AARHE: Rule files

[Imperious Leader]

proposal text
Convoy Raid

You collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy submarine in the Island’s sea zone.

The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 7, 8, 11, and 12.

The Allies receive 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 1,2, 3, 4, 9 and 10. Damages in sea zone 3 and 4 can only be applied to USSR.

I think the UK and USA should be expanded: USA east coast and gulf of Mexico/west indies/Brazil. UK: some SZ off africa and off Middle east

Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2008, 12:29:25 pm
I like the text, but not liking the IPC cap. I dont think it should be capped.
yeah ok
I’ve got rid of the cap as you wish, if you change your mind we can set a new higher limit

The reason for capping is that the new system models hitting general shipping rather than flow of war shippping. War economy has more immunity than general economy. Also, wouldn’t want to see players bleed ridiculously.

For UK to bleed that much Germany would need to build way too many subs and lose the game elsewhere.

Quote
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.
Consulting a chart might be too much. The new system should be simpler than the old system.
Recall the primary reason for not using dice is that 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough. Secondary reason was so we have a simpler rule.

ok we keep it simple.

Quote
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.
Wait. Remember you wanted to have specific sea zone so the game is not decided in Brazil lol.
Also, it was your idea that US, Germany and USSR be not affected by Convoy Raids. Only UK, Pacific and Lend Lease.

ok ok

Quote
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
yeah ok
no limits to lend lease damage

ok ok

Quote
ok i am good with this. Diplomacy would be optional BUT included with the document.
yeah ok
since it is a phase in the turn sequence, its reasonable to give exception to Diplomacy and include in the main document

ok ok ill make these changes and revise text. Ill post it tomorrow or monday. Then we continue on next section.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

I think the UK and USA should be expanded: USA east coast and gulf of Mexico/west indies/Brazil. UK: some SZ off africa and off Middle east

not hitting USA and Russia now so don’t need Mexio Brazil etc

for UK I did thought about South Africa or Egypt SZ
but its unrealistic for UK to transport through Med Sea if Axis took Egypt
to avoid complex rule to cater for Med Sea route vs. South Africa route…think its neat to only have East Altantic, the final destination for both route

The reason for capping is that the new system models hitting general shipping rather than flow of war
shippping. War economy has more immunity than general economy. Also, wouldn’t want to see players bleed ridiculously.

For UK to bleed that much Germany would need to build way too many subs and lose the game elsewhere.

yeah for simplicity I agreed to remove the cap away and adjusted the proposal text
was just stating a strange situation that could happen
all good

ok ok ill make these changes and revise text. Ill post it tomorrow or monday. Then we continue on next section.

hopefully the new file follows our discussion sharply
yeah already looking forward to phase 2: purchase units and developments

also we could do phase 0 first
I was thinking we could remove
*references to websites to download AARHE
*references to websites to buy game pieces
*victory cities with 0 victory city points (since the only purpose of them was to repair naval units but we only allow that at an Industrial Complex now)

[Imperious Leader]

hopefully the new file follows our discussion sharply

yes exactly.

yeah already looking forward to phase 2: purchase units and developments

also we could do phase 0 first

WE should do the parts in the same sequence as they are printed in the file so its easy to track.

I was thinking we could remove
*references to websites to download AARHE
*references to websites to buy game pieces
*victory cities with 0 victory city points (since the only purpose of them was to repair naval units but we only allow that at an Industrial Complex now)

Lets not get hasty till we are done and need to integrate it as replacement for lite 1.0

[tekkyy]

if you are busy I can do the compiling
this file contains only Phase 1: collect income

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081218experimental.doc
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081218experimental.pdf

check to make sure we understood each other correctly

---

Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments

Variable Industrial Complex Costs, Scorched Earth
Thinking of putting it together under one heading Industrial Complex.
You proposed “cost = 15 - IPC”. I am ok.

Variable Infantry Costs
In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you proposed “infantry per turn = IPC”. I am ok but I want “build infantry at VC only” rule to remain.
You didn’t proposed infantry cost changes. No changes from me at this stage.

Purchase Developments
In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you didn’t proposed changes. No changes from me at this stage.

[Imperious Leader]

Yea i have been busy…

Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments

Variable Industrial Complex Costs, Scorched Earth
Thinking of putting it together under one heading Industrial Complex.
You proposed “cost = 15 - IPC”. I am ok.

yes this is a simple way to do it.done.

Variable Infantry Costs
In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you proposed “infantry per turn = IPC”. I am ok but I want “build infantry at VC only” rule to remain.
You didn’t proposed infantry cost changes. No changes from me at this stage.

