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)
