AARHE: Rule files

[Imperious Leader]

Oh yes exception. Starting income is issued before the game starts, so players have at least the starting money.
actually due to collect income being at the start of the turn, you do not collect money during game setup anymore
of you would have 200% money to spend on 1st turn

just in case you don’t know what I mean about China
if Japan takes China, with Sinkiang left its only 2 IPC
you can’t build an infantry with 2 IPC, and it can’t be saved, so it’ll be lost ok?

Your talking about phase 1-2 maps, i’m talking about 39 map specifically, but that what happens in that version because that map has only 2 Chinese territory’s. Nothing can really help it with just one infantry anyway, because soviets cant enter China except to liberate Japanese from it. So they take one on J1 and take finish it on turn j2, Soviets then come in and retake and get the income. yes its ok.

Quote
we have both the High seas rule and the blockade rule that applies to small islands inside one sea zone. These are different ideas and are also linked as ways to attack nations by economic warfare, like SBR
an “isolated” East Indices or Borneo should still be able to spend money on itself right?
so the isolation rule shouldn’t stop the island from generating IPC but stop it from sending IPC out

hence its quite similar to convoy rule
the difference is just 1 IPC per unit rather than 1 unit stops all

yes yes.

Quote
On this its up to you. I would prefer the roll out rather than “you just reduce no matter what”, in fact id really prefer a roll out where you can get lucky…
ok then lets not roll, to be in familiar ground with OOB and AARe
(dice value divided by 2 is quite a lot really, thats average 2 IPC per unit)

ok fine

Quote
Please post when finished. then we work on AARHE light.
yeah we can finish up if we can go without the co-occupation rule

Well if we not use this then we must remove the part where neither side occupies a territory where a huge battle took place ( the retreat of both sides idea) Then ill let the Co-OP rule die.

what you think?

[tekkyy]

hence its quite similar to convoy rule
the difference is just 1 IPC per unit rather than 1 unit stops all

yes yes.

by saying its similar I am saying this is why I think we don’t need the separate isolation rule

the convoy rule applies where isolation applies anyway

1 unit to stop all might be too poweful anyway?

Okinawa, 1 IPC, 1 naval unit to stop IPC from leaving the island
Phillipine Islands, 3 IPC, need 3 naval units to stop IPC from leaving the island

Well if we not use this then we must remove the part where neither side occupies a territory where a huge battle took place ( the retreat of both sides idea) Then ill let the Co-OP rule die.

yeah I’ve actually put the new stuff already

*defender declare retreat decisions first
*attacker must leave at least 1 land unit behind if no defending units remain

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
hence its quite similar to convoy rule
the difference is just 1 IPC per unit rather than 1 unit stops all
yes yes.

by saying its similar I am saying this is why I think we don’t need the separate isolation rule

the convoy rule applies where isolation applies anyway

1 unit to stop all might be too poweful anyway?

Okinawa, 1 IPC, 1 naval unit to stop IPC from leaving the island
Phillipine Islands, 3 IPC, need 3 naval units to stop IPC from leaving the island

Not correct. If the allies control the sea zone with just one ship ( not tranny) the ipc cannot be collected by say japan.

plus each US sub or uk sub in the pacific takes one ipc off japan. So japan needs to protect the sea zones that surround her Japanese holdings.

[tekkyy]

If the allies control the sea zone with just one ship ( not tranny) the ipc cannot be collected by say japan.

if UK controls East Indices Sea zone
the 4 IPC in East Indices can still be spent on East Indices itself right?

if yes, then its quite similar to the convoy sea zone rule and we won’t need explicitly say a isolation rule for islands

if not, then I feel its too powerful…one naval unit to stop all 4 IPC from Borneo?

plus each US sub or uk sub in the pacific takes one ipc off japan. So japan needs to protect the sea zones that surround her Japanese holdings.

I guess you are referring to a specific case of convoy sea zone rule
the convoy sea zone rule is generic, logical, and not arbitrary

USSR and US has no islands and won’t be hit at game start, logically

I shall post the actual wording

_Phase 1: Collect Income

Income
Add up values of territories and subtract loses due to economic attacks in enemy’s last turn. No territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Production Interruption
A territory’s income is reduced if it was attacked last turn. For every cycle of combat the income is reduced by 1 IPC.

