Seems pretty good. Looks like a lot more money for the Allies. Might be required since the UK is so busted up. Seems like you’d always J1 given that the US is already making 5 bucks off Japan anyways.
AARHE: Rule files
-
no thats more like AARIL 1.0 :wink:
notice some changeswhat do you want to change?
language? structure? rules?discuss, agree, and do only one thing thanks
(eg. if its language then you change that and touch nothing else…)this is how I did it in the past months
someone sugguest, we discuss, agree and I update the changelogotherwise I’ll have to compare to current file side-by-side
slowly and painfully discover and discuss what you’ve changed! -
Yes its a step toward a less fat AARHE. Its got some cuts, but took the ideas and made the result less painfull to go thru as far as some of the more tedious steps in combat.
of course i have a latter file, but will look at CAP as a support for losing some of the naval flavor.
The air missions are all together
ASW tech went down a box
changes due to lots of playtesting of all of the included new concepts
ID is gone. Its too much seasoning and not enough flavor…so AA gun is back, but modified
the goal was not to leave ambiguity. It should require perhaps 2 reads to be clear.
Historical VC is gone… not enough bang for the buck
SPA was not utilzed well enough
-
seems to me that list is far from complete
I only glanced at the file and I can recall a few changes like IC cost
I believe you’re reinventing the wheel, AARHE:Lite has a simplified system already@Imperious:
Yes its a step toward a less fat AARHE. Its got some cuts, but took the ideas and made the result less painfull to go thru as far as some of the more tedious steps in combat.
we’ve reduced the complexity of AARHE alot since the peak
but if you still find it tedious (though I have a feeling you are thinking the old rules)
then you are hammering away at the wrong thing!
read AARHE:Lite again and we go from thereAARHE:Lite’s combat is not tedious
*minimal combat sequence change from LHTR
*most realism is done via hit allocationquite efficient
of course i have a latter file, but will look at CAP as a support for losing some of the naval flavor.
strange, very strange
you want to remove the tedious combat steps and yet introduce CAP again?
if we use a simple non-tedious system (like that in AARHE:Lite) and add CAP in…it’ll be so awarkard
everything is simple and suddenly there is CAP with big proportionsto refresh your memeory
we had CAP before! remember?
but got rid of it because it was just too much
players already have to do ASW allocation
the naval combat sequence was crazy with the mega combo of ASW + CAP + submarine fire + more…(AARHE:Lite don’t even have ASW allocation)
The air missions are all together
but air missions were already all together, in Conduct Combat
except for two paragraphs in Combat Move
*air mission, merely a reminder that you can now declare air missions in Combat Move besides LHTR’s ‘attack’ and ‘SBR’
*DAS/Air Reinforcement, this is NOT an air mission (this is merely a rule to allow relocation of air units before combat)anyway I haven’t been as keen as you have been with having “air missions” in a less fat AARHE
ASW tech went down a box
changes due to lots of playtesting of all of the included new concepts
ID is gone. Its too much seasoning and not enough flavor…so AA gun is back, but modified
the goal was not to leave ambiguity. It should require perhaps 2 reads to be clear.
Historical VC is gone… not enough bang for the buck
SPA was not utilzed well enough
only
*ASW tech down a box
*removal of historical victory condition
were discussedanyway these two and the other changes, if we do them, I have to do to both AARHE and AARHE:Lite and update the two changelogs
in the end
so how do you want to do this less fat AARHE?
I believe the best and shortest way is to work on AARHE:Litemake AARHE:Lite your 97% fat free AARHE
1. you sugguest, we tick off
2. I upate AARHE:Lite (and on AARHE too if relevant)
3. when its done, only then, you do your transform/language/MSWORD thingy
-
vision
I think this updated AARHE:Lite will bring great things for us
lets playtest electronically finally
you say the list of your changes is from playtesting
but I know, I know what the situation really is
you’ve always played AARHE marginally different with your group
at times, more differently than oldsalty or Bierwagenafter we update AARHE:Lite
we playtest against each other ok?
this project needs to more or less finaliseAARHE:Lite will be the result of our work after all this (since 2006)
a common point we agree on
where as AARHE full thing, everyone just play it differently -
you want to remove the tedious combat steps and yet introduce CAP again?
nothing more than AAP
also, the idea for what was cut was a tedious and not fun amphibious landing rules with all sorts of sets and different steps in each round.
