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
-
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 existingSubmarine 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 attackStrait 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 rulesTerrain - 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 -
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 1ok 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 attackyes 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”
-
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 awayby 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 touchNaval 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 turnTerrain - 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 gamewe 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 Flashmanthough feel free to put them into the AARHE optional rules file, under National Advantages
-
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 awayBut 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 touchOK 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 turnok 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 gameThe 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 FlashmanWell 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.
-
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 wonand 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 funnyas for tank blitzrieg attack again thing, I think too complex
we are not trying to add complexity, save them for your optional rulesAir 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 wordingnot 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 ofNaval Movement - just waiting for feedback here
your argument for letting transports go through enemy submarines with dice rolling wasit 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 neededDefensive 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 differentStrait 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 waitingImperious 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 playtestingSoviet 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 -
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 wonThis is a prescript of that professorial rule and a modification. The attacker can now be stuck in the territory if he chooses to destroy the defender and does this. If the defender retreats the attacker may also retreat in whole or part. But if the attackers intent was to eliminate the defender we assume this was a battle of close actions, perhaps in a large city fighting block by block… its got to have some effect of requiring the attacker to stay in the area after combat to reset the population and restore order. This is not a battle of mobility in open fields. Thats the reason for this change, so the defender has the new strategy of fighting to the last man… why? to invest the enemy into a possible trap.
Think Stalingrad. Hitler used its failure as a fortress to tie down vast Soviet assets so they wont be coming at him elsewhere. He figured that if the Soviets invested its focus on the city he could try to break into the pocket with Von Mansteins forces.
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 funnyIts an option of the defender to sacrifice his forces so he can commit a counter attack. But the attacker can use his armor and move away if they have the extra MP.
as for tank blitzrieg attack again thing, I think too complex
we are not trying to add complexity, save them for your optional rulesok optional rules. But keep track of these items ( airborne, new blitz rule etc…) make list when we conclude.
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 wordingdraft proposed script. Just allow the planes to move to where they want to go like OOB.
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)we don’t allow that anyway. No allied units fly or enter Soviet territory and vice versa.
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 ofwell the truth is this ruleset needs to be compatible with AA50… thats the next step in this drama. I am thinking make the rules compatible for that in a subsequent document, so the rules need some tailoring from us.
Naval Movement - just waiting for feedback here
your argument for letting transports go through enemy submarines with dice rolling was
Quote
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 reasonIts very simple: each transport is moving over unknown waters. it has no idea if subs are under the water. The chance is an unescorted transport may avoid a sub or may not. So we have a roll for this. If you move lots of transports in excess of subs no roll is needed and the sub is considered to be “busy” elsewhere.
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 neededok fine with that 1:1 no rolling.
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 differentwell you asked for a new name. If you really want the name change, then fine. but the rule is adjacent planes and not this 2 zones away thing. Air Reinforcement is the official name.
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
remove the mixing thing. No Soviet units can share land territories with UK USA, nor planes fly over or into them.
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 waitingYes Russians cant enter Chinese territories unless it was Japanese controlled. The IPC does not go to China but to Russia.
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.well thats a case of semantics. The point is the Soviets get the money and not the original player.
Example: uk owns egypt, Germany takes Eqypt, Russia takes egypt, Russia keeps the money until the axis retake and THEN possible the UK player retakes.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
ok script the text for this.
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.
IN Revised many player play the “buy all tanks” and just have a huge stack of tanks moving around. Not realistic. The Soviet partisans were some of the best saboteurs of German occupation, unlike the cheese and whine frogs in Paris. the Balkans was another hard fought partisan population. The idea forces the use of garrisons for Germany or they dont get the income. This is also because we removed the idea of income interruption due to combat zones… when combat actions damage the IPC? remember this? well this is a token of having a system that models the nature of hardship in getting the IPC from conquests which primarily were a German issue. The rule previously was a universal rule and its didnt make sence for that reason.