Logistics
Pay 1 IPC for every unit to be offloaded in amphibious assaut or airborne drop []. Pay 1 IPC for every land unit to enter desert terrain or remain on a transport at end of the turn. The amount is refunded if these actions do not happen.

Spend or Save
IPC to be spent must have a path from the original territory to the destination territory. IPC to be saved must have a path from the original territory to your capital. IPC that are not spent and not saved is forfeited. This also applies to lend-lease.

Lend-Lease
US player may send up to 12 IPC Allies between Soviet Union and UK.

IPC Path
A path can consist of territories which your land units may go through as well as any sea zones. It can enter the sea from the original or adjacent territory, then uses the shortest path via sea to the destination territory or your capital. A closed canal [] and Strait Interdiction [] prevents the IPC path.

Convoy Sea Zone
Sea zones on an IPC path are convoy sea zones. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) in a convoy sea zone destroys 1 IPC. Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone._

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
If the allies control the sea zone with just one ship ( not tranny) the ipc cannot be collected by say japan.
if UK controls East Indices Sea zone
the 4 IPC in East Indices can still be spent on East Indices itself right?

if yes, then its quite similar to the convoy sea zone rule and we won’t need explicitly say a isolation rule for islands

if not, then I feel its too powerful…one naval unit to stop all 4 IPC from Borneo?

Yes one ship can stop the IPC from flowing from Borneo to japan or another Japanese factory. Japan must protect her shipping lanes with a picket line of warships. Remember they don’t have to attack the Soviets in the 39 version.

In the other versions, this is what happened, and remember only UK/ USA subs in Pacific can do the 1 ipc thing.
Do you think Japanese subs should be able to take off UK income in Indian/ pacific?

Their is a reason why we never attacked Borneo, because this was heavily guarded by Japan because it was valuable. it must be this way in the game too. It will create a real American commitment to the pacific to stop the Japanese.

Quote
plus each US sub or uk sub in the pacific takes one ipc off japan. So japan needs to protect the sea zones that surround her Japanese holdings.
I guess you are referring to a specific case of convoy sea zone rule
the convoy sea zone rule is generic, logical, and not arbitrary

This convoy sea rule is the thing we were talking about regarding the german subs and ships in atlantic reducing 1 ipc from uk or lend lease aid, and UK/ USA subs in pacific reducing Japan by 1 ipc, then yes its the same rule.

Phase 1: Collect Income

Income
Add up values of territories and subtract loses due to economic attacks in enemy’s last turn. No territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Production Interruption
A territory’s income is reduced if it was attacked last turn. For every cycle of combat the income is reduced by 1 IPC.

Logistics
Pay 1 IPC for every unit to be offloaded in amphibious assault or airborne drop []. Pay 1 IPC for every land unit to enter desert terrain or remain on a transport at end of the turn. The amount is refunded if these actions do not happen.

Spend or Save
IPC to be spent must have a path from the original territory to the destination territory. IPC to be saved must have a path from the original territory to your capital. IPC that are not spent and not saved is forfeited. This also applies to lend-lease.

Lend-Lease
US player may send up to 12 IPC Allies between Soviet Union and or UK.

IPC Path
A path can consist of territories which your land units may go through as well as any sea zones. It can enter the sea from the original or adjacent territory, then uses the shortest path via sea to the destination territory or your capital. A closed canal [] and Strait Interdiction [] prevents the IPC path.

you should explain these terms at some level, rather than introducing a new idea… people don’t follow what your saying when you just drop these terms and provide no explanation whatsoever. All the rules that bring up something must either 1) tell you were to find out more info ( the page #) or 2) explain the idea in the next section

Convoy Sea Zone attacks
**German surface warships and submarines can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if they are at war).

British and American submarines only can also reduce Japans income by 1 IPC for each submarine located in the Pacific, within 1 sea zone of any Japanese controlled territory.**

I really have no idea why this cant be written. Its totally clear what the hell were talking about. What you wrote could mean anything. Anybody who read this ONE time would never forget it. The way you write its like a head scratch from reading a IRS form.