Yea infantry at VC limited by the value of the VC in addition to the rule from OOB. But at original home factories you should be able to build non infantry pieces limited by IPC PLUS infantry also at this level again limited by IPC

So at Germany they can make 10 infantry and 10 units of any other type except infantry…. Important to know that you cant build 11 or more infantry in Germany at any time.

Purchase Developments
In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you didn’t proposed changes. No changes from me at this stage.

Ill post the next section tonight.

[Imperious Leader]

Tunisia

was not spelled correctly.

[tekkyy]

But at original home factories you should be able to build non infantry pieces limited by IPC PLUS infantry also at this level again limited by IPC

Yeah. But this limit already applies to all IC.
Original or not, an IC can only produce a number of non-infantry units up to its IPC value.

Purchase Developments
Can we simplify this one. Instead of the current free/purchasable

Germany 2/4
Italy  1/2
Japan 1/3
Soviet Union 1/3
United Kingdom 1/2
United States 2/4

Can we just make it

Germany and US 2/4
Other 1/2

Victory City (non-binding discussing, just an understanding)
now that we have a simpler infantry limit, we no longer require victory city points varying between 0 and- 6 points. I sugguest simplify to major cities 2 points and minor cities 1 point. We’ll talk about this when we get back to introduction / game sequence.

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
But at original home factories you should be able to build non infantry pieces limited by IPC PLUS infantry also at this level again limited by IPC
Yeah. But this limit already applies to all IC.
Original or not, an IC can only produce a number of non-infantry units up to its IPC value.

I am saying something different. at original home factories you are limited as follows:

1. you can build non infantry up to IPC value
2. you can ALSO build infantry up to IPC value

so in berlin you can build 10 tanks and 10 infantry, but you cant build 15 infantry and 5 tanks. This is not OOB rules at all.
this is different. AT VC you again go by the value of IPC and can build only infantry at this value.

Purchase Developments
Can we simplify this one. Instead of the current free/purchasable

Germany  2/4
Italy  1/2
Japan 1/3
Soviet Union 1/3
United Kingdom 1/2
United States 2/4

Can we just make it

Germany and US 2/4
Other 1/2

Isn’t this too soon?

Victory City (non-binding discussing, just an understanding)
now that we have a simpler infantry limit, we no longer require victory city points varying between 0 and- 6 points. I sugguest simplify to major cities 2 points and minor cities 1 point. We’ll talk about this when we get back to introduction / game sequence.

I think alot of discussion went on these points and for various reasons they were assigned this value and its printed on the map, so not sure if changes would ruin the game. They focus historical based objectives from these values. If it was 2 and 1 players would treat the VC as the same and not focus on the strong points… Thus battle of Stalingrad may never develop

[tekkyy]

so in berlin you can build 10 tanks and 10 infantry, but you cant build 15 infantry and 5 tanks. This is not OOB rules at all.

yeah I know
I confirm with another example
Southern Europe can build 6 tanks and 6 infantry

Isn’t this too soon?

what do you mean by “too soon”?

you mean too rushed ?
I am not sugguesting this change for balance
just trying to say it warrants a simplification

you mean too early in game sequence / document ?
in AARHE we buy developement dice before combat, and roll for them after combat
so you can’t see tech result and perform combat accordingly
nor can you see combat result and buy tech dice accordingly
hence OOB’s the phase is called “purchase unit and developments”

but if you feel its too tedious to make players buy the dice first and roll for them later in the turn
then we let them buy and roll in same game phase like OOB

I think alot of discussion went on these points and for various reasons they were assigned this value and its printed on the map, so not sure if changes would ruin the game. They focus historical based objectives from these values. If it was 2 and 1 players would treat the VC as the same and not focus on the strong points… Thus battle of Stalingrad may never develop

yeah, that discussion was back in 2006, you me and The Duke mainly
we used a few matrices to determine infantry raising capacity of nations
this became the VCP values
it is used for infantry build limit

we now have a new infantry build limit (the victory city’s territory’s IPC)
realism is still there, as we have “variable infantry costs”

VCPs is now only used for victory condition
so I sugguested a simplification to make it easier (eg. 2 VCP for Berlin, Rome, London….1 VCP for Kiev, Cairo…)
if you think its too simple we can have up to 3 points, or even 4 points

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
Isn’t this too soon?
what do you mean by “too soon”?

you mean too rushed ?
I am not sugguesting this change for balance
just trying to say it warrants a simplification

you mean too early in game sequence / document ?

