Sweet!
AARHE 1939 map and rule files
-
What I mean is I want them to know its just 20 pages from the index…that is reader knows in the first few pages.
++++++ yes i will fix it. I will add some structure to it.+++++ i will see what i can do . I tried that before and it always sticks it in every place except the front. :cry:
You saying we shouldn’t jump the number too quickly?
++++++ It looks like its 3 revisions. 3.1 could actually be many more than 3… 1.1,1.2.1.8,2.9,3.0,3.1 wheras 1.3 is at least the same system as LHTROr you mean to call 1.3 just because its LHTR 1.3.
That we can’t do cos how are we going to do versioning?
+++++++ no thats not the reason but it is to make it consistent with THAT other systemBecause Allies goes after Axis. Axis don’t have chance to respond to unreasonable/un-hold-able suicide attack by Allies.
If its accessed in real-time you can put a different argument and make both teams defend against such method to victory.+++++++OK then how should it read??
But its useful for naval construction. Whats the playability issues? Even SBR rule catered for it.
++++ thats correct. good point. ok then how should it read?Its too difficult to even grasp from the viewpoint of any newcomer to this variant any idea what that was. I must have read that thing 20 times and nothing got any clearer
its not adding anything fun to the game at all.
I hope you were NOT reading the version that requires writing things down. The latest version requires no writing down.+++++ i was reading the last version and the wording was very convoluted. OK can you rephrase the original meaning in very simple language?
Lets work something out. Anything but forcing a particular route of convoy. Its important for AARHE as we don’t just build at ICs.
+++ ok sure but that old convoy system is not a very crisp rule. lets rephrase it a bit and come back to it?I am fine not able to go into Baltic without control of Denmark. I just don’t see the difference between that and canal treatment.
++++ Denmark is part of Germany. Denmark is too small to be represented. Allies need control of Germany to be able to pass into the Baltic and they cannot cross into the 5th sea zone. The only way to get to the Baltic is invade Germany by france. By then the games really over anyway and history is satisfied.I think you should fight on without IC. You could have a sizeable force (without may include plenty of armor) and maybe the enemy made a suicide attack. We have various game modes let them do their job.
+++++ ok yes i didnt make it clear. You can still fight on but you cant build… which for all intents means your out of the game unless you retake a factory. You are still playing but are basically ‘partisans’Again make the Axis likely to be in similar situation in 1942 but don’t force it to happen or else whats the point of 1939 scenario.
++++ yes this is the real issue. To allow for different paths to win but to get the axis to a decent point where the game has not been decided yet. This will have to be playtesting jobQuote
Page 11. “If at any time one side has only air units remaining in battle they must be retreated to
a friendly territory within ½ flight range.” I think attacking air units retreat with normal range. Defending air units retreat within 1 space previously. Define “1/2 flight range”.
+++++++ this creates a problem borne out in play testing for other games. The range is too great allowing for “always on” DAS. The idea would be to be able to create holes in the fighter screen so a player has to choose where he picks his battles and cant defend everywhere at the same time. Otherwise the DAS effect is too great.
This is how it was.Attacking air units retreat normally. ie. 1/2 of movement points so 2 for normal fighter. Hence don’t change that sentence. Talk about it in DAS or defender retreat.
Now what you care about is DAS. DAS still doesn’t let you fight in more than one space.
Defending air units (which includes DAS) don’t retreat base on their flight range. They can only retreat 1 space away.The only thing is that DAS can reach 2 space away.
++++ ok ill fix it. good
AA in non-combat move. You want to get rid of it then thats fine. LHTR does it that way too.
You want to remove flying-over AA fire. Thats fine too. Just say they are at long distance flight height.
But don’t change AA fire back to first cycle. We’ve already tuned the numbers. Personally I didn’t see AA being powerful at all. Its 2.8% chance per ID. We can reduce the no. of implicit ID and you get rid of search roll for SBR. Then less fighter loss more bomber loss which is what you want.
++++ ok then how should it then read?? 1) no non-combat AA guns, 2) AA fire in every round? 3)possible changes in hit ratios? please post your idea.
Quote
Page 12. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment is limited to one hit every four attacking land units (which probably should be changed to count INF and Airborne only). Not one SB roll every four attacking land units.