[tekkyy]

Yes one ship can stop the IPC from flowing from Borneo to japan or another Japanese factory. Japan must protect her shipping lanes with a picket line of warships. Remember they don’t have to attack the Soviets in the 39 version.

though it would make sense the flow is prevent in both directions
hence we can include it under convoy sea zone rule
4X stronger at island sea zones

now its effectively the same
yet don’t need another rule
yet its realistic (easy to hunt shipping from an island)

and you can tune it if you want, to say 3X if you like

Do you think Japanese subs should be able to take off UK income in Indian/ pacific?

indeed
if Allies take Borneo, they too need to protect the Borneo sea zone

you should explain these terms at some level, rather than introducing a new idea…

yeah it feels like a new idea called “IPC Path”
I’ll word it different
IPC Path shouldn’t be a separate heading, it really is only an explaination for the “Spend or Save” heading

I’ll get rid of the shortest path thing
lets just say oil was relatively cheap and costs of diverting to a longer path is insignificant
you want it simpler anyway

I really have no idea why this cant be written. Its totally clear what the hell were talking about.

I’ll word it in a similar fashion, but it will be generic and logical, not specific and not arbitrary
also, the format you wrote it in requires a tedious listing of sea zones to keep the rules lawyer happy

_Economic Attacks
A territory’s income can be reduced due to economic attacks [ on page 14] in enemy’s last turn. No
territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Production Interruption
A territory’s income is reduced if it was attacked last turn. For every cycle of combat the income is reduced
by 1 IPC. No territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Logistics
Pay 1 IPC for every unit to be offloaded in amphibious assaut or airborne drop [ on page 6]. Pay 1 IPC for
every land unit to enter desert terrain or remain on a transport at end of the turn. The amount is refunded if
these actions do not happen.

Spend or Save
IPC to be spent must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (Industrial Complex or
Victory City). IPC to be saved must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (your capital).
This also applies to lend-lease. IPC that are not spent and not saved for any reason is forfeited.
*A path is a chain of territories your units may go through. It may also consist of sea zones, entering the sea
from the original territory or adjacent territory and leaving the sea at the destination. It may not go through
enemy controlled canals and waterways [ on page 8] and enemy controlled straits [ on page 7]. Stalinist
Xenophobia [ on page 8] and Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation [ on page 8] applies.

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone on a path* is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone. Exception applies if its an island sea zone,
where each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC.

Lend-Lease
US may send IPC to Soviet Union and/or UK. A combined total of up to 12 IPC can be sent._

[tekkyy]

I’ve uploaded an update

as you requested it is now only 30 pages (20 pages excluding NA and stuff)

[Imperious Leader]

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone on a path* is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone. Exception applies if its an island sea zone,
where each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC.

No no no.

replace that with this:

German surface warships and submarines can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if they are at war).

British and American submarines only can also reduce Japans income by 1 IPC for each submarine located in the Pacific, within 1 sea zone of any Japanese controlled territory.

USSR cant build a ship and reduce German income
Italy cant reduce American income

PLEASE STOP WITH THIS THING WHERE YOU NEED TO WRITE IN SUCH A GENERIC FASHION AND NOBODY KNOWS THAT IS IS A RULE FOR SPECIAL CASES AND DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERYBODY.

Its not at all the case where anybody can attack anybody on the high seas. Its only a Germany thing against UK/lend lease and a UK/USA sub thing against Japanese holdings within a sea zone.

Its too harsh against Italy in the 1939 scanario, and its too harsh against UK if Italy can do this, and Its too harsh for the Soviet to use their fleet to attack german IPC, Its too harsh for USA and UK to build a fleet and do this against the Japanese.

Secondly, where does this 4x thing come from???

My god!

This is what you will write:

In the first case convoy disruption:

German surface warships and submarines can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if they are at war).

British and American submarines only can also reduce Japans income by 1 IPC for each submarine located in the Pacific, within 1 sea zone of any Japanese controlled territory.

In the second case naval blockade:

Any island that is inside of a sea zone can be economically isolated by direct occupation by enemy surface forces. The owning player is deprived of income until he removes this threat with air/naval combat.

thats it nothing else.

Do you think Japanese subs should be able to take off UK income in Indian/ pacific?
indeed
if Allies take Borneo, they too need to protect the Borneo sea zone

ok expand then the rule to include German ships in any ocean zone, and expand to include the Japanese can attack and be attacked in Indian ocean.

Economic Attacks
A territory’s income can be reduced due to economic attacks [ on page 14] in enemy’s last turn. No
territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Production Interruption
A territory’s income is reduced if it was attacked last turn. For every cycle of combat the income is reduced
by 1 IPC. No territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Logistics
Pay 1 IPC for every unit to be offloaded in amphibious assaut or airborne drop [ on page 6]. Pay 1 IPC for
every land unit to enter desert terrain or remain on a transport at end of the turn. The amount is refunded if
these actions do not happen.