No its fine.

in AARHE we buy developement dice before combat, and roll for them after combat
so you can’t see tech result and perform combat accordingly
nor can you see combat result and buy tech dice accordingly
hence OOB’s the phase is called “purchase unit and developments”

but if you feel its too tedious to make players buy the dice first and roll for them later in the turn
then we let them buy and roll in same game phase like OOB

yes at the same time. good. construct proposed text.

Quote
I think alot of discussion went on these points and for various reasons they were assigned this value and its printed on the map, so not sure if changes would ruin the game. They focus historical based objectives from these values. If it was 2 and 1 players would treat the VC as the same and not focus on the strong points… Thus battle of Stalingrad may never develop
yeah, that discussion was back in 2006, you me and The Duke mainly
we used a few matrices to determine infantry raising capacity of nations
this became the VCP values
it is used for infantry build limit

It was created for more than one purpose. It conveyed mainly the value of these centers for the focus of battles, so the value cant be the simple 1 or 2 thing… thats would totally ruin the work. They had a secondary purpose of limiting infantry placement and costs.

VCPs is now only used for victory condition
so I sugguested a simplification to make it easier (eg. 2 VCP for Berlin, Rome, London….1 VCP for Kiev, Cairo…)
if you think its too simple we can have up to 3 points, or even 4 points

perhaps 0-5 scale, but the victory condition value was based on this index, so going 1/2 system would require many hours of thought with marginal change in play. keep the thing as it is. Thats not what was complicated about AARHE. Its everything else.

[tekkyy]

yes at the same time. good. construct proposed text.

all we are doing is removing a rule (buy tech dice during purchasing units)
so we just remove the paragraph Purchase Developments

It conveyed mainly the value of these centers for the focus of battles, so the value cant be the simple 1 or 2 thing… thats would totally ruin the work.

perhaps 0-5 scale, but the victory condition value was based on this index, so going 1/2 system would require many hours of thought with marginal change in play.

hehe the one hand you say its important and on the other hand you say its marginal
anyway we’ll talk about this when we get to that part of the document (intro bit before phase 1)

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081222experimental.doc
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081222experimental.pdf

Tunisia spelling fixed
phase 2 as discussed added
two lines of phase 6 written down (your new build limit)

check to see if we understood each other correctly

[tekkyy]

after you’ve check we understood each other correctly

Phase 3: Combat Move

Air Movement - OOB’s CM+NCM combined air movement is unrealistic
so AARHE has the “50% limit”
our concept is simple
and removes the need to remember unsed points, which intersting makes it less tedious than OOB
so I think we should keep it

the wording “may use up to 50% of movement points” might sound confusing
we can reword it
air units may move a number of spaces up to the move value during combat move
air units may move a number of spaces up to the move value during non-combat move
fighter move at 3
bomber move at 5

Airborne Drop - optional rule, discuss later

Naval Movement - I believe you both transports and submarines to not control sea zones, I was ok with transports but not ok with submarines
I am now ok with it
so I remove the dice roll bits after Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy Submarines and/or Transports. and just have that

Naval Movement - also, do we keep the Damaged Aircraft Carrier and Cruiser move at 2. ?

Naval Transport - this allows you to offload into friendly territory during Combat Move, a small thing that I thought of, its only for a rare issue…I sugguest remove

Naval Occupation - this allows your naval units remain (not move in) in hostile sea zone without entering combat, I sugguest keep

Submarine Movement - this lets ASW units roll a dice to stop hostile submarines from going through the ASW units’ sea zone
lets simplified? just go along with the big destroyer-submarine 1-to-1 idea?
Submarines may move through hostile sea zones. However, each enemy unit capable of Anti-Submarine Warfare
(ASW) ends one submarine’s move.

[Imperious Leader]

This is Phase three.

Phase 3: Combat Move

Land Movement
All units may move according to their movement restrictions and all land units with any unused movement points left over may allocate it to move to any other territory, even to reinforce or leave territories they had just attacked.

Air Movement
All fighters do not have to be launched before movement of aircraft carrier. They can move their full movement as long as the final movement is on a Carrier or Land territory. Players may not land on each others Carriers. Air units are not subject Anti-Air when overflying hostile territories. This only occurs when they attack a territory that contains an AA gun.

Airborne Drop
Bomber may act as transport for one airborne infantry to a hostile territory. Both units must start in the same territory. The airborne infantry may not retreat from this combat. If optional unit transport plane is taken only it may act as transport for airborne infantry. Unit offloaded before “Conduct Combat”. The bomber must drop off the airborne troops in the first enemy territory encountered.