++++ yes to be more accurate because only infantry types can land on the first round. I will add
Note its hits that are limited not rolls.+++++OK ill get it done.
In AARHE submarines always fire in opening-fire. Destroyers takes hits for capital ships and then chases with ASW. Destroyers then fire in main round.
In OOB destroyers don’t get to fire twice. Negating the opening-fire works out similar to screening and ASW.
The idea is air and submarines attack first. Casualties don’t get to fight in main round (gun battle).
++++OK please phrase what it should read. I’m lost on this point.
Quote
Page 14. Naval anti-air is very different to land combat. Naval anti-air is more powerful due to no terrain over and no emergency landing. Naval anti-air is not pre-emptive because the target IS the anti-air. No flak guns shots popping up at the unexpected places.
+++++ how it works is if the enemy has no CAP or air units then the enemy air has a distinct advantage, Naval AA rolls are very weak and the ONLY thing to fight planes… which is what it should be… if on sea you have no fighters you are sitting ducks… The only compensation is to allow the ships to gain preemptive hits and CA/ DD screens of targeted attacks IMO
You are confusing me. The rule and justification is sort of based on what you said back then.Anyway. Start again. Is naval AA is weak or strong compared to ground AA?
If weak then we bring back the search roll and done. Then we don’t have to use preemptive as compensation.these don’t have to be tied together. The AA value on sea is the number of ROLLS the ship may make and each roll is hitting on a 1 result. Over land its a 1 to search and a second 1 for a kill, and a 2 or 3 sends the bomber home and it doesn’t perform its primary mission.
DD gets one roll
BB gets 2 rolls
CA gets 3 rolls
CV gets whatever it gets ( i forgot)It should be preemptive because unlike land combat these ships are moving much faster and the plane needs to be closer and thats why the fire is preemptive, a torpedo attack requires the plane is perpendicular profile to the warship ans it must fly at a level, which gives the ship an advantage to fire at it first.
Actually I think its still quite “happy” at 25% vs. 33%.
And how long you want this happy time? UK starts with 1 of 3 progress boxes. (1942). UK can put 2 develop weapons rolls on ASW per turn. (1 free + 1 purchasable.) Thats 6 turns on average.+++++Yes very good point! ok then how should it then read?
Quote
Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
+++++ actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.
Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
Air units might dogfight first.++++So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence… BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.Quote
Page 16. Ground Interdiction. What happens if enemy has air units remaining in the territory? What happens when the bomber is attacked in enemy’s turn? Ground interdiction was the way it was for various reasons. I wanted to expand air missions before but there is much work involving air units.
++++++it says they fly back home they cannot attack without land units in support.
The thing is interdiction used to be during YOUR turn. Now its during ENEMY’s turn? Yet normal movement isn’t affected.
I think it should be during YOUR turn. Fly back home this same turn.++++ ok wait a sec. You still fly your units during your turn and they remain in those enemy territories and stop strategic movement thru this territory. On your next turn they are returned home and can then be used for further missions. isn’t that what it reads?
Quote
Page 17. Strait Interdiction. No longer need value column in the table. 2 dice if you hold both territories right? ++++ not really. Gibraltar does not require both sides. Why don’t we need ‘value’ column?
Cos its always “1” now. Previously we had Denmark which was “2”. Now its just “1”.++++ ok well get it fixed
Quote
Page 17. The Strategic Redeployment might not be a good model. Maybe better to draw rail lines.
++++++ oh no. this is a really good idea to avoid marking up the map. I considered this with the map but it looked horrible. Remember bombers can reduce the SR capacity.
Yeah more map marking is not nice. But I feel just a number “8” would be weird.
Traffic in western europe shouldn’t reduce capacity in eastern europe?That system is what they use in The War Game, but that allows many (too many) post movements. Our system has a more abstract simpler mechanism behind it.
Quote
Page 18. “Built naval units are placed adjacent to either an Industrial Complex or a controlled Victory City.” What do you mean Victory City?++++ yes exactly
So you can just build naval units at VC now? Repairing at VC makes sense. But building?+++ huh? the rule is unchanged as before. you place new units in only sea zones that are adjacent to either a factory or failing that, a SZ adjacent to any VC, because in some cases a factory is not adjacent to a sea zone. what is at issue here? i am unclear.