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 unitshttp://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=22442
Merry Christmas Tekkyy! Its been another great year of partnership of these projects and i look forward to making AARHE and AA50HE into great things in the coming year.
This is one of my favorite singers and his tribute to Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjziXV5rohw&feature=related -
Land Movement (new rule) - you’re reasoning is quite confusing, a lot of ifs and buts
whereas the rule I am trying to keep is a clean cut
to me what you said isn’t really helping your argument:The attacker can now be stuck in the territory if he chooses to destroy the defender and does this.
then you don’t want the “can’t retreat if battle is won” rule since that doesn’t give attacker a choice
attacker could roll a little better than average and be punishedIf the defender retreats the attacker may also retreat in whole or part. But if the attackers intent was to eliminate the defender we assume this was a battle of close actions, perhaps in a large city fighting block by block…
hm, so you want to give defender ability to block attacker retreat?
realistically it would be the other way around
also, just because defender didn’t retreat, it doesn’t mean close combat or city fighting
it would be funny for a small suiciding defender force to tie down a large armyits got to have some effect of requiring the attacker to stay in the area after combat to reset the population and restore order.
I would go along this path and find a rule that directly addresses this
rather than introducing these situational retreat restrictionsAir Movement - yeah thats fine, something like this
Air units may move a number of spaces in Combat Move up to its movement points. Air units are not subject to Anti-aircraft fire when flying over a territory.
in Non-combat we’ll add
Air units may move a number of spaces in Non-combat Move up to its movement points.Airborne Drop (optional) - yeah add to optional list for discussion later
Naval Movement -
Its very simple: each transport is moving over unknown waters.it has no idea if subs are under the water.
the thing is axis and allies doesn’t have fog of war
so not sure what you are getting atThe chance is an unescorted transport may avoid a sub or may not. So we have a roll for this.
I thought about escorted and unescorted transports
if escorting, the whole fleet overall slows down to transport speed right?
so I am starting to thin that my earlier proposal
Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports.
should be more like
Naval units (except for transports) may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports.Naval Units Co-occupation - done
Submarine Movement - ok 1-to-1 without rolling, done
Air Reinforcement - done, yes no “two spaces away” thing, looking at the changelog I think we changed it to adjacent in 2008 May
At the end of the phase, the passive players may relocate their air units to adjacent friendly territories.Strait Interdiction - done
Canal - done
Terrain - done
Stalinst Xenophobia -
Yes Russians cant enter Chinese territories unless it was Japanese controlled. The IPC does not go to China but to Russia.
was asking for justification not clarification
we had the UK/US can’t end Russia and the Russia does not liberate UK/US territory things previously
this is bit about China is newRome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - ok, done
Soviet winter (a new rule) - removed, now optional rule under 1939 scenario etc, note it and script it later
Partisans (a new rule) - oh fine call it “Soviet Partisians” yeah?
for gameplay reasons we might have to put it in Collect Income phase
1 inf is not much though and wouldn’t help with your concern that Russia player needs help
some sugguestions for “original Soviet territories”, Germany needs to*have 1 inf per territory income value occupying, to collect each IPC
*have i inf per territory income value occupying, to collect any IPC at all
*or even just collect 1 less IPC than territory income valueSoviet Factories (a new rule) - done, now in mobilize new units phase and only between original Soviet territories
-
Land Movement (new rule) - you’re reasoning is quite confusing, a lot of ifs and buts
whereas the rule I am trying to keep is a clean cut
to me what you said isn’t really helping your argument:Quote
The attacker can now be stuck in the territory if he chooses to destroy the defender and does this.
then you don’t want the “can’t retreat if battle is won” rule since that doesn’t give attacker a choice
attacker could roll a little better than average and be punishedright. infantry are stuck but the other assets, that move two spaces and used only one can move or attack again or retreat. its a new option for these units so players may not just buy infantry every turn.