Naval Movement
Naval units may go through and ignore sea zones consisting of only hostile submarines or transports. But if you move your unescorted transports into or thru sea zones occupied by enemy submarines, each defending submarine rolls its combat value. Each successful roll sinks one transport. Remaining transports may continue their operations.

Naval units
Naval units may remain in hostile sea zone without entering combat. This situation arises from newly built naval units, naval combat retreat via break-off, or withdrawal via submerge.

Submarine Movement
Submarines may go through hostile sea zones except zones containing an ASW unit. Each defending ASW unit rolls a die at ASW search value. Each successful roll forces one submarine to enter combat. Unforced submarines may choose to enter combat as well in that sea zone or continue their original movement. These rules are explained in detail latter.

Strait Interdiction
You may fire at hostile non-submarine naval units moving between the sea zones if you hold the respective territories. Roll 1 die against each unit destroying it on its hit value. Movement between the sea zones must be done in “Combat Move” if enemy controls the respective territories.

Territories Sea Zones Hit Value
Gibraltar   12/13 2
United Kingdom     6/7 1
Western Europe     6/7 1
Turkey   15/16 2

Terrain
All land units must stop on entering desert, snowy, or mountainous terrains. Tank (and optional unit mechanised infantry) may not blitz through them. All defending land units in a snowy or mountainous terrain have their defence increased by 1. Small Island territories such as Gibraltar and small Pacific Islands cannot be occupied by more than 2 units or cannot be attacked by more than 2 units.

Stalin Xenophobia
NO mixing of any units with Soviet units (including naval). Soviet Units can liberate Japanese occupied Chinese territories and that’s the only time they can enter China. Soviet units can also ‘liberate’ any Axis occupied territories and keep them as their own even if they were previously owned by Allied nations.

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation
Before Allies capture the Axis capitals Berlin or Tokyo, Japanese units may not be in the same territory or sea zone as German or Italian units.

Soviet winter
Once per game the Soviets can declare a severe winter just prior to the German player rolling for attacks and it effects the game as follows: All Soviet land units defend at +1 for the first round of combat, and all German units rolling a 5 or 6 must withdraw from further combat that turn.

Partisans
If the German or Italian player controls soviet territories but does not garrison them with at least one land unit, Partisans can attempt attacks on the IPC value as follows: For each un-garrisoned territory the German player rolls one D6 1-2= 1 IPC lost, 3-4= 2 IPC lost 5-6= 3 IPC lost.

Soviet Factories
The Soviet player can move 1 factory per turn to any other originally controlled territory.

[Imperious Leader]

OK lets do this. Ill update the file, we script the exact wording here section by section.

I have MS word/office and your software is not good for this. The correct section 3 is posted. I will take section 1 and 2 and integrate into the document. We are not using 4.0 as reference, what i created is a word friendly version thats readable. The ideas contained are what we decide to keep or change.

[tekkyy]

OK lets do this. Ill update the file, we script the exact wording here section by section.

yeah sure, if you say you have the time then you can do the compiling

I have MS word/office and your software is not good for this.

I posted a msword file, couldn’t your computer open it?

The correct section 3 is posted. I will take section 1 and 2 and integrate into the document.

what you posted is just from your proposal file
I don’t think we should blend completed rules with proposal rules

the experimental.doc files I’ve been posting is nice and small
easy to track progress
only has rules reviewed already

We are not using 4.0 as reference, what i created is a word friendly version thats readable.

yes we are going to make AARHE language more casual
this is should be apparent in the experimental.doc file I posted

think you are confusing proposal with reference
you propose changes with reference to current rules

The ideas contained are what we decide to keep or change.

no that was straight from your proposal file, not what we decided to keep or change
what we decided to keep or change is shown in experimental.doc file I posted
it has the phase 1 and phase 2 that has completed discussion

[tekkyy]

Phase 3: Combat Move

Land Movement (a new rule) - the language is bad, like very inexact…can you be precise? what you want to let tanks do? and when?

Air Movement - with your proposal, what happens in Non-combat move if you used up all your movement points in comat move?

Airborne Drop - optional rule, so remove?

Naval Movement - don’t think its realistic to let unescorted transport encounter enemy submarines
how about just
Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports. Unescorted transports may not go through sea zones consisting of enemy submarines.

Naval Units - give it a proper name, like “Sea Zone Co-occupation”
and get rid of the 2nd second sentence, we could be referencing rules that won’t existing

Submarine Movement - how about each destroyer prevent submarines from going through the sea zone on a 1-to-1 basis?

