Let me know how it goes (I never tried this before, I’ve been a bit busy)!
AARHE: Rule files
-
I understand completely, but I was just shocked to see my name listed as a contributor when I offered so little to the project.
I am honored by the credit, I just feel that my small role does not merit it.
:-)
-
Hey this is not about you… ok? :-D
-
@Imperious:
Hey this is not about you… ok? :-D
That was my point :-P But OK, I’ll let it drop :-)
-
@ncscswitch:
I am honored by the credit, I just feel that my small role does not merit it.Â
Then help us playtest phase 2. :lol:
Our neutrals and technology rules are quite something I think. -
I will be doing some testing this weekend, The Neutrals rules are A+ I have always hate having those territories sitting there doing nothing. That was one of the things I liked most about World at War.
One question, is it your intention that if a Player invades Spain from the sea they are required to clear the Spainish fleet prior to landing? I went with that in my last game, it wasn’t dificult fo rthe US, but it was an influence to wait a turn.
The Tech is a vast improvement. I think the only way to get people to use techs is to force it on them and giving each player one or two free rolls a turn works for me. I also think the progeressive research is a great Idea.
I have a couple questions on the research.
The rule says: Roll for one technology at a time. Tick off one box for each roll hitting on a one. Each die costs 5IPC.
As Germany I have a capacity of 2+3 =5. It says roll for one tech at a time, but can I split that between tech catagories? Or is that one Tech per turn?
Also if I roll 5 dice for one tech and hit 2 ones do I get to check 2 boxes?
I look forward to play testing this.
-
One question, is it your intention that if a Player invades Spain from the sea they are required to clear the Spainish fleet prior to landing? I went with that in my last game, it wasn’t dificult fo rthe US, but it was an influence to wait a turn.
good question
it isn’t defined yet
I had this problem too when I last played
I’ve paste your comment to the Neutrals thread for discussionThe rule says: Roll for one technology at a time. Tick off one box for each roll hitting on a one. Each die costs 5IPC.
As Germany I have a capacity of 2+3 =5. It says roll for one tech at a time, but can I split that between tech catagories? Or is that one Tech per turn?You can split rolls between tech catagories. You are allowed to go for more than one tech per turn.
Its just so you can’t assign “hits”.And the idea is you must commit exact resources for tech A before anything happens for tech A this turn.
Probably should be even more specific in later version.Also if I roll 5 dice for one tech and hit 2 ones do I get to check 2 boxes?
Yes. Overflow is wasted of course. (If you only have 1 progress box left for the tech, then only check 1 box.)
-
Excellent, thanks.
-
Tekkyy, I have read the latest download, and I think you should add Norway and Southern Germany to the mountainous list.
And BTW how did we decide on this;
Build schedule
BB (battleship), CV (aircraft carrier), and CA (cruiser) takes 2 rounds to build. They are mobilised on the turn after the turn you’ve purchases them.I mean do you pay them full in advance or half each round?
-
I think you half to pay at least 50%…of course you can pay 100% but you still wait for the second turn to actually get it.
-
Tekkyy, I have read the latest download, and I think you should add Norway and Southern Germany to the mountainous list.
Ok.
I think you half to pay at least 50%…of course you can pay 100% but you still wait for the second turn to actually get it.
Ok pay at least half of cost rounded up.
-
This is my first time posting here. I can see that a lot of thought and creativity has gone into this effort. This team has done an excellent job of making the game more realistic in a tactical sense.
That said, very little has been done to correct the strategic historical inaccuracies of Axis and Allies Revised. Which is fine, but if you’re calling this rules set “historical” it may as well live up to the name.