Quote
If the defender retreats the attacker may also retreat in whole or part. But if the attackers intent was to eliminate the defender we assume this was a battle of close actions, perhaps in a large city fighting block by block…
hm, so you want to give defender ability to block attacker retreat?
realistically it would be the other way around
also, just because defender didn’t retreat, it doesn’t mean close combat or city fighting
it would be funny for a small suiciding defender force to tie down a large armyJust play it out. its simple:
the defender may declare retreats in part or whole
the attacker may do this before any combat round
if the defender decides he will die fighting (which is his option that could be used to instigate a counter attack) he remains
if the attacker decides to continue the attack and destroys the defender he now won the battle but lost some flexibility because he decided to kill and finish the battle. His new decision is to leave all his units in the new territory OR move out units that only moved 1 space to get into combat. He also has the further option to continue the attacks with these same units. So you see the strategy choices become interesting. He may take a chance to wipe out the defender, but trap himself, or the defender has a unique decision: He may retreat, fight and have a chance for counter attack, or get wiped out and subject to new attacks with enemy armor.
This is far superior to the failsafe manner that 4.0 presents. This creates more decisions for players.
Quote
its got to have some effect of requiring the attacker to stay in the area after combat to reset the population and restore order.
I would go along this path and find a rule that directly addresses this
rather than introducing these situational retreat restrictionspropose something on this.
Air Movement - yeah thats fine, something like this
Air units may move a number of spaces in Combat Move up to its movement points. Air units are not subject to Anti-aircraft fire when flying over a territory.
in Non-combat we’ll add
Air units may move a number of spaces in Non-combat Move up to its movement points.yes yes
Airborne Drop (optional) - yeah add to optional list for discussion later
well we should discus it now and ill add it to the optional rules file.
Naval Movement -
QuoteIts very simple: each transport is moving over unknown waters.it has no idea if subs are under the water.
the thing is axis and allies doesn’t have fog of war
so not sure what you are getting at
Quote
The chance is an unescorted transport may avoid a sub or may not. So we have a roll for this.
I thought about escorted and unescorted transports
if escorting, the whole fleet overall slows down to transport speed right?
so I am starting to thin that my earlier proposal
Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports.
should be more like
Naval units (except for transports) may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports.no slowing down thing. old idea and subject to stalling tactics in playtest. Its best to just roll and take chances that you get sunk or escape and live another day. Its like a shark preying on fish…some get caught, some don’t. The more subs, the more get caught.
Naval Units Co-occupation - done
Submarine Movement - ok 1-to-1 without rolling, done
Air Reinforcement - done, yes no “two spaces away” thing, looking at the changelog I think we changed it to adjacent in 2008 May
At the end of the phase, the passive players may relocate their air units to adjacent friendly territories.Strait Interdiction - done
Canal - done
Terrain - done
Stalinst Xenophobia -
Quote
Yes Russians cant enter Chinese territories unless it was Japanese controlled. The IPC does not go to China but to Russia.
was asking for justification not clarification
we had the UK/US can’t end Russia and the Russia does not liberate UK/US territory things previously
this is bit about China is newhistorically its not possible for the Soviets to enter sovereign Chinese territories, but if Japan occupies them than all bets are off. I want to limit Japan/ russia thing as much as possible, to support the German/ russian conflict
Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - ok, done
Soviet winter (a new rule) - removed, now optional rule under 1939 scenario etc, note it and script it later
Partisans (a new rule) - oh fine call it “Soviet Partisians” yeah?
for gameplay reasons we might have to put it in Collect Income phase
1 inf is not much though and wouldn’t help with your concern that Russia player needs help
some sugguestions for “original Soviet territories”, Germany needs to*have 1 inf per territory income value occupying, to collect each IPC
*have i inf per territory income value occupying, to collect any IPC at all
*or even just collect 1 less IPC than territory income value*have 1 inf per territory income value occupying, to collect any IPC at all this is best, but it can be non -infantry just some unit to garrison
Soviet Factories (a new rule) - done, now in mobilize new units phase and only between original Soviet
yes just one factory per turn and the same factory moved only once per game.