The DAS from 2 space range is too powerful
ASW rules are totally confusing for new people. The new system is simple as can be.
Air with naval and air with land was a chore.
Submarine interactions on economy much easier with Xeno style rules. 2 sentences and its done. Not like 3 pages of ridiculous over complicated explanations and people cant get a clue whats going on.
Id defense is too complicated. the new system has faults…still looking at it. basically going with low luck rules on them with OOB rules.
Technology and diplomacy are perfect. don’t need any changes…only remove the useless extra pieces like SPA and transport planes. Nobody buys them anyway.
If you read the new ideas you clearly see the idea and dont have to read it a second time. Everything needs to be self contained in its own section and written in simple language.
The new ideas in many cases take the same flavor but model it simple.
AARHE lite was basically take the same complicated ideas but just hodge podge fewer of them on paper. the problem was the entire document needed to be a dumb down version, but we kept the same stuff. its not what the people want.
They just want to read the thing once or twice and start playing the rules need to be simple with no questions to be asked.
The volume of questions can only lead to conclusions that the rules were complicated and subject to interpretations.
I have played different versions because frankly the complicated rules blow people away… they are too much for normal AA players. I think this new version is the new lite version.
I would play a game, but not with a program like AAA
I would just set up the 1942 with no pieces and roll real dice on the table and i guess each round we decide if we retreat.
I need to first finish the file… i have 2 versions since the one i posted… ill get it done then you make point by point which need clarification or make new ideas. The only idea that seems weak is the AA guns, but ID is too complicated as it stands.
-
Tekkyy please just pull the concepts you less favor one by one and well have a look.
I will submit the file today
-
I need to first finish the file… i have 2 versions since the one i posted… ill get it done then you make point by point which need clarification or make new ideas. The only idea that seems weak is the AA guns, but ID is too complicated as it stands.
Tekkyy please just pull the concepts you less favor one by one and well have a look. I will submit the file today
I can’t believe you are still doing this
we are in a hole, please stop diggingI have been commenting on points only to be polite
do realise you are getting a bit rude?
(submit? you can release AARIL and AA50HE at any time lol…but right at the beginning of AARHE you said you don’t own the project)no discuss-adjust-agree-update process, no changelog…
its easy for YOU
but painful for me who needs to read your whole file side by side with the latest file
it takes me a lot of time to do this and I am afraid I can’t afford itmy position remains that we use the existing system of discussion-adjust-agree
I update the AARHE:Lite file as points are agreed/ticked offafter that, if the rules are short enough (like 5 pages 1 column)
then you can experiment with MSWORD, self-contained structure, etc wbut the rules must remain untouched for that purposeif you want to adjust AARHE (with 30 pages) then I strongly disagree with going MSWORD
for a small file MSWORD is ok, for large file its pain to update spacing
adding one sentence requires reviewing the whole document
I can tell you already OOB is not written with MSWORD
for many practical reasons(by the way you did this last time too
you came back from your other projects and decided to make a colour version of AARHE
you took an old 2.0 file, something like 6 months old
made wholesome changes
wasted months of past development time
took like month to discuss the new file just to get it back on its fleet
only then we get to start reviewing your changes)
@Imperious:
nothing more than AAP
whats AAP?
also, the idea for what was cut was a tedious and not fun amphibious landing rules with all sorts of sets and different steps in each round.
amphibous assault and naval combat were both simplified
we didn’t simplify it enough partially because you didn’t want to, if you recall you even introduced mountainous amphibious assaultThe DAS from 2 space range is too powerful
DAS from 2 space away is an old rule
I am really scared :-(
if you had to remove it you are reading the wrong fileASW rules are totally confusing for new people. The new system is simple as can be.
it’ll be interesting to see if it is simpler than AARHE:Lite 's system
Air with naval and air with land was a chore.