Quote
Page 19. Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Should list modifiers not specific numbers. All air units? All same value? +++++ please explain not clear
Modifiers like +1. Rather than redefining base value which can be confusing.
Is it your intention for all air units to perform ASW? And all at the same effectiveness?
A simple system would be only bombers can do ASW.++++Planes perform ASW only after the tech is acquired to allow for this. Other than that i think that bombers can conduct ASW search ( but not combat)
Quote
Page 22. Neutral Military Deployment. Would be more realistic if 1939 had 1939 values? Did Spain and Turkey have such a large force in 1939?
++++++ its best if we keep them strong, because the axis didn’t really have the capacity to take out large neutrals and its consistent for memory on the set up. A few different pieces will not ADD to the game.
Just checking like it can be funny. 1942 neutral forces copied over. And then 1939 map has more neutrals territories and more neutral units.++++ well Germany has alot of neutrals to punish for being foolish neutrals… :mrgreen:
Quote
Page 23. Appendix. Carrier was attack 1 defence 1.
You didn’t reply to this one.
To rehash we made CV 1/1 and AP 0/0 because the argument is escort no longer need to be explicit addition of DD and CA from AA classic.++++ this was a tough decision… the carrier must have something more than one to account for a cruiser hull platform. a 2 is reasonable, while a 3 is too much. AP is junk and even a spitball could sink a transport.
-
@Imperious:
You saying we shouldn’t jump the number too quickly?
++++++ It looks like its 3 revisions. 3.1 could actually be many more than 3… 1.1,1.2.1.8,2.9,3.0,3.1 wheras 1.3 is at least the same system as LHTROr you mean to call 1.3 just because its LHTR 1.3.
That we can’t do cos how are we going to do versioning?
+++++++ no thats not the reason but it is to make it consistent with THAT other systemIt deoesn’t have to be 3.1.
It can 4.0.We have to expect to have to update.
When we update then your 1.3 would become 1.4. And there isn’t LHTR 1.4 anywayLHTR 2.0 has been for months but I haven’t looked into it.
If there was a “changelog” we could quickly asset it and see if we could say “LHTR 2.0” instead at the first page.Because Allies goes after Axis. Axis don’t have chance to respond to unreasonable/un-hold-able suicide attack by Allies.
If its accessed in real-time you can put a different argument and make both teams defend against such method to victory.
+++++++OK then how should it read??Just say like before. “Victory conditions are assessed in real-time”. You can add that with “historic victory” game mode the conditions can be satisfied and player can reveal their mission and win the rank immediately.
But its useful for naval construction. Whats the playability issues? Even SBR rule catered for it.
++++ thats correct. good point. ok then how should it read?Below.
Its too difficult to even grasp from the viewpoint of any newcomer to this variant any idea what that was. I must have read that thing 20 times and nothing got any clearer
its not adding anything fun to the game at all.
I hope you were NOT reading the version that requires writing things down. The latest version requires no writing down.
+++++ i was reading the last version and the wording was very convoluted. OK can you rephrase the original meaning in very simple language?Supply line or Blockade or another name
IPC to be spent or saved must have a path from source to destination territory. You may only save IPC at a victory city. IPC not spent nor saved is forfeited.IPC Path
A path can consist of territories your land units may go through as well as sea zones. It can enter the sea from the source or an adjacent territory. It can use the shortest path and exit the sea only at the destination territory.Convoy
A sea zone on a path is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except transport) in a convoy sea zone may perform a convoy attack roll. 1 IPC of friendly convoys in that sea zone is destroyed on a roll of 3 or less.I am fine not able to go into Baltic without control of Denmark. I just don’t see the difference between that and canal treatment.
++++ Denmark is part of Germany. Denmark is too small to be represented. Allies need control of Germany to be able to pass into the Baltic and they cannot cross into the 5th sea zone. The only way to get to the Baltic is invade Germany by france. By then the games really over anyway and history is satisfied.What I am saying is since you need Germany and Norway to go in and out of Baltic Sea maybe we should just treat it like canal and draw a symbol on the Denmark Strait on the map.
It would save listing out a special rule. Or even if explicitly written it’ll be just an entry under a “special passage” section listing all the canals (eg. Suez) and passes (eg. Pyrenees).I think you should fight on without IC. You could have a sizeable force (without may include plenty of armor) and maybe the enemy made a suicide attack. We have various game modes let them do their job.