-
Land Movement (new rule) -
Just play it out. its simple:
simple it is not
just look at how much you wrote after the “:”
in your own words, that is third reich style rules
its a whole new complex sequence for the retreat step of the combat cyclereading your proposal I presume you no longer insist on the bit that attacker can’t retreat because no defending units left
thats good (say so if otherwise)I don’t know if understood you correctly
you didn’t give a proper sequence but just a bunch of ideas and lots of "if"show about this
1.defender retreat fully or partially
2.defender optionally declare die fighting
3.attack retreat fully or partially
4.attack optionally declare die fighting
5.if neither side declared “die fighting”, no more retreats from next combat cycle onwardsthis give the ability you wanted
but not forced on 2nd cycle or whatever, players have a choice
this leaves the advantage to the attacker which is what I am afterpropose something on this.
I don’t really want to add more complexity
but the direct way to deal with your concern ofits got to have some effect of requiring the attacker to stay in the area after combat to reset the population and restore order.
would an optional rule that you require X land units to capture a X IPC territory
if you can’t capture, you retreatAir Movement - done
Airborne Drop (optional) - ok use the AA50 limit (can’t drop behind enemy lines) if you want
but what do you thnk of AA50’s rule that the bomber doing the transportation gets to attack the territory as per usual?
I think they shouldn’t fight at 0 in the first combat cycleNaval Movement -
if escorting, the whole fleet overall slows down to transport speed right?
no slowing down thing. old idea and subject to stalling tactics in playtest.
your reasoning actually backups up my proposal
if no slowing down then don’t see why a special rule for escorted and unescorted transports
it should be the same for all non-submarine naval units
I wait for stronger reasoning from youNaval Units Co-occupation - done
Submarine Movement - done
Air Reinforcement - done
Strait Interdiction - done
Canal - done
Terrain - done
Stalinst Xenophobia -
historically its not possible for the Soviets to enter sovereign Chinese territories but if Japan occupies them than all bets are off. I want to limit Japan/ russia thing as much as possible, to support the German/ russian conflict
I support historic realism based rules, not historic replay based rules
gameplay wise, this would make China even harder to defend so it’ll encourage the Japanese player to march to Moscow via China
I think this rule does the opposite of limiting Russia/Japan thingrealism wise, China sided with US and didn’t ask for Russian help, but if things gets worse anything can happen
Russia had more than enough power to tip the balance anyway, it was their choice to leave China supported by US/UKso I think the case for this rule is not strong
anyway some realism based alternatives you could have as an optional rule:
*China and Sinkiang goes to Soviet control when Soviet troops enter them
*US/UK held territories goes to Soviet control if Soviet has more land units then them
*for Axis to collects IPC from China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Sinkiang they need the same number of land units occupyingRome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done
Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later
Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - ok, for Germany to collect income from a original Soviet terriotry, they need 1 land unit per territory income value
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
yes just one factory per turn and the same factory moved only once per game.
do we really need same factory “once per game” limit? players would have to remember this thing
~once-off~ rules like this is sort of a a waste of writing space and reader attention span -
simple it is not
just look at how much you wrote after the “:”
in your own words, that is third reich style rules
its a whole new complex sequence for the retreat step of the combat cyclereading your proposal I presume you no longer insist on the bit that attacker can’t retreat because no defending units left
thats good (say so if otherwise)the attacker can do this, but only units moving 1 space and having one space left.
All this is is: if you got an extra unused movement point you can use it to retreat, reinforce a territory just attacked, or attack again a new territory.