During World War II, the Allies produced over four times as many tanks as the Axis, over twice as many military aircraft, five times as many artillery, over three times as many mortars, over four times as many machine guns, and over six times as many military trucks. In the pivotal battle of Kursk (1943), Germany had 900,000 men, 10,000 cannons, 2,000 aircraft, and 2,000 tanks. They’d denuded their forces elsewhere along the Soviet front to achieve this concentration. The Soviets had 1.9 million men, 20,800 cannons, 2,000 aircraft, and 5,100 tanks. They achieved this without accepting weakness elsewhere. The Axis and Allies Revised map dramatically understates the scale of Soviet and American military production. This inaccuracy is not corrected in the AARHE rules set.
An additional problem the Axis faced is this: in the real war, Japan’s army was engaged in an unwinnable land war in China. Japan simply didn’t have the available men to launch yet another land war against the Soviet Union, or to take India. In A&A Revised (and AARHE), Japan can mop China up quickly and relatively painlessly; and India typically gets abandoned.
Finally, making Italy a separate power is a bit of a stretch. The Italian military lacked proper equipment, training, motivation, leadership, and morale. When Italy declared war on France, a large Italian force was defeated by a French force only a fraction of its own size. The same thing happened again when Italy attempted to invade Greece. In North Africa, massive Italian forces surrendered to much smaller British groups. The Italians lacked the proper equipment to fight a desert war. Italy’s obsolete tanks couldn’t even damage British tanks! By 1943, the Italians had lost whatever willingness to fight they might once have had; and eagerly surrendered to any available Allied force. Including Italy as a separate power implies that Italy was more useful to the Axis than were nations like Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, or Hungary. This simply wasn’t the case.
I realize the changes I’m suggesting create game balance issues. If you bog Japan down in a painful and largely unwinnable land war in China, and if you accurately portray Soviet/American military production, the Allies should always win. But I’m sure that this team is clever enough to find some advantage to bestow on the Axis that will balance out what you’ll be giving to the Allies. Just about anything will be more historically accurate than sweeping the Allies’ industrial advantages or the China war under the rug.
-
A few comments…
An additional problem the Axis faced is this: in the real war, Japan’s army was engaged in an unwinnable land war in China. Japan simply didn’t have the available men to launch yet another land war against the Soviet Union, or to take India. In A&A Revised (and AARHE), Japan can mop China up quickly and relatively painlessly; and India typically gets abandoned.
IN AARHE we changed the very victory conditions so you don’t have to rely on your partner, much the same way as in the war. We cannot make wholescale changes in the map or it wont be a varient of revised… it will be too far removed from the game. WE added specific historical based cities which require fighting in new areas rather than the same old trouble spots.
Finally, making Italy a separate power is a bit of a stretch. The Italian military lacked proper equipment, training, motivation, leadership, and morale. When Italy declared war on France, a large Italian force was defeated by a French force only a fraction of its own size. The same thing happened again when Italy attempted to invade Greece. In North Africa, massive Italian forces surrendered to much smaller British groups. The Italians lacked the proper equipment to fight a desert war. Italy’s obsolete tanks couldn’t even damage British tanks! By 1943, the Italians had lost whatever willingness to fight they might once have had; and eagerly surrendered to any available Allied force. Including Italy as a separate power implies that Italy was more useful to the Axis than were nations like Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, or Hungary. This simply wasn’t the case.
Its not just Italy the 3rd axis player includes the economy of Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Italy. In 1942 These economies actually were stronger combined than Japan was in this same period.
GDP 1942 ( source: Harrison -figures in billions)
Italy 145
Lybia 2.6
Hungary 24.3
Romania 19.4
Bulgaria 10.5
Yugoslavia 21.9total: 223.7
vs. Japan at 197
BTW Germany is at 417 this same period ( it does not include Finland with is another 12.7)
If we conclude the economics purely as you put it on True Historical data… then we are left with a busted game because Japan will be too weak to defend herself against Allied counters.