I’ll have to see
because you had no changelog its pain lot of reading for me to do
can’t comment yetSubmarine interactions on economy much easier with Xeno style rules. 2 sentences and its done. Not like 3 pages of ridiculous over complicated explanations and people cant get a clue whats going on.
hm, it was never any close to 3 pages
I hope you are not mixing AARHE up with your other projectsdon’t know what Xeno used, hopes its not the unrealistic convoy boxes
Id defense is too complicated. the new system has faults…still looking at it. basically going with low luck rules on them with OOB rules.
the search die attack die system is not nice
it was partially because we didn’t want to use a D12
anyway, low luck is scary and I hope your system doesn’t involve OOB’s “only one AA can fire” thingTechnology and diplomacy are perfect. don’t need any changes…only remove the useless extra pieces like SPA and transport planes. Nobody buys them anyway.
yeah we can easily transport plane, the rules are written in mind when the optional units transport plane is not selected for play
not so sure about SPA, we designed the numbers to give it a roleIf you read the new ideas you clearly see the idea and dont have to read it a second time. Everything needs to be self contained in its own section and written in simple language.
self contained has not worked inm history and unlikely to work
there is a reason why OOB and LHTR is written the way they are (phase by phase structure)it however may work if we do my sugguest of making a less fat AARHE:Lite
when its just 10-15 rules, it could work
this is one reason why AARe worked with the semi-self-contained structureand why it didn’t work well for enhanced realism rules, because it was too complex
The new ideas in many cases take the same flavor but model it simple.
yeah thats actually what AARHE:Lite does with production and combat
its much simpler than AARHEAARHE lite was basically take the same complicated ideas but just hodge podge fewer of them on paper. the problem was the entire document needed to be a dumb down version, but we kept the same stuff. its not what the people want.
for much of production and combat AARHE:Lite is far simpler than AARHE
there is nothing wrong with keeping th same stuff for simple things (like collect income phase being at the end of the turn sequence)to me its mainly the complex rules like air missions that you insisted on keeping when we created AARHE:Lite
They just want to read the thing once or twice and start playing the rules need to be simple with no questions to be asked.
The volume of questions can only lead to conclusions that the rules were complicated and subject to interpretations.this will depend on how simple you want it
an adjusted AARHE, it’ll unlikely be simple enough
however an adjusted AARHE:Lite can do itI have played different versions because frankly the complicated rules blow people away… they are too much for normal AA players. I think this new version is the new lite version.
we are much closer if we just adjust AARHE:Lite
while I can adjust AARHEI would play a game, but not with a program like AAA
wasn’t thinking of axis and allies simulators but more like electronics boards like Abattlemap
I would just set up the 1942 with no pieces and roll real dice on the table and i guess each round we decide if we retreat.
another way is to use the edit function of TripleA I guess
-
Quote
I need to first finish the file… i have 2 versions since the one i posted… ill get it done then you make point by point which need clarification or make new ideas. The only idea that seems weak is the AA guns, but ID is too complicated as it stands.Tekkyy please just pull the concepts you less favor one by one and well have a look. I will submit the file today
I can’t believe you are still doing this
we are in a hole, please stop diggingI have been commenting on points only to be polite
do realise you are getting a bit rude?
(submit? you can release AARIL and AA50HE at any time lol…but right at the beginning of AARHE you said you don’t own the project)I am just saying Lite is not good, AARHE can still exist but it still needs tweeks on language.
no discuss-adjust-agree-update process, no changelog…
its easy for YOU
but painful for me who needs to read your whole file side by side with the latest file
it takes me a lot of time to do this and I am afraid I can’t afford itYes it is time consuming, but much of the new concepts are concentrated. You have only too look at the core concepts to see the changes. I left much of the script the same. Of course the changes are the combat sequence, ASW, New AA gun system, removed some optional units, changes on placement, changes on some air missions, damage cost for 2 hit ships, and a few others.