Defensive Air Support - the rule lets passive players relocate air units one space
give it a more correct name, like “Air Reinforcement”
and it should remain in “phase 3: combat move”
its messy to include it under Air Missions in “phase 4: conduct combat” because this is not an attack

Strait Interdiction - I don’t agree putting Turkish Canal under Strait Interdiction
its not that easy to walk through an enemy controlled Turkish canal is it?
think its better to let the connection between sea zone 15 and 16 be handled by OOB canal rules

Terrain - are we even doing the terrain stuff?
can be less professorial, maybe change to like “Tanks may not blitz a territory if its snowy, mountainous or desert.”

Stalinst Xenophobia - the language is bad, very inexact…what is “NO mixing of any units with Soviet units”

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - I feel unnecessary, is it worth having?

Soviet winter (a new rule) -
Partisans (a new rule) -
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
these 3 are some very specific thing, a bit tedious, justify with your reasoning if you wish to intro them….maybe you could have some of these for national advantage

[Imperious Leader]

Phase 3: Combat Move

Land Movement
Any land units with any unused movement points left over may allocate it to move to any other territory, even to reinforce or leave territories they had just attacked.

what you want to let tanks do? and when?

If a unit moving 2 spaces only used one, it can use its remaining MP to retreat from a combat it engaged in or enter an embattled zone.

Air Movement
All fighters do not have to be launched before movement of aircraft carrier. They can move their full movement as long as the final movement is on a Carrier or Land territory. Players may not land on each others Carriers. Air units are not subject Anti-Air when overflying hostile territories. This only occurs when they attack a territory that contains an AA gun.

what happens in Non-combat move if you used up all your movement points in combat move?–-they cant this is a return to OOB rules. no more you can move 2 for fighters and 3 for bombers thing.

Airborne Drop ( Optional rules)
Bomber may act as transport for one airborne infantry to a hostile territory. Both units must start in the same territory. The airborne infantry may not retreat from this combat. If optional unit transport plane is taken only it may act as transport for airborne infantry. Unit offloaded before “Conduct Combat”. The bomber must drop off the airborne troops in the first enemy territory encountered.

so remove?— we need to list it here as optional

Naval Movement
Naval units may go through and ignore sea zones consisting of only hostile submarines or transports. But if you move your unescorted transports into or thru sea zones occupied by enemy submarines, each defending submarine rolls its combat value. Each successful roll sinks one transport. Remaining transports may continue their operations.

don’t think its realistic to let unescorted transport encounter enemy submarines–-- it is not known if the submarine in in the SZ this is why the unescorted transport is attacked for a round, modeling a convoy that was hit by unseen subs and hot attacked and scattered away.

Naval units co-occupation
Naval units may remain in hostile sea zone without entering combat.

ok is this better?

Submarine Movement
Submarines may go through hostile sea zones except zones containing an ASW unit. Each defending ASW unit rolls a die at ASW search value. Each successful roll forces one submarine to enter combat. Unforced submarines may choose to enter combat as well in that sea zone or continue their original movement. These rules are explained in detail latter.

how about each destroyer prevent submarines from going through the sea zone on a 1-to-1 basis?–-This is a good point except its more complicated. I also allow for the 1:1 thing because each ASW stops only 1 sub with a successful roll.I am just making this less painful to play.

Strait Interdiction
You may fire at hostile non-submarine naval units moving between the sea zones if you hold the respective territories. Roll 1 die against each unit destroying it on its hit value. Movement between the sea zones must be done in “Combat Move” if enemy controls the respective territories.

I don’t agree putting Turkish Canal under Strait Interdiction
its not that easy to walk through an enemy controlled Turkish canal is it?
think its better to let the connection between sea zone 15 and 16 be handled by OOB canal rules–-but Turkey is a cheat. if Turkey is neutral, moving across would be an act of war subject to attacks. I am fine with OOB the Turkish straights, except its neutral and you must account for the crossing with interactions dealing with the neutral.

Territories  Sea Zones  Hit Value
Gibraltar      12/13  2
United Kingdom        6/7  1
Western Europe        6/7  1

ok we will leave it like this then…

Terrain
No blitzing is allowed for units entering desert, snowy, or mountainous terrains. All defending land units in a snowy or mountainous terrain have their defence increased by 1. Small Island territories such as Gibraltar and small Pacific Islands cannot be occupied by more than 2 units or cannot be attacked by more than 2 units.

are we even doing the terrain stuff?–-how bout this?