I don’t know if understood you correctly
you didn’t give a proper sequence but just a bunch of ideas and lots of "if"show about this
1.defender retreat fully or partially
2.defender optionally declare die fighting
3.attack retreat fully or partially
4.attack optionally declare die fighting
5.if neither side declared “die fighting”, no more retreats from next combat cycle onwardsthis is like symbolic logic proof. make the language more simple:
Land units with unused movement point you can use it to retreat, reinforce a territory just attacked, or attack again a new territory.
this give the ability you wanted
but not forced on 2nd cycle or whatever, players have a choice
this leaves the advantage to the attacker which is what I am afterthe attacker has the advantage already. he now has more choices than before. He can make a new attack, while the defender who wants to die fighting can also at least trap a few units. where do you find combat where you attack, destroy the enemy and decide to leave as if no battle ever occured? Sounds like Indian raiding attacks in the old west USA.
Quote
propose something on this.
I don’t really want to add more complexity
but the direct way to deal with your concern of
Quote
its got to have some effect of requiring the attacker to stay in the area after combat to reset the population and restore order.
would an optional rule that you require X land units to capture a X IPC territory
if you can’t capture, you retreatwe already have this under the new garrison rules under partisan section.
Air Movement - done
Airborne Drop (optional) - ok use the AA50 limit (can’t drop behind enemy lines) if you want
but what do you think of AA50’s rule that the bomber doing the transportation gets to attack the territory as per usual?
I think they shouldn’t fight at 0 in the first combat cyclethey can be dropped and used with those panzers that make the second attack, but if used in the main attack we use the AA50 rules. The bomber can attack in the same combat just like AA50 OOB
Naval Movement -
Quote
Quote
if escorting, the whole fleet overall slows down to transport speed right?
no slowing down thing. old idea and subject to stalling tactics in playtest.
your reasoning actually backups up my proposal
if no slowing down then don’t see why a special rule for escorted and unescorted transports
it should be the same for all non-submarine naval units
I wait for stronger reasoning from youill get you something tomorrow on this.
Naval Units Co-occupation - done
Submarine Movement - done
Air Reinforcement - done
Strait Interdiction - done
Canal - done
Terrain - done
Stalinst Xenophobia -
Quote
historically its not possible for the Soviets to enter sovereign Chinese territories but if Japan occupies them than all bets are off. I want to limit Japan/ russia thing as much as possible, to support the German/ russian conflict
I support historic realism based rules, not historic replay based ruleswell this is realistic. The Soviets did this in 1945 and they never entered China before that point.
gameplay wise, this would make China even harder to defend so it’ll encourage the Japanese player to march to Moscow via China
I think this rule does the opposite of limiting Russia/Japan thingrealism wise, China sided with US and didn’t ask for Russian help, but if things gets worse anything can happen
Russia had more than enough power to tip the balance anyway, it was their choice to leave China supported by US/UKso I think the case for this rule is not strong
well in 1939 your claim is not an issue, Japan wont be driving to Moscow with tanks due to the extra territories. IN AA50 this was what they took from our map due to my many complaints to Larry over the years about Japanese tank drives.
IN phase 1 or 2 tanks cant blitz in mountain territories so we already solved this. we can add more mountain territories to stop this, but the Soviets had no intention of entering sovereign Chinese territory.
anyway some realism based alternatives you could have as an optional rule:
*China and Sinkiang goes to Soviet control when Soviet troops enter them
*US/UK held territories goes to Soviet control if Soviet has more land units then them
*for Axis to collects IPC from China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Sinkiang they need the same number of land units occupyingway too complicated: isn’t more simple to say: “the Soviets can only liberate axis controlled territories and if they do this they keep the IPC ( it does not go to the original owning player)”
Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done
Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later
Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - ok, for Germany to collect income from a original Soviet terriotry, they need 1 land unit per territory income value
yes exactly. simple.
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
yes just one factory per turn and the same factory moved only once per game.
do we really need same factory “once per game” limit? players would have to remember this thing
~once-off~ rules like this is sort of a a waste of writing space and reader attention spanyes once per game per factory, we dont want the Russians moving the same factory all over the place like a mobile unit creation platform.