I can bring up each new idea here and make it easier for you, who only need to comment on what you like/not like of each new idea. So i will do the work.
my position remains that we use the existing system of discussion-adjust-agree
I update the AARHE:Lite file as points are agreed/ticked offyes right, but not like the way it was done before… not like laboratory tests… a bit more free form.
after that, if the rules are short enough (like 5 pages 1 column)
then you can experiment with MSWORD, self-contained structure, etc wbut the rules must remain untouched for that purposeIts impossible to do this 5 page thing. Its more like 30 pages of simple ideas. AARHE cant be 5 pages or its not AARHE
if you want to adjust AARHE (with 30 pages) then I strongly disagree with going MSWORD
for a small file MSWORD is ok, for large file its pain to update spacing
adding one sentence requires reviewing the whole document
I can tell you already OOB is not written with MSWORD
for many practical reasonsI will be the editor this time, so i don’t have to deal with SPI syntax. You comment
(by the way you did this last time too
you came back from your other projects and decided to make a colour version of AARHE
you took an old 2.0 file, something like 6 months old
made wholesome changes
wasted months of past development time
took like month to discuss the new file just to get it back on its fleet
only then we get to start reviewing your changes)Thats because the language is prohibiting people from enjoying it. It was professorial. It was like a stuffy professor who never did anything but read and wrote in a manner that was way over the head of everybody. I am writing this time i know it will have more warmth toward who is reading it and less like a 1040a tax return.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on November 29, 2008, 12:22:00 am
nothing more than AAP
whats AAP?Axis and Allies Pacific CAP rules
Quote
also, the idea for what was cut was a tedious and not fun amphibious landing rules with all sorts of sets and different steps in each round.
amphibious assault and naval combat were both simplified
we didn’t simplify it enough partially because you didn’t want to, if you recall you even introduced mountainous amphibious assaultyes i was wrong and after playing OTB its clear Lite was not good.
Quote
The DAS from 2 space range is too powerful
DAS from 2 space away is an old rule
I am really scared sad
if you had to remove it you are reading the wrong fileDAS is now 1 space, due to playtesting.
Quote
Submarine interactions on economy much easier with Xeno style rules. 2 sentences and its done. Not like 3 pages of ridiculous over complicated explanations and people cant get a clue whats going on.
hm, it was never any close to 3 pages
I hope you are not mixing AARHE up with your other projectsno im not. I have just been playing AARHE for like last 6 months… not working on other stuff except the AA50 thing.
don’t know what Xeno used, hopes its not the unrealistic convoy boxes
I never ever have read the Xeno rules. I am just making a few convoy boxed for AA50… not AARHE, but as i said 1 million times. The rules for submarine attacks needed to be limited ONLY to a few cases, where you made it for everybody. Now its fixed back. just Germany can attack USA/UK and USA can attack japan. Thats all it needed to be and was never corrected and supplanted by an uber complicated structure of tracing IPC route and assigning damage to anybody.
Quote
Id defense is too complicated. the new system has faults…still looking at it. basically going with low luck rules on them with OOB rules.
the search die attack die system is not nice
it was partially because we didn’t want to use a D12
anyway, low luck is scary and I hope your system doesn’t involve OOB’s “only one AA can fire” thingstill working on AA. Not happy yet. Low Luck option is barely on the table.
Quote
Technology and diplomacy are perfect. don’t need any changes…only remove the useless extra pieces like SPA and transport planes. Nobody buys them anyway.
yeah we can easily transport plane, the rules are written in mind when the optional units transport plane is not selected for play
not so sure about SPA, we designed the numbers to give it a roleI think it was fluff that didnt improve the AARHE. it was a space waster.
Quote
If you read the new ideas you clearly see the idea and dont have to read it a second time. Everything needs to be self contained in its own section and written in simple language.
self contained has not worked inm history and unlikely to work
there is a reason why OOB and LHTR is written the way they are (phase by phase structure)it however may work if we do my sugguest of making a less fat AARHE:Lite
when its just 10-15 rules, it could work
this is one reason why AARe worked with the semi-self-contained structureThats unreadable. That thing is like writing cliff notes in grammar school. Its like AA slang speak.
and why it didn’t work well for enhanced realism rules, because it was too complex
Enhanced realism rules are great!. They are meant to not all be used but a platform of ideas for people who want just the sections they want more realistic.
Quote
The new ideas in many cases take the same flavor but model it simple.
yeah thats actually what AARHE:Lite does with production and combat
its much simpler than AARHEyes well for the most part it was not a proven sucess.