Also, military leadership cannot be factored into a game of this type. The Russians lost many more soldiers than Italy ever did in 4 years of fighting during the first 5 months of Barbarossa. Stalin was the worst general than any Italian could ever hope to be. Eventually, he began to listen to his generals. IN Italy’s case when the Germans assumed command of Italian forces they fought much better. Besides Il Duce was not ready for war until 1944, but could conceivably struggle for a few short years and still remain effective. In Oct 1940 the Italians had 300,000 against 30,000 Brits, but stopped to make fortifications at the Lybian/ Egypt border. This is a choice that was made. If they pressed on their is little doubt that they would have taken the Suez… now the game gives them the new choice to become more effective. Italy had a modern Navy and air force and they were a complete military power.
-
Yeah its not easy to give Russia more power while giving Axis a chance.
One thing we did was the variable infantry costs.
Russia can raise most of her infantry for 2 IPC each. The saving could go into artillery. So Russia can now build 4 infantry and 4 artillery with 24 IPC.
Of course this applies to Germany too. But Germany would need to buying tanks, air and the occasional naval units.
-
@Imperious:
A few comments…
If your goal is to make an advanced variant of Revised, then obviously there’s not much you can do to correct the strategic historical inaccuracies Revised poses. Since that’s the case, I’ll simply appreciate AARHE for what it is, which is a very good rules set. That said, I wish there was some other rules variant out there that managed to combine game balance with an historically accurate depiction of the USSR’s and USA’s military production.
When you were a kid, did you ever see those commercials for Frosted Mini Wheats? Each mini wheat had two sides to his personality: the whole wheat, serious side; and the frosted, fun-loving side. Well, the frosted, fun-loving side of my personality likes the idea of having Italy in the game. From the point of view of game mechanics and making the game more interesting, Italy adds an extra something. But the whole wheat, serious side of me hates everything about the Italy inclusion. To lump Romania, Bulgaria, etc. in with Italy implies that those nations were more closely aligned with Italy than they were with Germany. A German promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that you’d get a solid, strong protection effort. An Italian promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that Italy would send some soldiers to your border, they’d eat your food for a while, and then they’d run away once the battle began to get intense. Eastern European nations largely understood this.
There were a number of reasons for Italy’s military failure. Mussolini probably came into power prematurely; and he lacked the popular support Hitler had in Germany. Unlike Germany, modern Italy lacked a strong military tradition. Mussolini was unable to correct the Italian military’s fundamental problems. Laziness, carelessness, and sloppiness in carrying out commands–these were the hallmarks of the Italian military. These things alone meant that the Italian navy was far less useful to the Axis than its tonnage would seem to indicate. In addition to those problems, the Italian army lacked proper equipment. In the desert war you mentioned, Italy only used “light” tanks that couldn’t damage British Matilda tanks. Italy’s infantry lacked mobility. Rommel recognized that mobility was the essence of desert warfare. A large, slow force (such as Italy’s infantry) could be easily outflanked along the south; then cut off from its supplies. It was exactly this technique which allowed Britain’s tank force and mechanized infantry to force the surrender of much larger, non-mechanized Italian infantry forces.
Italians became increasingly cynical and disillusioned about Mussolini’s plans for a new Roman Empire. His grandiose ambitions appeared to be more and more out of touch with reality. Few Italian men were willing to die for someone else’s fantasy; which is one reason why Italy’s armies typically chose to run away or surrender rather than fight.
You point out that Italy’s forces started fighting a lot better once Germans took over the leadership roles. But to me, Germans taking command of those forces at least hints at an integration of German and Italian military forces.
I’ll try not to harp on this, especially if the issue’s already been decided. I just wanted to get my two cents in.
-
As i said before Italy was not prepared to fight a general war in 1940. They feared that if they didn’t get into the fight he would not have any clout at the peace talks. His quote " i need 10,000 deaths to gain a seat at the peace conference…" was a premature attack on the french who he didn’t think would fall so quickly ( i wonder on the other hand why they lasted as long as they did). Once italy was joined she could only fight short campaigns, somewhat like Hitler and the same argument you bring up could also be argued for the Germans who also weren’t prepared to fight anything other than “campaigns on the cheap”. This eventually bites them in the ass in the Soviet Union. Even Hitlers generals wanted a war latter in 1944.