Stalin Xenophobia
NO mixing of any Allied units ( UK, USA) with Soviet units (including naval). Soviet Units can liberate Japanese occupied Chinese territories and that’s the only time they can enter China. Soviet units can also ‘liberate’ any Axis occupied territories and keep them as their own even if they were previously owned by Allied nations.

“NO mixing of any units with Soviet units”–- This means no Soviet units can mix with Allied units belonging to UK USA…how bout above?

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation
Before Allies capture the Axis capitals Berlin or Tokyo, Japanese units may not be in the same territory or sea zone as German or Italian units.

I feel unnecessary, is it worth having?––it is because following an axis breakout many more options should be allowable for the axis players, which based on my interpretation Hitler would allow greater coordination of axis forces.

Soviet winter
Once per game the Soviets can declare a severe winter just prior to the German player rolling for attacks and it effects the game as follows: All Soviet land units defend at +1 for the first round of combat, and all German units rolling a 5 or 6 must withdraw from further combat that turn.

Partisans
If the German or Italian player controls soviet territories but does not garrison them with at least one land unit, Partisans can attempt attacks on the IPC value as follows: For each un-garrisoned territory the German player rolls one D6 1-2= 1 IPC lost, 3-4= 2 IPC lost 5-6= 3 IPC lost.

Soviet Factories
The Soviet player can move 1 factory per turn to any other originally controlled territory.

This should be something modeled as part of the game. These are exceptions that only apply to the Soviets, which are somewhat limited by allies landing in karelia and dependent on lend lease at 12 IPC per turn. They need more support including some very important benefits. I propose these rules work and be adapted for AA50.

Defensive Air Support - the rule lets passive players relocate air units one space
give it a more correct name, like “Air Reinforcement”
and it should remain in “phase 3: combat move”
its messy to include it under Air Missions in “phase 4: conduct combat” because this is not an attack

yes when we get to air missions ill make it Air Reinforcement, but DAS mission is the actual military term for this and not “air reinforcement”

[tekkyy]

Land Movement (new rule) - I am not up for that, you are basically removing attacker retreat

Air Movement - why go back to OOB?
AARHE is less tedious than OOB because you don’t have to remember how many movement points left for Non-Combat
OOB’s combined movement is unrealistic, planes either have enough range or it doesn’t…nothing to do prior flights…you can’t attack somewhere real close and just so that can retreat to somewhere really far away

by the way when you say “They can move their full movement as long as the final movement is on a Carrier or Land territory.”, are you removing proposaing to let attacking air units stay in newly captured territory

Airborne Drop - wait wait wait, we went over this already, all optional rules are not to listed here…only exception is for Diplomacy phase due it being part a phase of the turn sequence
no brownie points making a 20 page document no one would touch

Naval Movement - that is fog of war stuff, out of bounce currently

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - what do you mean? how is rolling a die less painful than simple 1-to-1 ?

Defensive Air Support - yes DAS is the military term, but the actual rule is simple relocation of Air units hence I was thinking it should be called Air Reinforcement
I try to google the DAS term but results were about games
have you got a link defining DAS?

Strait Interdiction -

I am fine with OOB the Turkish straights, except its neutral and you must account for the crossing with interactions dealing with the neutral.

actually there is nothing to say, it strongly established in OOB rules
you don’t control turkey, you can’t move through
all we have to say is movement between sea zone 15 and 16 requires controlling turkey at the beginning of the turn….just like movement thru panama requires control of panama at the beginning of the turn

Terrain - yeah thats more direct, my next comment is small territories
2 unit limit for occupying forces is fine
2 unit limit for attacking forces should only be on land units right?

Stalinst Xenophobia - how about saying it more directly
The UK and USA players may not move units into any space occupied by Soviet units. Whenever Soviet player captures a territory they gain control of it.
second sentence about Soviet and China I am not so sure about…whats the justification?

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - alright we’ll keep it, similarly can we say it more directly in the tone of Combat Move phase
The Japanese player may not move units into any space occupied by other Axis units.

Soviet winter (a new rule) - letting ANY players choose is unrealistic
Partisans (a new rule) -
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

to me these 3 are specific and tedious
weighting down the game

we making a new and friendly AARHE right?
I am against having all these nation specific bits rules
its gonna look down a house rule more suited to our friend Flashman

though feel free to put them into the AARHE optional rules file, under National Advantages

[Imperious Leader]

Land Movement (new rule) - I am not up for that, you are basically removing attacker retreat

no not at all…. that is not changed… this is basically where you have defeated the defender and the attacker does not want his tanks or mech on the front lines and if he killed the defender, he wont be stuck. This way he can place the major assets as reserve and remove the defenders ability to kill off the spearhead because its no longer got fodder to protect.