Quote
AARHE lite was basically take the same complicated ideas but just hodge podge fewer of them on paper. the problem was the entire document needed to be a dumb down version, but we kept the same stuff. its not what the people want.
for much of production and combat AARHE:Lite is far simpler than AARHE
there is nothing wrong with keeping th same stuff for simple things (like collect income phase being at the end of the turn sequence)Thats would never be changed. collect income must always be as it is in AARHE. Some of these ideas are core, and others are fluff and uninspired.
to me its mainly the complex rules like air missions that you insisted on keeping when we created AARHE:Lite
The air missions were not complicated, but the combat and movement rules for air units was complicated. Most of these air missions are an attraction to the AARHE experience.
Quote
They just want to read the thing once or twice and start playing the rules need to be simple with no questions to be asked.
The volume of questions can only lead to conclusions that the rules were complicated and subject to interpretations.
this will depend on how simple you want it
an adjusted AARHE, it’ll unlikely be simple enough
however an adjusted AARHE:Lite can do itno its all about the language, you have to write in a manner where a child can figure whats going on, but in less words. More words actually reform it as a complicated concept.
Quote
I have played different versions because frankly the complicated rules blow people away… they are too much for normal AA players. I think this new version is the new lite version.
we are much closer if we just adjust AARHE:Lite
while I can adjust AARHEwe cant go back to the Lite document. its already messed up beyond repair. It best to take the body of AARHE and tone down the complicated concepts.
Quote
I would play a game, but not with a program like AAA
wasn’t thinking of axis and allies simulators but more like electronics boards like AbattlemapQuote
I would just set up the 1942 with no pieces and roll real dice on the table and i guess each round we decide if we retreat.
another way is to use the edit function of TripleA I guess -
http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc
here is latest Lite proposal.
-
after the recent discussion of long posts
I strongly feel you are confused and don’t really know what you wantmore like 30 pages
AARHE is 30 pages NOW
removing some rules (eg. those you already mentioned) -> 25 pages
tone down complicated rules -> 20 pages
optional rules in separate file* -> 15 pagesso it could be 15 pages
it could be the new AARHE
it’ll replace AARHE:Lite as you wished in that we won’t need a AARHE:Lite anymore
since AARHE is simple enough for the masses*all those optional stuff like National Victory (removal pending only), National Advantages, etc are fluff and don’t add to core gameplay anyway
I can bring up each new idea here and make it easier for you, who only need to comment on what you like/not like of each new idea. So i will do the work.
if you bring up idea, we discuss, agree and tick off…then that is the existing system and all good
only thing changed is that you become the AARHE compiler
thats fine
but then you say this:yes right, but not like the way it was done before… not like laboratory tests… a bit more free form.
laboratory tests? are you describing the existing suggest-discuss-agree-update procedure?
if so then yes I bloody prefer that rather than whatever you meant by free formthe proposal files (as you call the links) you’ve been uploading should only be for reference
there must be a current file containing only changes that have been ticked offby the way, if you think you can’t handle it, you should don’t take on the role of the compiler
Thats because the language is prohibiting people from enjoying it. It was professorial.
lol now you are avoiding the question by talking about something else
I was referring to you taking an outdated 2.x file make 3.0
nothing to do with languge
purely an inconsiderate action wasting team timedon’t worry, if we succeed in making a “less fat” version of AARHE
then we have a chance of making dummy-talk style work for the rules fileyes i was wrong and after playing OTB its clear Lite was not good.
what the heck man? you gotta stop doing that :-P
you agree with me (that you were stopping us from having simpler combat sequence in AARHE) and in the same sentence you twist it to attack something else (that AARHE:Lite is not good)AARHE:Lite doesn’t have the AARHE combat sequence
eg.
naval combat seq: no ASW step, no Battleship fire …
amphibous combat sequence: doesn’t existEnhanced realism rules are great!. They are meant to not all be used but a platform of ideas for people who want just the sections they want more realistic.
glad you realise that
now you should know why AARHE (being an actual ruleset) can’t use the “silo structure” and should use the “timeline structure” of OOB/LHTRThe air missions were not complicated, but the combat and movement rules for air units was complicated. Most of these air missions are an attraction to the AARHE experience.
