the a version of AARHE Lite that is compatible with AA50 we could slow down thegame a bit, instead of each turn representing 4-6 months, they would each represent a season. and once each turn represents a season it is going to be a lot easeir to introduce weather rules

I am going to try a game of AA50 with rules from AARHE Lite in the coming weeks, once i have three or four more game of reg AA50 under my belt. I will then try to implement some of you rules

Also, Imperious Leader, is this the right way to go about experimenting for AA50HE, using the fundemental concepts from AARHE and building ontop of that, or should we just start AA50HE from the ground up.

Tech needs to go back to being targeted like in Revised.  That will help ease the burden of SBRs.

If tech is targeted should you have to declare which tech your researchers are for when you purcahse them, and should they then cost 10 or 15 IPCs?
or maybe you need multiple breakthoughs depeding on the tech to develop it

You declare what technology you want to get, you declare how many rolls you want, and you only get to roll once.  If your man fails, you shoot him and have to hire a new guy at an additional 5 IPCs.

That way you don’t end up with America having 9 bombers and rolling Super Submarines when what he really wanted was Heavy Bombers!

if you shoot you researchers shouldn’t subsequent reasearch rolls be more likely to succeed due to increased motivation :-D

I kind of like the new research rules though, where your researchers dont go away. I think we should incorporate them into targeted techs

@Emperor_Taiki:

I think National morale should be respresented buy how many losses a nation can take before it pulls out of the war

i like that idea, it could mean that the nationional power’s army would be disbanded, and there could be a scramble to take over the territories, and the national power could be reinstated, if a national power from the same alliance managed to retake enough territories to build up the national morale again,

national morale could be determined by losing a point for each unit that would be defeated, and for victory cities and territories that are captured, there could be a national resolve that could be used when morale reaches a critical level before capitulation of the nation, a siege mentality, where the national power could call upon hidden resources, i.e. emergency supplies in the form of i.p.c that could be used for a last stand (or not) against the invading forces,

morale could be boosted by capturing territories

take total IPC divide by 10= national morale. Each territory you lose subtract one morale point

If you lose your capital you lose morale value of half the IPC value of territory, example losing Germany loses 5 morale points

If you go into negative numbers in any turn, you can face a collapse of your government. Roll one D6 using the modifier of negative net morale value and if the result is zero or negative, you have lost the game.

there done.

I dont think national morale should be associated directly with IPC production, sure the US had the most resources and the largest econamy, but could they have withstood over a million causalties like the Germans and Soveits.

Everyone who reads this, the next game you play, see if you can count how many peices each sides losses
and report back here

then we can figure out a historical and playable national morale for each nation

For each unit you lose, you lose one morale, + plus their will be other modifers and oppertunities to gain morale

when you morale hits zero, your nation must offer peace, the oppsing side can either accept or reject it. If they accept that nation surrenders and is treated as a neutral unless it is again attacked. the oppsing side can also reject peace and play continues as usaul

I dont think national morale should be associated directly with IPC production

well IPC is directly related to how well a nation is doing, plus the US player has perhaps the greatest historical resolve to win the war and had the best morale. Rate the nations in rank according to how you feel they wanted to win the war and you will see a more or less correlation of this based on how many IPC they had.

for the axis Germany had the high morale

for the allies USA UK

least was Italy and possible the Soviets who could have lost it and had Russian units fighting against the Soviets!

If we were to do some kind of morale I would have to say it would have to go more along balance lines and less about logical or historically accurate ones.

Perhaps:

+1 Morale for every National Objective your nation has completed (you’d have to make sure to track them even when it is not your nation’s turn, after all, if Italy completes a NO, then Germany would still get the +1, likewise if England gets France then America would get a +1 as well.)

+1 For every technological break through you have completed. (Hey, soldiers feel good knowing their equipment is better than the enemies!)

+1 For every three enemy territories conquered. (Only applies if you are attacking that specific enemy.  For instance, if Germany has Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine, they would get +1 when attacking Russians.)

+1 For each victory city you control

-1 For each victory city you have lost

-1 For every three territories you have lost to the enemy currently attacking/defending against you (ie, if Germany had those three territories and you were attacking with Russia, you would incur the penalty.)

For every 6 morale points more than you have than your enemy, you get one automatic “kill” in the opening fire step of combat (ie they cannot return fire.)  Your defender chooses what unit is “killed” (read: runs away.)  The killed unit does not “die” but is relocated one territory to a friendly territory as if retreating. (note, if no valid territory exists to retreat to, the unit is removed from the board.  Basically, same rules as a submarine shooting a carrier out from under a fighter, it gets a chance to land, if it cannot, then it dies too.)

@Imperious:

I dont think national morale should be associated directly with IPC production

well IPC is directly related to how well a nation is doing, plus the US player has perhaps the greatest historical resolve to win the war and had the best morale. Rate the nations in rank according to how you feel they wanted to win the war and you will see a more or less correlation of this based on how many IPC they had.

for the axis Germany had the high morale

for the allies USA UK

least was Italy and possible the Soviets who could have lost it and had Russian units fighting against the Soviets!

I dont see how that is true at all, if national morale is the resolve of the people, government, and the military to fight a war, then what shoes the US having the highest morale. I think the US player should have to think about all of his battles very carefully and determine what this would do for the home front. What do think would have happened if 1 million Americans were killed attacking Japan. What if 1 million Americans were killed and the attacked failed. Sure you might still control fifteen victory cities, but that is not how politicians are elected.

Just look at Korea, Veitnam, Iraq. the effect on National Morale by how many bombs you make or how well you do on the battlefeild, is dwarfed when compared too the lives that are being lost

Lets look at the Soveit Union. sure maybe they could have had a seperate peace when Stalin was having his mental breakdown during 41 or if Moscow was captured, and I argee the outcome of battles should have a big effect on national morale, but once the Russians started fighting back and Stalin made it clear that it was his goal to destroy Germany, the Russians were prepared to lose millions and millions, which they did.

Also stratigic bombing should have an effect on national morale