Spend or Save
IPC to be spent must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (Industrial Complex or
Victory City). IPC to be saved must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (your capital).
This also applies to lend-lease. IPC that are not spent and not saved for any reason is forfeited.
*A path is a chain of territories your units may go through. It may also consist of sea zones, entering the sea
from the original territory or adjacent territory and leaving the sea at the destination. It may not go through
enemy controlled canals and waterways [ on page 8] and enemy controlled straits [ on page 7]. Stalinist
Xenophobia [ on page 8] and Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation [ on page 8] applies.

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone on a path* is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone. Exception applies if its an island sea zone,
where each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC.

Lend-Lease
US may send IPC to Soviet Union and/or UK. A combined total of up to 12 IPC can be sent.

ok this is better.

[tekkyy]

your stance was not consistent across the post
which is often what happens with these large posts
even I do it sometimes
anyway my reply…

@Imperious:

PLEASE STOP WITH THIS THING WHERE YOU NEED TO WRITE IN SUCH A GENERIC FASHION AND NOBODY KNOWS THAT IS IS A RULE FOR SPECIAL CASES AND DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERYBODY.

its not just generic, its also about not being arbitrary

I see we have a very different philosphy
to me we don’t want historic replay
if the war went differently, it would be a different situation

but I see I’ve even gotten you to say this:

ok expand then the rule to include German ships in any ocean zone, and expand to include the Japanese can attack and be attacked in Indian ocean.

Its too harsh against Italy in the 1939 scanario, and its too harsh against UK if Italy can do this, and Its too harsh for the Soviet to use their fleet to attack german IPC, Its too harsh for USA and UK to build a fleet and do this against the Japanese.

actually its hardly harsh now, recall I got rid of the tedious “shortest path” rule

harsh again UK:
in 1939 scenario you made it Italy navy can’t leave Med Sea until it satistify the condition…so it won’t be hitting UK shipping anytime soon…

harsh for the Soviet to use their fleet to…:
soviets hitting Germany? that would be very late game…Germany is just like US and USSR…the start up situation is one lump of land…hardly any shipping (besides US lend-lease)

harsh for USA and UK to build a fleet and do this against the Japanese
is this a typo? this is precisely what you wanted in your nation-specific convoy rule

Secondly, where does this 4x thing come from???

4X as in 4 IPC
4 IPC is the value of the largest islands
that way we don’t see a separate isolation rule
I justified it here:
@tekkyy:

yet its realistic (easy to hunt shipping from an island)

[Imperious Leader]

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone on a path* is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone. Exception applies if its an island sea zone,
where each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC.

This is how i read this:

on a path*

1. what does “on a path mean”

Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.

2. so everybody who has a naval unit can kill one ipc from the enemy. This means that Soviet ship that survives can take one ipc from Germany every turn costing about 13 IPC per game. Thats not historical.

Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone

3. damage? going thru what now? What does going thru mean?

Exception applies if its an island sea zone,
where each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC.

4. OMG what is he getting out now? he just said it destroys one ipc, and the next sentence he says it destroys 4 ipc. Which is it?

Conclusion: This AARHE thing makes no sence to me its written like bollocks…ill use other house rules that are less scientifically written like a stuffy old professor

This is how a common person reads that paragraph.

Just write things in a manner where “what your getting at is exposed” and not hiding in the corner of the closet.

This is a true attempt to obfuscate the reader and please some idea about ‘rule Lawyers’

This is for normal people, not those types.

[tekkyy]

on a path*

1. what does “on a path mean”

ok instead of “on a path*” I should say “part of a path*”

come on
you saw the *
it is explained at the *, no ?