wow you are attacking AARHE’s core rules
(core rules = eg. collect income at end of turn, air movement 50% rule, defender retreat…)oh my, this is why we must not change rules before discussing
rather than commenting on the actual new rules I’ll have to check side-by-side and discuss why certain rules that I felt are simple yet important were removed and rules that I felt are complex and non-core to gameplay are kept or introduced…all before we can actually discuss new rules -
@Imperious:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc
here is latest Lite proposal.
my participation in discussion of new rules will start, after top level conflicts of the project is resolved
-
let me present the first section to discuss:
Income collection changes for western allies:
Axis players keep income for neutral conquests, but the western allies do not collect when they liberate, the Soviet player does collect for ‘liberated’ territories. Example: British player captures France and the IPC is subtracted from German totals and not added to British total. The Allies do not gain from taking territories.
Phase 1: Collect Income
Income
Add up values of territories and subtract loses due to economic attacks in enemy’s last turn. No territory income can be reduced below zero due to Strategic Bombing Runs (SBR) or Rocket attacks. Each player pays 1 IPC for every unit occupying a desert terrain. Pay 1 IPC for every land unit offloaded in an amphibious assault or airborne drop during your last turn. If you don’t have enough income to pay the balance will be carried to next turn.Convoy Raid Attack
Any German naval ships including submarines and surface ships located in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean roll one die and perform a convoy raid attack. The Allies (UK or USA) decide amongst themselves who pays the money lost. The American or British player in the Pacific Ocean can also do this against the Japanese player but only with submarines located within 2 sea zones of the Japanese Islands.Procedure: move sub in sea zone with convoy box roll d6
1-2= 1 IPC lost
3-4= 2 IPC lost
5-6= 3 IPC lost -
yep one section at one time, as ordered by 4.0 draft 2008-11-02
Axis players keep income for neutral conquests…The Allies do not gain from taking territories.
the “Axis is bad” theme eh…
don’t mind too much, except I want neutrals to be optional (I am thinking rules deemed too much for the masses shall be optional, we’ll discuss as we get to them)Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks - you written it under new Income heading…I am ok
Production Interruption - you didn’t include it under new Income heading so I presume you want to remove it….I am ok
Logistics - you written it under new Income heading…I want to remove amphibous assault cost and only have desert and airborne assault cost
Spending or Saving IPC + Convoy Raid - I am sure you want to remove my system…discussion below:
rehash the long convoy discussion many months ago:
I prefer submarines hitting IPC movement.
You prefer submarines doing damage via dice.
I don’t like your system hitting non-existing war shipping and enforcing history rather than base on current in-game situation.
You don’t like my system producing outcomes different to WWII.I am happy to move my system into optional rules.
So we use your system, but some tuning.*It doesn’t depend on current in-game situation we’ll say its hitting trade shipping instead of war shipping. So we’ll have to cap it. Don’t want it to be funny like Japan holds one island but is totally wasted (into 0 IPC) even though they hold all of mainland Asia. To go with your idea of reflecting historic shipping amounts and raiding capabilities, German can do good damage while US can do some damage.
*OOB’s 1 IPC per submarine was already distorting gameplay. So just 1 IPC will do. No need to roll d6. Less unneeded dice the better anyway.Proposal: Max 15 IPC for UK+US. Max 6 IPC for Japan. 1 IPC per submarine. No “convoy box”, descriptions like “Atlantic or Indian Ocean” will do.
Lend-Lease - if we keep Lend-Lease, we’ll have to add to convoy raid
Northern Altantic Ocean, German submarine against USSR
max damage is the Lend-Lease sentNaval repair - lets simplify
proposal text: Damaged ships are turned upright if its next to a friendly Industrial Complex. -
Quote
Axis players keep income for neutral conquests…The Allies do not gain from taking territories.
the “Axis is bad” theme eh…
don’t mind too much, except I want neutrals to be optional (I am thinking rules deemed too much for the masses shall be optional, we’ll discuss as we get to them)yes basically the allies liberate, the axis conquer. for IPC only the ‘plundering’ nation should benefit.
Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks - you written it under new Income heading…I am ok
Production Interruption - you didn’t include it under new Income heading so I presume you want to remove it…I am ok
yes one replaces the other. Income interruption was something like an old witches tale. It was so convoluted. IN this case we need right to the point rules that ONLY effect specific parties and Xeno style is the only way to get the point across easily.