-
Land Movement (new rule) -
I am happy to make a rule for your “fight to death” thing
the “fight to death” rule is simple, no more retreat by either side from next cycle onwardsnothing to do with movement points
using unused movement point to retreat is ridiculous!combat move is travelling to raceway
conduct combat cycle is the race
non-combat move is going home
fuel used during the race, making aggressive maneuvers is not the same scale as cruising
you refuel many times during a battle or operationOOB: Attacker can’t retreat if defender wiped. Defender can’t retreat.
AARHE: Attacker can retreat. Defender can retreat.new: Attacker can retreat. Defender can retreat. No retreat from next combat cycle if fighting to death.
I am not removing 1st cycle attacker retreat (unless you want to remove defender retreat)
this is cruical otherwise defender has advantage, unrealisticthis is like symbolic logic proof. make the language more simple:
that is to present the sequence, it won’t be written like this in the rules
because I can’t understand your if…and…if…and…but paragraphLand units with unused movement point you can use it to retreat, reinforce a territory just attacked, or attack again a new territory.
wait I saw that
I am only here to make a rule for your “fight to death” thing
I am not making a reinforce or attack another territory thing, I’ve already said thats way too complicated
because it required a simultaneous combat system to be relevant, otherwise realism goes down not up)these few weeks we are simplifying AARHE
this is not about removing the rules you don’t like and adding complexity to the rules you like
all rules get simplified or moved into optionalAir Movement - done
Airborne Drop (optional) - actually that was a typo
I meant to say I think bombers carrying airborne should attack at 0 in the first cycle
but doesn’t matter we can keep it simpleNaval Movement - ok you get us something on this later
I just don’t see it your way regarding escorted and unescorted transports running through enemy submarines
don’t want to introduce a joke while fixing OOBNaval Units Co-occupation - done
Submarine Movement - done
Air Reinforcement - done
Strait Interdiction - done
Canal - done
Terrain - done
Stalinst Xenophobia -
I support historic realism based rules, not historic replay based rules
well this is realistic. The Soviets did this in 1945 and they never entered China before that point.
no thats historic replay talk again
the Soviets had a choice, our rule can model why to encourage an outcome, it must not enforce historic replay otherwise you destroy the game
[qutoe]IN phase 1 or 2 tanks cant blitz in mountain territories so we already solved this
that was to model terrain and discourage Japan from using tanks to Moscow
not Russia can’t help defend China we are back to square one*China and Sinkiang goes to Soviet control when Soviet troops enter them
*US/UK held territories goes to Soviet control if Soviet has more land units then them
*for Axis to collects IPC from China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Sinkiang they need the same number of land units occupyingway too complicated: isn’t more simple to say: “the Soviets can only liberate axis controlled territories and if they do this they keep the IPC ( it does not go to the original owning player)”
that are realism based alternatives, you only use ONE of them to replace “Soviet can’t enter China”
for related to Soviet capture of original Allied territories, thats done alreadyRome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done
Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later
Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - done
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
~once-off~ rules like this is sort of a a waste of writing space and reader attention span
yes once per game per factory, we dont want the Russians moving the same factory all over the place like a mobile unit creation platform.
optional rules I can understand, but I would avoid once-off rules like this for the main rules
maybe there is a way
do you want the player to be able to build this turn at the IC’s old location? new location?also, following the simplication of tech
we should deal with factory destruction and factory movement (Soviet only) in one phase of the turn sequence not two
do you think we should “declare + perform” in phase 2 purchase or phase 6 mobilize? -
Land Movement (new rule) -
I am happy to make a rule for your “fight to death” thing
the “fight to death” rule is simple, no more retreat by either side from next cycle onwardsnothing to do with movement points
using unused movement point to retreat is ridiculous!OK you are saying the option to retreat for both sides is only on the first round?
combat move is travelling to raceway
conduct combat cycle is the race
non-combat move is going home
fuel used during the race, making aggressive maneuvers is not the same scale as cruising
you refuel many times during a battle or operationI dont see what your saying with this example.