A 2.1 to .09 (2 to 1) overall economic military advantage of allies over axis could not be compensated by any military means in 1941. The entry of nearly half of the allied total came from USA and that resulted in an insurmountable odds against the axis. Italy ready or not would not compensate this disadvantage. Mussolini was the chief cause of her military misfortunes but not for the reasons you mentioned. Military appointments were largely filled by Il duce himself, who gave these positions to loyal comrades. Also, Il duce wanted his own place under the sun and didn’t want the Germans to gain any credit for any Italian victory. Once it was proven by failure then the German leadership was welcome. The Italians fought well under the DAK so it proves that with some changes they could have offered some resistance. Italian defeats were only realized in the cases where they fought alone without any German input. And that does not undermine the minor axis allies which also fought with bravery and are also represented in AARHE.
-
Is there a plain version of the rule file, one without the background image?
That sucks up a lot of ink and time.
Potsy.
-
look under Tekkyys signature. he has it.
-
no worries theposty
its MSWORD so you can remove it
(Format -> Background -> Printed Watermark -> No Watermark)also, for the first few games don’t have to print the optional rules
(National Advantages and National Victory)then document cuts down by 50%
-
But then you must explain this in the rules ( a section regarding the map symbols along with these rules)
Symbols don’t mean anything unless you attach meaning to them.so like this ok?
*red double line for canals and waterways
*green double line for strait interdiction
*dots are on the territories involvedOH that rule is no good at all. too much to account for and adding absolutely nothing to the game at all. Allow any saved income to be saved as reserves. Under this you would have to account for yet another thing that does not add anything to the game.
I was thinking you shouldn’t be able to leave income just anywhere
hence you have to save at a VC, which is a lot more relaxed then OOB…where you can only save money at the capital
what do you think?The attacker is the active army. The defender is committed to fight or flee under the stress of battle. If you look at it it makes more sence, because the trick is the defender retreats and the attackers efforts are rewarded by the capture of the territory, but in game terms this will ‘trap’ good units for counterattack that would be unrealistic
Ok fine as long as its justified we have change it to defender retreat first.
And yes like what you said, trapping units is unrealistic.OK under what you already wrote the attacker has the choice to not even move into the new territory.
No they were fighting in the territory. And now they retreated.
Just the normal model of attacker retreat.No victory at all. The attacker can choke on his first rolls and the defender retreats and nothing is gained except a new empty space, with the defender able to still get the IPC.
The defender had tactical victory in holding the territory. The attacker had strategic victory in killing the defending forces.
Again it is up to the commanders. I probably wouldn’t retreat entirely. I’ll a bit behind to capture the new territory to stop the defender from getting the income as well as slow enemy advance.
But thats really up to the commander, depending on whats strategically the right thing to do.
IN my view the combat is occurring already inside the defending territory., so the idea that the defender retreats and the attacker is basically also retreating from the territory… like they are scared chickens. not good.
That could be an undecisive battle.
But in the end if attacker retreat is allowed, then it is allowed.A bunch of infantry skirmishes with air suport and retreats. It killed the enemy but it can afford to remain behind and get surrounded by tanks, blocking retreat (AARHE capture roll).
Its already in the territory by moving into it. That amounts to a free move for infantry to be able to jump out. It already went against tanks and ‘won’ and now they “just run away to avoid capture” by these same tanks? This is not good modeling of warfare.
That was a typo. It is meant to be “can’t afford to remain behind”.
And its not the same tanks.Like this…
Russia attacks Germany with infantry and artillery at the frontline, kills most or all of the German forces and then retreats or partially retreats. Why?