I would advocate a similiar rule where if the tank moved one space and attacked and won, it can attack again using its final movement point… like real blitzkreig…except the infantry cant follow.“breakthrough and exploitation”

Air Movement - why go back to OOB?
AARHE is less tedious than OOB because you don’t have to remember how many movement points left for Non-Combat
OOB’s combined movement is unrealistic, planes either have enough range or it doesn’t…nothing to do prior flights…you can’t attack somewhere real close and just so that can retreat to somewhere really far away

But it restricts a player to limited plane range. Dont you think a player can easily remember his remaining movement points and would rather have greater air range, than “put up” with the duty of ‘remembering’ his MP. The revised game does come with the numbered circles that can designate this. People didn’t have a problem with this duty before so why are we getting in the business of creating a problem that does not exist with an unorthodox method and limitation of reducing the movement to 1/2.  The basic idea is to make it more realistic, BUT modeling the big stuff thats unrealistic… this is minor game fix thats not really needed and would provide marginal improvement, but at the detriment of strategy.

by the way when you say “They can move their full movement as long as the final movement is on a Carrier or Land territory.”, are you removing proposing to let attacking air units stay in newly captured territory

They should not do this, because under playtest this results in too great an advantage for the attacker who now just buys bunch of planes and cant be counterattacked. We need to keep the OOB on the planes landing in new captures.

Airborne Drop - wait wait wait, we went over this already, all optional rules are not to listed here…only exception is for Diplomacy phase due it being part a phase of the turn sequence
no brownie points making a 20 page document no one would touch

OK ok but lets rule on them anyway, i will make them separate as optional rules, but we need to agree on what this would be.

Naval Movement - that is fog of war stuff, out of bounce currently

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - what do you mean? how is rolling a die less painful than simple 1-to-1 ?

All must roll up to the equal total of submarines that is 1:1, excess do not have to roll, which encourages players to buy even more subs, to get a chance to kill.

Defensive Air Support - yes DAS is the military term, but the actual rule is simple relocation of Air units hence I was thinking it should be called Air Reinforcement
I try to google the DAS term but results were about games
have you got a link defining DAS?

ok new name: Close Air Support CAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support#Luftwaffe

Strait Interdiction -
Quote
I am fine with OOB the Turkish straights, except its neutral and you must account for the crossing with interactions dealing with the neutral.
actually there is nothing to say, it strongly established in OOB rules
you don’t control turkey, you can’t move through
all we have to say is movement between sea zone 15 and 16 requires controlling turkey at the beginning of the turn….just like movement thru panama requires control of panama at the beginning of the turn

ok we agree

Terrain - yeah thats more direct, my next comment is small territories
2 unit limit for occupying forces is fine
2 unit limit for attacking forces should only be on land units right?

well sort of. Latter you see my new proposal for invasions… really new idea… You can attack with 2 per combat round, but in total you can bring in more. When the battle is over only 2 will land and the rest stays on the ships.

this will become clear latter.

Stalinst Xenophobia - how about saying it more directly
The UK and USA players may not move units into any space occupied by Soviet units. Whenever Soviet player captures a territory they gain control of it.
second sentence about Soviet and China I am not so sure about…whats the justification?

Thats not direct, it needs to say they cant enter Soviet territories either, nor fly over them, thru them, and the Soviets can liberate former allied controlled territories and keep them. Example: UK loses Persia to Japan, and the Soviets take it and the IPC now goes to Russia, not UK.

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - alright we’ll keep it, similarly can we say it more directly in the tone of Combat Move phase
The Japanese player may not move units into any space occupied by other Axis units.

ok

Soviet winter (a new rule) - letting ANY players choose is unrealistic
Partisans (a new rule) -
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

to me these 3 are specific and tedious
weighting down the game

The winter was a HUGE factor in the axis defeat. How can is be regulated to a NA? we clearly need to model this aspect of the war. The thing is the german player cant know when it is happening, he must commit to his attacks to make the best use of it, or if he knows what is going to happen he wont attack at all and ruin its effects. Perhaps the solution is a die roll each turn?  lets have some solution to this?

we making a new and friendly AARHE right?
I am against having all these nation specific bits rules
its gonna look down a house rule more suited to our friend Flashman

Well if we were anything like flashman, every other sentence would be about Rio De Oro political, military, or geographical references and we simply don’t get into this diatribe. These are very minor tips of our hat to the unique Soviet situation

The 12 IPC a turn do not give enough bang for the Russians survival and partisans, winter rule, and moving factories was unique to their situation.