+++++ ok yes i didnt make it clear. You can still fight on but you cant build… which for all intents means your out of the game unless you retake a factory. You are still playing but are basically ‘partisans’Can’t build anything? Not even raise infantry at VC?
We can just say factory represents heavy industry.
Thats why infantry are built at VC.++++ ok then how should it then read?? 1) no non-combat AA guns, 2) AA fire in every round? 3)possible changes in hit ratios? please post your idea.
Already in LHTR 1.3
*Return flight is non-combat
*Non-combat AA fire is offSo its mostly what it was before. Roll 1 to search. Roll 1 hit.
The only thing is during SBR no need to search.Put among “Land Combat: Anti-Air rolls” something like…
Infrastructure defence fires in opening-fire of every combat cycle. Each infrastructure defence selects an enemy air unit independently. After all selections are made, each ID rolls a search die detecting its target on 1. Each ID selects an enemy air unit independently among the detected air units. After all selections are made, each ID rolls an attack die hitting its target on 1, forcing the target to retreat on 2.
Put among “Special Combat: Strategic Bombing Run” something like…
During anti-air procedure, search dice are not rolled. All hostile air units are detected.
In AARHE submarines always fire in opening-fire. Destroyers takes hits for capital ships and then chases with ASW. Destroyers then fire in main round.
In OOB destroyers don’t get to fire twice. Negating the opening-fire works out similar to screening and ASW.
The idea is air and submarines attack first. Casualties don’t get to fight in main round (gun battle).++++OK please phrase what it should read. I’m lost on this point.
Basically air and submarine attack first with their speed or stealth.
So what they kill don’t get to fight in the main gun battle.I am not sure what you are lost on. If you understand the above then all we need to do is remove the sentence about destroyers negating submarine’s sneak fire on a 1-to-1 basis.
Because the naval combat sequence already displays the procedure.It should be preemptive because unlike land combat these ships are moving much faster and the plane needs to be closer and thats why the fire is preemptive, a torpedo attack requires the plane is perpendicular profile to the warship ans it must fly at a level, which gives the ship an advantage to fire at it first.
OK thats good enough. Preemptive it is.
Actually I think its still quite “happy” at 25% vs. 33%.
And how long you want this happy time? UK starts with 1 of 3 progress boxes. (1942). UK can put 2 develop weapons rolls on ASW per turn. (1 free + 1 purchasable.) Thats 6 turns on average.+++++Yes very good point! ok then how should it then read?
I don’t know which point is the “very good point”.
If you think 25% vs. 33% is “happy time” enough then just make it roll 3 to search and roll 3 to hit.
If you think the ASW tech is too long at “6 turns on average” from 1942 then maybe give “1942 UK” 2 of 3 boxes of ASW tech.
Lets think about how they fits together
*historic first happy time
*historic second happy time
*game 1939
*game 1939-1942
*game 1942
*game post 1942++++So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence…. BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.OK then. Just make it short and sweet.
++++ ok wait a sec. You still fly your units during your turn and they remain in those enemy territories and stop strategic movement thru this territory. On your next turn they are returned home and can then be used for further missions. isn’t that what it reads?
Next turn? “your next turn” or just “next turn”?
If interdiction mission lets your bomber stay in enemy territory during enemy turn then you have to cater for what happens when there are enemy air units in the teritory or new enemy air units enter the territory.
That system is what they use in The War Game, but that allows many (too many) post movements. Our system has a more abstract simpler mechanism behind it.
Is Strategic Redeployment (SR) during active turn, passive turn, or both?
+++ huh? the rule is unchanged as before. you place new units in only sea zones that are adjacent to either a factory or failing that, a SZ adjacent to any VC, because in some cases a factory is not adjacent to a sea zone. what is at issue here? i am unclear.
I think its changed. Inland IC shouldn’t be able to build naval units and I think thats simple. You want inland IC to build ships?
If you do then you have to word it more than “any VC”.++++Planes perform ASW only after the tech is acquired to allow for this. Other than that i think that bombers can conduct ASW search ( but not combat)
Ok just remember to display modifiers instead. Base values and then everything else is modifier. So ASW tech is “+1 to search and attack rolls”.
