AARHE: Rule files

[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.

[tekkyy]

Ill compile some things and post.

wait
don’t you want to do it like how I proposed it?

it’ll be selection simple and robust

to let “Lite” be a stepping stone to AARHE
we need an easy transition to full AARHE
that means modifications only when its really neccessary

minimal changes, merely select rules to have

I’ve copied the index to an excel file
fill it in and we then compare our ranks

http://www.mediafire.com/?j9o2sts1yn1

[tekkyy]

I had more playtesting recently. Hosted two sessions at home. These players were new to Axis and Allies.
Now I am yet more feelings.

Logistic costs are quite expensive. Maybe 1 IPC per land unit in amphibious assault is too much.
How about 1 IPC per transport instead?

I noticed Capture of defender’s retreating army to not affect gameplay much. You roll for each tank in excess of defender at 1…just doesn’t do much. Could consider removing it.

Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement has complex restrictions, and we are talking about a passive turn decision. Currently there is one cycle delay and if defender does not survive first cycle then its too late combat is over and the reinforcement have to go back where they came from. Now then you have to remember those units as they can’t do non-combat reinforcement.
We have defender retreat already, so its not too bad to not allow land units ability to reinforce.
I recall you didn’t like it much anyway.

Air reinforcement (DAS) remains. But I am thinking to remove the delay (there is delay only when relocating from 2 spaces away). Or, only allow DAS a range of 1 (instead of the current 2).

Counter Air (CA) mission was actually used by people. Recall CA stops the defending air units from relocating to a different territory.
Was it the intention that those defending air units can defending in the current territory?

eg. UK performs CA mission at SEU so German air units at SEU can’t relocate to defend WEU. Now, if UK also invades SEU should the German air units at SEU be occupied by UK’s CA mission or should they be able to defend SEU?

Ground Interdiction (GI) mission was almost not touched. It can be removed if we go ahead and remove the land units combat reinforcement.

The simplified Naval Combat Sequence (from discussion season end of last year resulting in removal of screening and other bits) was under test. People still had a hard time getting the naval combat seqeuence.
This one will require a discussion season of its own when we do nothing else about AARHE but this.

I also wonder if In Amphibious Assault can be a bit simply. Its not thre sequence here. Its how only infantry fight in first cycle. Attacker needs to surive first cycle to offload tanks and artillery for second cycle. Its realistic to say they must secure the beach before offloading tanks but then again you wonder if its too tactical / below level of abstract.
Arillery firing in opening-fire and infrastructure defence raising infantry defence by 1 is already giving defender nice bonus.

[Imperious Leader]

Logistic costs are quite expensive. Maybe 1 IPC per land unit in amphibious assault is too much.
How about 1 IPC per transport instead?

==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?

I noticed Capture of defender’s retreating army to not affect gameplay much. You roll for each tank in excess of defender at 1…just doesn’t do much. Could consider removing it.

============= im working on something and i also have this opinion. Lets get rid of it, but i propose this to replace it:

If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.

Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement has complex restrictions, and we are talking about a passive turn decision. Currently there is one cycle delay and if defender does not survive first cycle then its too late combat is over and the reinforcement have to go back where they came from. Now then you have to remember those units as they can’t do non-combat reinforcement.
We have defender retreat already, so its not too bad to not allow land units ability to reinforce.
I recall you didn’t like it much anyway.

============== thank god almighty you finally see my point!. Get rid of this idea ASAP. God i really hated it, but allowed it to remain because im a team player. I am sending you the Iron Cross with oak leaves direct from Berlin HQ

Air reinforcement (DAS) remains. But I am thinking to remove the delay (there is delay only when relocating from 2 spaces away). Or, only allow DAS a range of 1 (instead of the current 2).

=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.

Counter Air (CA) mission was actually used by people. Recall CA stops the defending air units from relocating to a different territory.
Was it the intention that those defending air units can defending in the current territory?

================ Yes they can also perform defense. But only one offensive air mission and CA is one such operation. Im glad they see the value in this form of combat. Remember they fight at Air dogfight values.

eg. UK performs CA mission at SEU so German air units at SEU can’t relocate to defend WEU. Now, if UK also invades SEU should the German air units at SEU be occupied by UK’s CA mission or should they be able to defend SEU?

==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.

Ground Interdiction (GI) mission was almost not touched. It can be removed if we go ahead and remove the land units combat reinforcement.

================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.