I playtested the game many times OTB and we find the Soviets need these items to make things more realistic.

[tekkyy]

Merry X’mas from Sydney

Land Movement (new rule) -
but in AARHE they do not get stuck
attacker retreat is allowed, regardless of defender decision or combat result (except you have to leave behind one inf to capture if you won

and I am against “attack can’t retreat if battle won”
why should land units be able to retreat, but not able to if battle is won?
and then able to retreat if movement points in reserve?
sounds a bit funny

as for tank blitzrieg attack again thing, I think too complex
we are not trying to add complexity, save them for your optional rules

Air Movement - hehe you wrote a paragraph about “1/2 movement”, you didn’t have to, as I said in the post before that post…the 1/2 thing is no more

the AARHE idea is actually really clean, it was just written poorly with the term “1/2 movement”
it is simple, you can move X spaces in Combat Move and X spaces in Non-Combat Move
this can be the new wording

not having to remember already used movement points is only side effect
the main effect is so we don’t have Allied fighters bouncing between UK and Russia to attack Germany that is typical of OOB games (its annoying, its unrealistic)

Airborne Drop (optional) - oh ok we discuss the optional rules too (was eager to get the main thing running so we can playtesting hehe)
I recall you wanted to remove Transport Plane, I agree too, so remove reference to it
I see you added the AA50’s rule of “can’t drop behind enemy lines” thing, is that needed? I guess that depends on what we think Airborne Drops are capable of

Naval Movement - just waiting for feedback here
your argument for letting transports go through enemy submarines with dice  rolling was

it is not known if the submarine in in the SZ this is why the unescorted transport is attacked for a round

I think that is fog of war stuff, out of scope and not a reason

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - I don’t precisely understand what you saying

tekky: how about each destroyer prevent submarines from going through the sea zone on a 1-to-1 basis?
Imperious Leader: This is a good point except its more complicated. I also allow for the 1:1 thing because each ASW stops only 1 sub with a successful roll.I am just making this less painful to play.
tekkyy:what do you mean? how is rolling a die less painful than simple 1-to-1 ?
Imperious Leader:All must roll up to the equal total of submarines that is 1:1, excess do not have to roll, which encourages players to buy even more subs, to get a chance to kill.

don’t think you’ve explained how rolling a dice is less painful to play then my simple 1-to-1
“each total of submarines”? “excess do not have to roll”?
with my 1-to-1 rule no rolling is needed

Defensive Air Support - the AARHE rule DAS/Air Reinforcement lets you relocate air units to defend in adjacent space instead

CAS is just planes supporting ground troops, this is simply a normal combat in Axis and Allies?
that is different

Strait Interdiction - ok Turkey removed, done

Canal - for Turkey, could be
Naval units may not move between sea zone 15 and sea zone 16 if their side does not control Turkey at the beginning of the turn.

Terrain - ok, done

Stalinst Xenophobia - you say mixing of units, hence I thought you want to let UK/US enter Soviet territories

the other bits are covered

Imperious Leader: NO mixing of any Allied units ( UK, USA) with Soviet units (including naval).
tekkyy: The UK and USA players may not move units into any space occupied by Soviet units.

Imperious Leader: Soviet Units can liberate Japanese occupied Chinese territories and that’s the only time they can enter China.
tekkyy: I asked for justification and still waiting

Imperious Leader: Soviet units can also ‘liberate’ any Axis occupied territories and keep them as their own even if they were previously owned by Allied nations.
tekkyy: Whenever Soviet player captures a territory they gain control of it.
if not enough then,
Whenever the Soviet player captures a territory they do not liberate it but gain control of it.

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - ok, done

I can’t really comment on your playtesting that Russia needed help as you’ve been playing modified versions of AARHE
I would mostly avoid the nation specific rules until we have solid playtesting

Soviet winter (a new rule) - in the case of your reasoning, I would say add in the dice and put it in one of scenarios like 1939

because for 1942 game the Russian winter was history, Moscow was saved, and German spearhead loses many units on Russia’s 1st turn

Partisans (a new rule) - waiting for reasoning to show this was significant enough to be in main rules

Soviet Factories (a new rule) - can you show me that this was done easily in WWII and not some isolated events?
also I think this would be more realistic:
The Soviet player may move 1 Industrial Complex to an adjacent territory. Both territories must be an originally controlled territory.
AND move to phase 6: mobilize new units