Because many Germany tanks are coming in. If Russian forces remained behind they’ll be attacked by the reinforcement and blocked from retreat (AARHE capture roll). -
Quote
But then you must explain this in the rules ( a section regarding the map symbols along with these rules)
Symbols don’t mean anything unless you attach meaning to them.
so like this ok?
*red double line for canals and waterways
*green double line for strait interdiction
*dots are on the territories involvedYes something like this, including map items regarding the Maginot line, Oil symbols, etc.
Quote
OH that rule is no good at all. too much to account for and adding absolutely nothing to the game at all. Allow any saved income to be saved as reserves. Under this you would have to account for yet another thing that does not add anything to the game.
I was thinking you shouldn’t be able to leave income just anywhere
hence you have to save at a VC, which is a lot more relaxed then OOB…where you can only save money at the capital
what do you think?Yes saved at capital. You lose it only when you lose capital. good.
Quote
The attacker is the active army. The defender is committed to fight or flee under the stress of battle. If you look at it it makes more sence, because the trick is the defender retreats and the attackers efforts are rewarded by the capture of the territory, but in game terms this will ‘trap’ good units for counterattack that would be unrealistic
Ok fine as long as its justified we have change it to defender retreat first.
And yes like what you said, trapping units is unrealistic.ok fine.
Quote
OK under what you already wrote the attacker has the choice to not even move into the new territory.
No they were fighting in the territory. And now they retreated.
Just the normal model of attacker retreat.Quote
No victory at all. The attacker can choke on his first rolls and the defender retreats and nothing is gained except a new empty space, with the defender able to still get the IPC.
The defender had tactical victory in holding the territory. The attacker had strategic victory in killing the defending forces.The attacker enters a territory of some 500 sq miles to attack the defending enemy, and the defenders retreat after one battle, while the attackers now see that the defenders are retreating… what do they do? They also retreat! what kind of thing is this? Thats totally ridiculous. its like two scared animals running away from shadows.
Again it is up to the commanders. I probably wouldn’t retreat entirely. I’ll a bit behind to capture the new territory to stop the defender from getting the income as well as slow enemy advance.
The player that entered a territory must at least leave one unit behind. And the rule forcing defender to declare retreat first makes this possible and also protects the attacker. we want to encourage attacks and not defense. Dynamic vs. Static.
Quote
IN my view the combat is occurring already inside the defending territory., so the idea that the defender retreats and the attacker is basically also retreating from the territory… like they are scared chickens. not good.
That could be an undecisive battle.
But in the end if attacker retreat is allowed, then it is allowed.If the defender retreats for any reason : its not indecisive. If the Germans take Paris after the defender retreats thats decisive.
Quote
Quote
A bunch of infantry skirmishes with air suport and retreats. It killed the enemy but it can afford to remain behind and get surrounded by tanks, blocking retreat (AARHE capture roll).
Its already in the territory by moving into it. That amounts to a free move for infantry to be able to jump out. It already went against tanks and ‘won’ and now they “just run away to avoid capture” by these same tanks? This is not good modeling of warfare.That was a typo. It is meant to be “can’t afford to remain behind”.
And its not the same tanks.Like this…
Russia attacks Germany with infantry and artillery at the front line, kills most or all of the German forces and then retreats or partially retreats. Why?
Because many Germany tanks are coming in. If Russian forces remained behind they’ll be attacked by the reinforcement and blocked from retreat (AARHE capture roll).The rule must force the attacker to leave at least one unit in, or this falls into the category of tricks. These rules are meant to remove all tricks as a result of abstractions we create. So we model realistic warfare and remove the opportunity for tricks by both sides. If the attacker makes bogus attacks with no intention of actually capturing territory in an attempt to protect his forces, then we are not doing our jobs. Attack must include the risk of counterattack. What you propose is to protect and create a static battlefield condition.
Attack is Risk, defense is avoidance of risk. If you attack you should be sure you can withstand the counterattack. The "Everybody can leave the attacked territory " thing only makes sence under naval warfare or air warfare.
Suggested Topics