*A path is a chain of territories your units may go through. It may also consist of sea zones…

Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
2) so everybody who has a naval unit can kill one ipc from the enemy. This means that Soviet ship that survives can take one ipc from Germany every turn costing about 13 IPC per game. Thats not historical.

you asked already and I answered already
it doesn’t happen

I self quote

soviets hitting Germany? that would be very late game…Germany is just like US and USSR…the start up situation is one lump of land…hardly any shipping (besides US lend-lease)

maybe you don’t understand this
the rule don’t let you park your naval units at home (eg. Baltic) and start destroying enemy IPCs
you have to be located where you can hit shipping (eg. Altantic) and even then you can’t hit non-existent shipping

Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone

3. damage? going thru what now? What does going thru mean?
   damage is referring to the last setence (the 1 IPC)
   instead of “damage is applied” I’ll say “this this applied”

“going thru the convoy sea zone”…I’ll word it differently…“going via the path”
read the * if you haven’t already

4. OMG what is he getting out now? he just said it destroys one ipc, and the next sentence he says it destroys 4 ipc. Which is it?

maybe you didn’t see it but it says Exception applies if its an island sea zone
so its normally 1 IPC
but for islands, isolating them is easier, so its 4 IPC

anyway I’ll make word it as “4 IPC instead”

This is a true attempt to obfuscate the reader and please some idea about ‘rule Lawyers’
This is for normal people, not those types.

its not like that
LHTR increased the level of satisfaction for both normal people and rule lawyers

if rule lawyers find something wrong, it is only a few more games before normal player would complain too

but it seems you dont yet understand the functionalities aspect
after you misunderstand the rule, you’ll be able to sugguest how to change the wording

_Spending or Saving IPC
IPC to be spent must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (Industrial Complex or Victory City). IPC to be saved must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (your capital). This also applies to lend-lease. IPC that are not spent and not saved for any reason is forfeited.
*A path is a chain of territories your units may go through. It may also consist of sea zones, entering the sea from the original territory or adjacent territory and leaving the sea at the destination. It may not go through enemy controlled canals and waterways [] and enemy controlled straits []. Stalinist Xenophobia [] and Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation [] applies.

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone part of a path* [see Spend or Save] is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC. This is applied to IPC going via the path. Exception applies if it is an island sea zone, then each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC instead._

[Imperious Leader]

A)

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone part of a path* [see Spend or Save] is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC. This is applied to IPC going via the path. Exception applies if it is an island sea zone, then each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC instead.

Spending or Saving IPC
IPC to be spent must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (Industrial Complex or Victory City). IPC to be saved must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (your capital). This also applies to lend-lease. IPC that are not spent and not saved for any reason is forfeited.
*A path is a chain of territories your units may go through. It may also consist of sea zones, entering the sea from the original territory or adjacent territory and leaving the sea at the destination. It may not go through enemy controlled canals and waterways [] and enemy controlled straits []. Stalinist Xenophobia [] and Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation [] applies.

B)

Convoy disruption:
German surface warships and submarines located in the Atlantic or Indian ocean can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if the latter is at war).

British and American submarines only can also reduce Japans income by 1 IPC for each submarine located in the Pacific, within 1 sea zone of any Japanese controlled territory.

Naval blockade:
Any island that is inside of a sea zone can be economically isolated by direct occupation by enemy surface forces. The owning player is deprived of income until he removes this threat by eliminating the enemy naval threat.

So the question becomes which A or B makes the idea more clear on whats going on in the game?

I choose B

If i saw A: I would 1) i would either stop reading AARHE or  2)not play with that rule.

If anybody is reading this besides us please vote on which sounds easier to figure out>

[tekkyy]

B) is purely about naval
A) has other rules in it

but saying I choose B are you saying you want to get rid of the land restrictions?
business as usual when a territory goes under blockade? I hope not

you’ve voiced concerns about existing system being unrealistic, I’ve answered them and explained to you why what you said can’t happen…because the rule is logical and keeps it real
(eg. US is one lump of territory, so don’t worry! you can’t really hurt them in convoy raiding unless US takes more islands, even then its proportional, you can’t BANKRUPT the US by hitting one small island like Hawaii)

I don’t know what you stopped the discussion
has my last post has addressed all concerns you had and you have no more concerns?

lets be productive

its simple
1. decide on the functionality
2. adjust the wording

if you want
after we decide on the functionality, YOU write the wording ok?

---

If I saw B) I also would not play the rule

its like OOB German NA
the arbitrary nature of the rule makes this…

*US controls Phillipines and has a fleet at z49, Japan does not have enough force to take it but blockades Phillipines by controling surrounding sea zones…somehow nothing happens, Phillipines IPC unrestrictively goes towards US home

*Japan takes Madagascar, far away from Japanese colonies UK has 5 submarines adjacent to it, they hit Japan for 5 IPC per turn

*5 Germany destroyers at South America (the other sideof the globe) hits UK shipping and lend-lease for 5 IPC per turn

damage should be related to shipping, you can’t just BANKRUPT a player by hitting non-existent shipping

been there, done that
this is why we created the AARHE convoy system (from 2006) in the first place, how can you forget?
it keeps convoy raiding true to actual shipping

its logical+flexible rather than arbitrary+static
so not only is it more realistic, but if the game turns out different to actual WWII…the rule continues on and no funny situations

[Imperious Leader]

Ok lets have you finish everything and we will have a look.