Logistics - you written it under new Income heading…I want to remove amphibious assault cost and only have desert and airborne assault cost
ok we can remove the cost for landing troops. done. How bout we just have 1 IPC cost for non-land linked land territories
in Africa for each unit beyond the total transports?Example: Axis have 2 transports, so all units greater than 4 cost 1 IPC to maintain in Africa?
Spending or Saving IPC + Convoy Raid - I am sure you want to remove my system…discussion below:
rehash the long convoy discussion many months ago:
I prefer submarines hitting IPC movement.
You prefer submarines doing damage via dice.
I don’t like your system hitting non-existing war shipping and enforcing history rather than base on current in-game situation.
You don’t like my system producing outcomes different to WWII.All i would like to see is a very basic idea that subs can attack a nations economy of the island nations. Thats only UK and Japan. IN UK’s case Germany effects them and for Japan its USA. IN terms of what effects them we assign subs, but for Germany we add surface warships which are raiders preying on commerce. The old system as riddled with the possibility that Germans, Americans and Soviets could lose IPC from enemy subs. I suppose that did happen on a limited level, but we don’t want a game where everybody is building subs…we just want to add a little spice to model the actual warfare.
I am happy to move my system into optional rules.
So we use your system, but some tuning.ok optional rules, but in a separate appendix. along with all the other stuff, 1942 Italy, 1939 etc…
*It doesn’t depend on current in-game situation we’ll say its hitting trade shipping instead of war shipping. So we’ll have to cap it. Don’t want it to be funny like Japan holds one island but is totally wasted (into 0 IPC) even though they hold all of mainland Asia. To go with your idea of reflecting historic shipping amounts and raiding capabilities, German can do good damage while US can do some damage.
IN keeping it minimal we assign one allied and one axis nation these capabilities, because most of the lost shipping came from these two examples.
*OOB’s 1 IPC per submarine was already distorting gameplay. So just 1 IPC will do. No need to roll d6. Less unneeded dice the better anyway.
SO you don’t like the fun of rolling it out? I think its fun to get to roll dice and possibly get 1,2 or 3 IPC damage.
Proposal: Max 15 IPC for UK+US. Max 6 IPC for Japan. 1 IPC per submarine. No “convoy box”, descriptions like “Atlantic or Indian Ocean” will do.
Well a cealing on damage could work, but you have to assign the sea zones, or else US submarines anywhere in the board can say" i am attacking japan from Brazil" You have to establish specific ocean zones that apply.
Lend-Lease - if we keep Lend-Lease, we’ll have to add to convoy raid
Northern Altantic Ocean, German submarine against USSR
max damage is the Lend-Lease sentyes we need to add a Murmansk convoy box so Germans can sink LL IPC
Naval repair - lets simplify
proposal text: Damaged ships are turned upright if its next to a friendly Industrial Complex.I see your idea: to make it simple, but the problem is also that people buy the BB, then they just take free hits on them and retreat and never lose anything. To stop this we install a cost for the 2 hit ships, so they need to pay.
Perhaps just the D6 roll=damage cost and remove the second die? WE have to model the cost of doing battle or people take advantage of free hits which is bogus. Moving to your factory is possible in one turn for the most part in most games, but a cost linked would make it realistic so that your heavy capital ships are in dry dock for repairs of up to 6 months. Think like the lost BB’s at the Hawaii attack. it took years to get them back in order.
-
please post a file everytime we finish with a game phase
the first only would be MSWORD convert of 2008-11-02 version of 4.0 draft
with no changes besides those in “phase 0” and phase 1Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks - done
Production Interruption - removed
Logistics
Example: Axis have 2 transports, so all units greater than 4 cost 1 IPC to maintain in Africa?
it’ll be unrealistic cos say the German transports could be in the Baltic
also, think the goal at the moment is to
*simplify complex but important rules
*remove or make optional complex but unimportant rules (rules that only affect non-core gameplay anyway)Spending or Saving IPC - removed
Convoy Raid
SO you don’t like the fun of rolling it out? I think its fun to get to roll dice and possibly get 1,2 or 3 IPC damage
removing unneeded dice is only secondary
the primary issue is I think 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough alreadyLend-Lease - done
Naval repair
yeah ideally there should be cost and time
but we have to find something simple
cost: ok d6 is fine
time: you cannot use the unit this turn -
please post a file everytime we finish with a game phase
yes will do this.