To rehash we made CV 1/1 and AP 0/0 because the argument is escort no longer need to be explicit addition of DD and CA from AA classic.
++++ this was a tough decision… the carrier must have something more than one to account for a cruiser hull platform. a 2 is reasonable, while a 3 is too much. AP is junk and even a spitball could sink a transport.
CV is already made two hits to account for cruiser hulll. Empty CV should be weak.
-
I am going on vacation in Berlin. I will return in a week and get things fixed on both fronts.
-
OK new rules and map are done:
have a read/look
http://www.mediafire.com/?9t9xtm93ojt
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=zxz13ey0h2e
i left out the set up sheets.
Map:
-
Map
you forgot to
*add Aleutian Islands to SZ 63
*give Baja back to Mexico, remove Western US access to SZ 54 -
Page 1. “AARHE 1.3”
…so can we call it 4.0?
Btw seems LHTR 2.0 is mainly NA changes. So we can probably use LHTR 2.0.Page 4. Phase 1: Collect Income
…the prior non-static convoy zone system you’ve find convoluted
here is the streamlined and simplified text for consideration to be used again
(replaces whole “phase 1: collect income” text)Income Add up values of current territories and subtract loses due to economic attacks in enemy's last turn and upkeep costs. Upkeep Pay 1 IPC for each unit occupying a desert terrain territory. Pay 1 IPC for each unit involved in amphibious assault in or airborne drop. Spending IPC to be spent or saved must have a path from source to destination territory. You may only save IPC at a victory city. IPC not spent nor saved is forfeited. IPC Path A path can consist of territories your land units may go through as well as sea zones. It can enter the sea from the source or an adjacent territory. It then use the shortest path and exit the sea only at the destination territory. Convoy A sea zone on a path is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except transport) in a convoy sea zone may now perform a convoy attack roll. 1 IPC of friendly convoys in that sea zone is destroyed on a roll of 3 or less.Page 5. Purchase Units
…2 turn battleship and carrier information is repeated in Phase 1: Income , Phase 2: Purchase, and Phase 6: Mobilize.
I think Phase 1 don’t need it.
Phase 2 add “Build schedule” heading and put costs information.
Phase 6’s exisitng “Build schedule” trim down to just a reminder that you don’t deploy yet.Page 5. Variable infantry costs, Germany
…contiguous land territories of your control? or just team control?
or land territories your land units may move through? (which allows US/UK cooperation)Page 6. Variable infantry costs, US
…“Non-minor Victory City” —> “Major Victory City”
…“Other Victory City” —> “Major Victory City”Page 8. 2 pages of 1939 rules
…yet to be restructured, agreed to put all 1939 rules to be together under optional rules in a section explaining 1939 mapPage 13. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment
…shore bombardment rolls are not limited to every 4 unit, only casualty isPage 14. Battleships
…fire in opening unless damaged, but why “unless the enemy also has a Battleship”?Page 17. Defensive Air Support
…by calling it “Defensive Air Support” you’ve removed “reinforcement” which covers land units
land units used to be able to relocate one space and fight from second combat cyclePage 17. Counter-Air Mission
…previously CA was just to specific ability of air-only attack…now its actually something!“adjacent hostile territories”? this means you can’t CA against UK? I think normal flight range (1/2 movement points)
before last sentence “The defender cannot perform DAS missions against CA.” add this sentence “The defender cannot perform DAS missions with those air units.”
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?Page 19. Deployment
…“at least 1 victory point” and “value of 2 victory city points or greater.” is misleading.
Need to say that infantry requires 1 VCP each and airborne requires 2 VCP each. -
ok working on it.
-
rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bjvzj3zbdgj
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=3wz2zjlshjm
Page 8. 2 pages of 1939 rules
…yet to be restructured, agreed to put all 1939 rules to be together under optional rules in a section explaining 1939 map+++ i don’t know how they should look. I want to be clear that they are specifically for 1939 and the module wont work w/o them.