The simplified Naval Combat Sequence (from discussion season end of last year resulting in removal of screening and other bits) was under test. People still had a hard time getting the naval combat seqeuence.
This one will require a discussion season of its own when we do nothing else about AARHE but this.

===== ok lets start one. Post how you like it revised and we will trim it.

I also wonder if In Amphibious Assault can be a bit simply. Its not the sequence here. Its how only infantry fight in first cycle. Attacker needs to surive first cycle to offload tanks and artillery for second cycle. Its realistic to say they must secure the beach before offloading tanks but then again you wonder if its too tactical / below level of abstract.
Arillery firing in opening-fire and infrastructure defence raising infantry defence by 1 is already giving defender nice bonus.

=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.

post it and we will have a look.

I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE

AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION…

Map is 85% done.

I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?

The invasion is amphibious assault.
Doesn’t matter how many landed. The current rule is 1 IPC per land unit.

You asked where was it landed.
Are you considering making it different?

Could make it…
no cost for normal terrain. 1 IPC for mountainous terrain (and then get rid of mountainous offload limit).

============= im working on something and i also have this opinion. Lets get rid of it, but i propose this to replace it:

ok so we remove Capture of defender’s retreating army

If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.

Well there is a problem with letting Armor attack another space. It breaks the game mechanics of each unit only fighting in one space per turn.

*if armor can attack multiple spaces per turn, then why not air units?
*it could get in the way of defender retreats, requiring more complexity to the rule

As you see if we break that game mechanics, it could gets messy.

============== thank god almighty you finally see my point!. Get rid of this idea ASAP. God i really hated it, but allowed it to remain because im a team player. I am sending you the Iron Cross with oak leaves direct from Berlin HQ

hehe yep, Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement is no more

=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.

I go for only adjacent planes can DAS

(rule is so much simpler not having to describe what happens in the different outcomes due to delay)

================ Yes they can also perform defense.

note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)

so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?

==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.

oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.

ah yes
even though we are removing combat reinforcement of land units, it can still stop non-combat reinforcement

===== ok lets start one. Post how you like it revised and we will trim it.

ok next thing to do
(one thing could be get rid of allocating air units to CAP/naval attack/ASW
air units in naval combat shall always dogfight if both sides has air units)

=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.
post it and we will have a look.

ok next thing to do
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)

I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE

AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION….

Map is 85% done.

I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.

Well its in Latex now. So I can give you a simple text file. A nice word file would take time me to format.
Alternative we could look into PDF editor (eg. Adobe) or Postscript editor (another output of Latex).

Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.

[Imperious Leader]

Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 23, 2008, 04:22:12 pm
==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?
The invasion is amphibious assault.
Doesn’t matter how many landed. The current rule is 1 IPC per land unit.

You asked where was it landed.
Are you considering making it different?

Could make it…
no cost for normal terrain. 1 IPC for mountainous terrain (and then get rid of mountainous offload limit).

I just want to know if this was a real invasion or you just landed to exchange a few pieces with the enemy and get pushed off. That type of thing is not what were after and as a tactic were trying to cut out. Invasions need to be a major undertaking where a substantial investment is offered and the goal is victory. In ww2 if Normany failed the allies would take 2-3 years to regroup and make another effort. it would have been disaster. This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

Quote
If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.
Well there is a problem with letting Armor attack another space. It breaks the game mechanics of each unit only fighting in one space per turn.

*if armor can attack multiple spaces per turn, then why not air units?
*it could get in the way of defender retreats, requiring more complexity to the rule

As you see if we break that game mechanics, it could gets messy.

ok nevermind. lets junk it.

Quote
=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.
I go for only adjacent planes can DAS

(rule is so much simpler not having to describe what happens in the different outcomes due to delay)

ok adjacent then.

Quote
================ Yes they can also perform defense.
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)

\one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player

so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?

no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.

Quote
==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

Quote
================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.
ah yes
even though we are removing combat reinforcement of land units, it can still stop non-combat reinforcement

yes and you also know that would be its mission on that turn. those planes cannot perform other missions. Its fair. Its basically the rule from AA D-day, but scripted for strategic game.

Quote
=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.
post it and we will have a look.
ok next thing to do
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)

Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?

Quote
I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE

AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION….

Map is 85% done.

I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.
Well its in Latex now. So I can give you a simple text file. A nice word file would take time me to format.
Alternative we could look into PDF editor (eg. Adobe) or Postscript editor (another output of Latex).

Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.

Send me whatever you got so i can get it on my page, plus links for lyx or whatever its called.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

I just want to know if this was a real invasion or you just landed to exchange a few pieces with the enemy and get pushed off. That type of thing is not what were after and as a tactic were trying to cut out.

thats ok
in AARHE you don’t want to “get pushed off”
you pay 1 IPC for land units to end the turn on a transport

This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)

one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player

you might be thinking of old rules

DAS is no longer an air missions but rather a simple relocation
(it is called air reinforcement to distinguish it from CA/SBR/GI air missions)

this is because current DAS rule is merely a relocation of air units
hence I might as well remove the DAS word all together

(in the old days DAS air units has to return to original territory
but that required a paragraph of complex rules to cater for battle outcomes and to fit into other rules like defender retreat
so now DAS simply gets to you relocate your air units)

so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?

no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.

oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

I mean like this…

during active turn, air units that perform CA/SBR/GI OR normal combat (1 thing)
this is so units fight in one space per turn
also this is so we don’t end up with sort of two combat phases (to resolve air missions and then to resolve normal combat)

during passive turn, air units perform normal combat only (1 thing)
unless it was targeted by CA, where it then additionally performs dogfighting against CA air units (2 things)

yes and you also know that would be its mission on that turn. those planes cannot perform other missions. Its fair. Its basically the rule from AA D-day, but scripted for strategic game.

yeah idea came from D-Day
though its a bit different
you don’t kill units and you don’t have the strange leave your units in enemy territory thing

(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)

Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?

or how about all attacking land units fight at 1 on first round?

and by the way we still let defending artillery fire in opening-fire on first round

Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.

Send me whatever you got so i can get it on my page, plus links for lyx or whatever its called.

I’ll emailyou a doc file for now.
(I got a pdf2doc program and converted it.)

Latex’ll require some learning. But its the ultimate document preparing system. Books are written with it.
You’ll need to install Miktek (a Tex engine for windows) and Lyx (a GUI latex editor).
Miktek http://miktex.org/Setup.aspx
Lyx http://www.lyx.org/download/

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

Quote
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)
one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player

====== Planes fighting dogfights and then defending or attacking is not two missions. Its part of the same mission except your clearing the sky of planes before your hits count against land targets. Thats still the same mission.

DAS is no longer an air missions but rather a simple relocation
(it is called air reinforcement to distinguish it from CA/SBR/GI air missions)

this is because current DAS rule is merely a relocation of air units
hence I might as well remove the DAS word all together

(in the old days DAS air units has to return to original territory
but that required a paragraph of complex rules to cater for battle outcomes and to fit into other rules like defender retreat
so now DAS simply gets to you relocate your air units)

DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military

Quote
Quote
so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?
no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.
Quote
Quote
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn
Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

I mean like this…

during active turn, air units that perform CA/SBR/GI OR normal combat (1 thing)
this is so units fight in one space per turn
also this is so we don’t end up with sort of two combat phases (to resolve air missions and then to resolve normal combat)

during passive turn, air units perform normal combat only (1 thing)
unless it was targeted by CA, where it then additionally performs dogfighting against CA air units (2 things)

++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission. A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.

Quote
Quote
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)
Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?
or how about all attacking land units fight at 1 on first round?

and by the way we still let defending artillery fire in opening-fire on first round.

==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.

[tekkyy]

This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

so since there is a cost penalty for “being pushed off”
could cost of amphibious assault be reduced to 1 IPC each transport?

==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.

so with that we get rid of art/arm offloading second cycle thing

could a similar simplification be made for amphibious assault on mountainous?
lets says all attacking land units fight at 0, on 1st cycle amphibious assault on mountainous
and then we get rid of offloading limit for amphibious assault on mountainous

DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military

A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.

yeah I undestand DAS is real military term
but thats not what the rule is about
the rule is about relocating air units in your passive turn, before conduct combat

DAS refers to a more generic thing in real life
like how you said “potentially flying to another territory”

DAS in current territory is simply normal combat

the rule is about DAS in adjacent territory, hence I sugguest called it just Air Reinforcement or whatever the military term is

++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission.

its not about calling it an air mission
defending air units can do what you call “basic defense” (ie. one cycle dogfight)
but that is the entire thing attacking CA air units gets to do this turn (ie. the same one cycle dogfight)

after doing this “basic defense”, defending air units also gets to perform normal combat (if that territory is also attacked conventionally)

thats like letting defending air units do two things at the same time

oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

so to not allow them do two things at the same time
I am think attacking CA air units should tie down defending air units
then they both only do one thing this turn

[Imperious Leader]

This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.
so since there is a cost penalty for “being pushed off”
could cost of amphibious assault be reduced to 1 IPC each transport?