Make sure to add the 1939 set up and include one extra UK infantry in India and Transjordan

Also give the US player one destroyer to the south west of Hawaii to block Japanese from going from the south to attack the American carrier group. ( its a block)

Give France 2 extra Infantry in france.

Thats the balanced fix on the setup.

[tekkyy]

Ok lets have you finish everything and we will have a look.

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080303_AARHE.pdf

Still open to idea on simplifications. But prefer rules that remains realistic even if players fought differently to history.

For AARHE for dummies, methodology is important.
At this stage my take is that dummies should be both for simpler gameplay as well as potential stepping stone to full AARHE.
That means it should be a subset rather than a modification.

First we decide which phase and victory condition to disable.
Then inside the phases that remains we decide which heading/paragraph to disable.

Make sure to add the 1939 set up

last time we discussed packaging files together we’ve only agreed on
*player aids in 1 file
*all of a particular variant in 1 file

I did not come to agreement with
*putting 1939, 1941, 1942 Italy, and future maps info in the main rules file

the reasoning was…

---

Earlier I spend some time to achieve your other request of shrinking the document and its now just 30 pages.
(20 pages excluding NA and NVC)
Lets continue to have the 1939 variant rules (and 1942 Italy…and other future maps…) separate from main rules file to not ruin that.

Adding 1939 setups (and 1941 and 1942 Italy and other future maps…) to the main rules file is going to make the document long again.

Also its better to have the 1939 setups next to the 1939 rules isn’t there anyway. So I feel they should be inside the variant’s rules file.

---

Thats the balanced fix on the setup.

AARHE 1939 discussion back to AARHE 1939 thread.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10338.msg284049#msg284049

[Imperious Leader]

ok thats fine.

[tekkyy]

I’ve placed the player aids in one folder.

Its listed in the 1st post.

[Imperious Leader]

OK then its looks great BTW.

Now we work on AARHE: Light

Objective is rules in under 10 pages ( not including NA’s)

what ideas should be included:

I think the new pieces included
historical diplomacy ( neutrals become allies on set turn)
Historical tech ( same thing as above)
Defender retreat
simplify ASW rules
victory cities used ( no historical Victory conditions)
Some air missions dumped / modified
In combat normal allocations
Keep dogfights separate until sky is cleared
Naval combat having some simplifications
ON builds no variable costs except each player can build a set number of infantry at 2 ipc
Keep Strategic Redeployment

[tekkyy]

we should keep the discussion simple and work purely in "heading"s
avoiding modifications, cos that’ll make transition to full AARHE confusing
(also we want to avoid arguing over rules, I mean we are not making to a new rule set…we are making AARHE Lite)

actually its “Lite” not “Light” right?

10 pages is still discouraging to new players
how about 5 pages?
(National Advantages and Strategic Redployment are optional anyway, so I think they shouldn’t be included)

we start with BLANK and here we go…

stage 1 - game sequence - I believe we are in agreement, if nothing this stage is complete
*VCs, win via VCs
*all axis followed by all allies, and special Russia opening

stage 2 - turn sequence
I am thinking same as AARHE except no diplomacy phase
neutrals joining at set turn can quite funny, so migh as well leave them out

stage 3 - individual game phases
we must not spoil ourselves and add everything
must be distinctly simpler from full AARHE
I am thinking we’ll take turns to nominate 1 or 2 headings at a time
each turn you really have to ask yourself what do you think is the most important…and then nominate it

[Imperious Leader]

how about 5 pages?

That would be like a holy grail. Lets aim for like 5-8 pages.

Ill compile some things and post. Lets leave out the neutrals unless its the 1939 version which should be historically scripted dip. and tech.

It can be Lite or Light. In fact your in charge of what its called.

The idea is to taste a weak version of many of the ideas written in 6th grade English so anybody can understand it. No explanations or references, each idea is self contained so you don’t need to cross reference. Lets keep the headlined concepts in and leave out chrome.

It should be able to be read in 20 minutes.