Page 13. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment
…shore bombardment rolls are not limited to every 4 unit, only casualty is++++ not correct. then you would be giving the SB too much accuracy because then they all fire and the idea is to have the possibility of SB hits limited to the roll of one ship possibly hitting for every 4 land units landed. Under the correct system you only have an opportunity for SB roll for each group of 4 landed units. If you miss on that at least you got a +1 from each MATCHING BB or CA
Page 14. Battleships
…fire in opening unless damaged, but why “unless the enemy also has a Battleship”?++++ yes because Battleships often go after each other first because these are more dangerous targets, so the long range thing is being wasted because both have long range. When only one side has these ships they may sit and pick off targets long range before the limited ranges of smaller vessels effects combat.
Page 17. Defensive Air Support
…by calling it “Defensive Air Support” you’ve removed “reinforcement” which covers land units
land units used to be able to relocate one space and fight from second combat cycle++++ their is no land reinforcement. Its too complicated and kills too many pieces at a time. Only planes can assist for the defender, not land units.
Map: Redrawn USA and added Aleutians plus fixed a few lines on sea zones.
-
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.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”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.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.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.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 bomdardment.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.Is it unrealistic for battleship to kill pre-emptively (at division level)?
Just remove SB roll all together.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.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.Its not bad. Rememebr reinforcements start fighting from 2nd cycle. And they don’t get to fight if combat if over in 1 cycle.
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? -
Map
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.)Usually its not a problem. But the enormous left white border makes the PNG export side too great. (Over the limit allowed by Illustrator).
Everytime I export I have to painfully remove it.I am still not good with Illustrator. So I only know to ungroup and cut with scissor tool and then delete. Some of the stuff were repeated like in 6 layers.
-
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?
-
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.
-
2007-10-30 PNG version
http://www.mediafire.com/?2s2kjvv2nx3Map
Pacific is now 5 sea zones. I think that functionally good enough.
True area was never the goal. (As much as I want it to be and posted few illustrator maps for you to use earlier on. Next map project.)I found something. Object -> Path -> Divide objects below
Doesn’t always work though. -
Hm…slowly becoming chaotic.
Try to hold back on changes. Put new ideas on a to-do list for now.
Bring it up later, unless its related.Otherwise I have to re-read the whole document everytime.
I am still struggling thru the pile of due discussion for all the existing changes.If you must make changes then please post a changelog every time.
It’ll still make things chaotic though.I too have several ideas in a to-do list on my computer. But we’ll do that later.
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”.Page 5. Variable IC costs
Why 15 IPC for captured VC?
Population centre is still a population centre. Infrastructure is there.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?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.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.With sustantial 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.
Page 13. Shore 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.
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.
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.
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?
Yeah if its unrealistic we could remove it. Have to word it nicely.
Don’t know if we have to keep it though, so can describe defender shore bomardment.Page 14. Battleship opening-fire
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.
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 WWII 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.
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)Page 18. Ground interdiction
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.
The bombers just sit and dont do anything during the ENEMIES turn
but you also said earlier
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.)
-
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 aboutYou 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?
-
Ok you told me to “edit the file”.
I now acquire “lock” (multi-tasking term) on the file.I won’t ediitng the file with proposals though.
Too hard for you to track them.
I will only write them in after we agreed with the numbers and stuff.Page 1. “AARHE 1.3”
+++++ 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.
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.
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?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?
Page 6. Variable infantry costs
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.
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.
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??)
We don’t put Germany and Japan together in the new system.
As you said Germany and Japan is different.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.
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 + ItalyGroup 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 IPCYou 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.)++++++++ 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?
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.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.Page 13. Shore bombardment
tekkyy:
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.IL:
+++++The rule DOES stop excess battleships from firing a shot.No I am saying it SHOULDN’T stop excess BB from firing. No reason why some can and some can’t shoot.
But its fine. Your rule is simple and good enough.
+++++++ well exactly what do you propose? state the rule exactly how you would have it look.
Alternatively, we reduce the % chance of BBs hitting and let all BBs fire. They now hit at X. Then you have cap of 1 hit per Y landing units.
I was going to be have X = 1. But then DD has to be weaker than BB. So X has to be at least 2.
Too complex don’t worry about it.Page 17. Land reinforcement
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.
++++ 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.Page 18. Ground interdiction
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??
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.
GI missions happens during your turn.
Quite sustantial damage to affect next turn (enemy turn).
So SBR and GI should be separate.Besides the SR movement damage you said, GI also interrupts reinforcement into or out of the territory.
Suggested Topics