+++++++++++++++++++++ok fine make it so…

Quote
==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.
so with that we get rid of art/arm offloading second cycle thing

could a similar simplification be made for amphibious assault on mountainous?
lets says all attacking land units fight at 0, on 1st cycle amphibious assault on mountainous
and then we get rid of offloading limit for amphibious assault on mountainous
Quote

+++++++++++++++ ok make it consistent for both…

DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military
Quote
A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.
yeah I undestand DAS is real military term
but thats not what the rule is about
the rule is about relocating air units in your passive turn, before conduct combat

DAS refers to a more generic thing in real life
like how you said “potentially flying to another territory”

DAS in current territory is simply normal combat

the rule is about DAS in adjacent territory, hence I suggest called it just Air Reinforcement or whatever the military term is

++++++++++++++ any time the defender send planes to assist in combat its a DAS mission. Not “combat reinforcement”

Quote
++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission.
its not about calling it an air mission
defending air units can do what you call “basic defense” (ie. one cycle dogfight)
but that is the entire thing attacking CA air units gets to do this turn (ie. the same one cycle dogfight)

after doing this “basic defense”, defending air units also gets to perform normal combat (if that territory is also attacked conventionally)

+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.

thats like letting defending air units do two things at the same time
Quote
Quote
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn
Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.
so to not allow them do two things at the same time
I am think attacking CA air units should tie down defending air units
then they both only do one thing this turn

The attacker given equal odds in terms of material is always at a disadvantage, because the defender can recover because the fight is over his own land, so travel time is cut and ability to defend is easier for him because he has less distance, while the attacker has to fly from far away with limited fuel and ammo so he can have limited time to deal with dogfights, etc.

CA is a way to milk down the enemy airforce. Eventually you will have to attack a territory with enemy planes and land forces and finish the job. But its definatly a good tactic when you are land units poor and air force rich.

[tekkyy]

++++++++++++++ any time the defender send planes to assist in combat its a DAS mission. Not “combat reinforcement”

ok we keep it as DAS

+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.

hehe actually I am saying the opposite
that they shouldn’t be able to do two things at the same time
but fine that just depends on our model of timeline

anyway defending air units shall not defend in two space
3 CA air units should tie down 3 defending air units, which shall not perform DAS

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.
hehe actually I am saying the opposite
that they shouldn’t be able to do two things at the same time
but fine that just depends on our model of timeline

anyway defending air units shall not defend in two space
3 CA air units should tie down 3 defending air units, which shall not perform DAS

======= ok fine so if they get CA, they are stopped from flying over to perform DAS, but they still can defend their own territory if also attacked.  It is possible for the attacker to do CA, to stop a ‘horde’ of defending planes from performing DAS and take it on the chin as they say, this rule will stop everybody from putting all the planes in one territory, because the attacker can send just one plane on CA and stop like 6 planes from doing DAS, but he will learn and disperse his air force into air fronts each supporting segments of the line. But the rule of 1:1 for CA missions is good also because that exception wont get ‘tricked’ by the system.

make it so.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

======= But the rule of 1:1 for CA missions is good also because that exception wont get ‘tricked’ by

yeah thats pretty much the idea
keep it realistic to minimize ability of players to trick the system

[Imperious Leader]

ok fine.

[tekkyy]

ALSO, get rid of that “you lose 4 ipc” thingy from the normal AARHE rules. I have 2 people also telling me it makes no sence and try to argue that all they have to do is get a sub in the atlantic and Germany loses 4 ipc if they own the Azores.
Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone part of a path* [see Spending or Saving IPC] 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.
This line must go away.  Japan owns like 10 island groups and USA buys 10 subs and takes 40 ipc off japan. Rubbish.

yeah we’ll remove it
its a careless side effect of trying to incorporate your island isolation idea earlier

note you cannot bleed a player like in the 2 examples you gave
its common in static systems, but never in AARHE

Azores is 0 IPC
generates no income, cannot build IC
no convoys related to Azores
ships at Azores sea zone can only hit other convoys