-
Logistics
Quote
Example: Axis have 2 transports, so all units greater than 4 cost 1 IPC to maintain in Africa?
it’ll be unrealistic cos say the German transports could be in the BalticOh yes i guess i didnt say transports in Medd. OK lets remove logistics for now and come back.
also, think the goal at the moment is to
*simplify complex but important rules
*remove or make optional complex but unimportant rules (rules that only affect non-core gameplay anyway)Spending or Saving IPC - removed
Convoy Raid
Quote
SO you don’t like the fun of rolling it out? I think its fun to get to roll dice and possibly get 1,2 or 3 IPC damage
removing unneeded dice is only secondary
the primary issue is I think 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough alreadyok lets do this… which is the original idea from day one… 1 IPC but for each sub in specific ocean…or somebody buys subs out of harms way to qualify.
Lend-Lease - done
Naval repair
yeah ideally there should be cost and time
but we have to find something simple
cost: ok d6 is fine
time: you cannot use the unit this turnright 1 D6, plus you wait one turn for repair to conclude and its done at SZ adjacent to factory. Also, if you roll 1-2 perhaps you can repair at neutral -1/+1 ( the ones you can dock at)
-
ok lets do this… which is the original idea from day one… 1 IPC but for each sub in specific ocean…or somebody buys subs out of harms way to qualify.
yeah is has to be general enough yet not irrelevant
don’t want to bleed players neitherproposal text (informal langauge):
_Convoy Raid
You collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy submarine in its adjacent sea zone.The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 7 to 15 and 33 to 35. Maximum damage is 10 IPC.
The USSR player collects 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 3 and 4. Maximum damage is 5 IPC._
right 1 D6, plus you wait one turn for repair to conclude and its done at SZ adjacent to factory. Also, if you roll 1-2 perhaps you can repair at neutral -1/+1 ( the ones you can dock at)
yeah we’ll work on neutrals in phase 8 diplomacy
especially since I am leaning towards neutrals should be optionalproposal text:
Naval Repair
Damaged naval units can be repaired in sea zones adjacent to a friendly Industrial Complex. Roll a die and pay the value in IPC. Place the unit in the territory and return it to the sea zone upright in “Mobilize New Units” phase. -
i am going on a trip till wednesday so i cant respond till then.
-
Quote
ok lets do this… which is the original idea from day one… 1 IPC but for each sub in specific ocean…or somebody buys subs out of harms way to qualify.
yeah is has to be general enough yet not irrelevant
don’t want to bleed players neitherproposal text (informal langauge):
Convoy Raid
You collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy submarine in its adjacent sea zone.The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 7 to 15 and 33 to 35. Maximum damage is 10 IPC.
The USSR player collects 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 3 and 4. Maximum damage is 5 IPC.
I like the text, but not liking the IPC cap. I dont think it should be capped. Also, If a German sub is in specific SZ, i propose this:
German player takes all his subs and consults a chart and rolls a die. He indexes his result with his total number of subs and targets either UK or USA. I will make a chart for each. That way is not so fixed and the result can target one or the other.
You can also do it this way: all subs within 2 SZ of a UK or USA territory roll on these charts, so you need subs near those territory to qualify.
ON lend lease, you take total subs German has and references it to total Lend Lease, so if USA sends in more, then more can be sunk
example: Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 12 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 4 IPC
Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 20 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 7 IPC
Quote
right 1 D6, plus you wait one turn for repair to conclude and its done at SZ adjacent to factory. Also, if you roll 1-2 perhaps you can repair at neutral -1/+1 ( the ones you can dock at)
yeah we’ll work on neutrals in phase 8 diplomacy
especially since I am leaning towards neutrals should be optionalproposal text:
Naval Repair
Damaged naval units can be repaired in sea zones adjacent to a friendly Industrial Complex. Roll a die and pay the value in IPC. Place the unit in the territory and return it to the sea zone upright in “Mobilize New Units” phase.ok i am good with this. Diplomacy would be optional BUT included with the document.
Suggested Topics