OOB: Attacker can’t retreat if defender wiped. Defender can’t retreat.
AARHE: Attacker can retreat. Defender can retreat.new: Attacker can retreat. Defender can retreat. No retreat from next combat cycle if fighting to death.
ok so the defender declares this? then the attacker can decide 1) to continue, 2) to retreat completely, 3) to retreat partially?
Quote
Land units with unused movement point you can use it to retreat, reinforce a territory just attacked, or attack again a new territory.
wait I saw that
I am only here to make a rule for your “fight to death” thing
I am not making a reinforce or attack another territory thing, I’ve already said thats way too complicated
because it required a simultaneous combat system to be relevant, otherwise realism goes down not up)these few weeks we are simplifying AARHE
this is not about removing the rules you don’t like and adding complexity to the rules you like
all rules get simplified or moved into optionallets see what the proposed text is on this from the above remarks…
Air Movement - done
Airborne Drop (optional) - actually that was a typo
I meant to say I think bombers carrying airborne should attack at 0 in the first cycle
but doesn’t matter we can keep it simplenaw keep it the same as in AA50. Its easy to remember. These turns are like 6 months
Naval Movement - ok you get us something on this later
I just don’t see it your way regarding escorted and unescorted transports running through enemy submarines
don’t want to introduce a joke while fixing OOBok ok my intention was to make something slightly different than AA50, allowing for a few transports to get thru the sub blockade. I guess we can just have each sub getting one roll and if suceeds one transport is gone, rest get thru the picket line of subs.
Naval Units Co-occupation - done
Submarine Movement - done
Air Reinforcement - done
Strait Interdiction - done
Canal - done
Terrain - done
Stalinst Xenophobia -
Quote
Quote
I support historic realism based rules, not historic replay based rules
Quote
well this is realistic. The Soviets did this in 1945 and they never entered China before that point.
no thats historic replay talk againthe Soviets had a choice, our rule can model why to encourage an outcome, it must not enforce historic replay otherwise you destroy the game
OK so what do you propose?
[qutoe]IN phase 1 or 2 tanks cant blitz in mountain territories so we already solved this
that was to model terrain and discourage Japan from using tanks to Moscow
not Russia can’t help defend China we are back to square oneIf tanks only move one space in Russia, then the proposed new Soviet rules for China and limitations on its occupation of Chinese territories is not required.
Quote
*China and Sinkiang goes to Soviet control when Soviet troops enter them
*US/UK held territories goes to Soviet control if Soviet has more land units then them
*for Axis to collects IPC from China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Sinkiang they need the same number of land units occupying
Quote
way too complicated: isn’t more simple to say: “the Soviets can only liberate axis controlled territories and if they do this they keep the IPC ( it does not go to the original owning player)”
that are realism based alternatives, you only use ONE of them to replace “Soviet can’t enter China”
for related to Soviet capture of original Allied territories, thats done alreadyconsider the Soviets the Barbarians who have little respect for national sovereignty. They have their own designs of Soviet domination in post war Europe and Pacific and are grabbing what they can in spite of international law. They see their role as the ultimate blood let and sacrifice of human beings to win the war and they feel that they deserve whatever they can grab. This is their foreign policy and its not very accommodating to western values, because the western nations didn’t pay for their victory in blood, rather they rided the back of Soviet victories which determined the war. This is the prism of how you look at modeling these rules for China. China was a land grab, but the Soviets didnt just go in and push out the Chinese, but did take out the japanese
Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done
Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later
Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - done
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
~once-off~ rules like this is sort of a a waste of writing space and reader attention span
Quote
yes once per game per factory, we dont want the Russians moving the same factory all over the place like a mobile unit creation platform.
optional rules I can understand, but I would avoid once-off rules like this for the main rules
maybe there is a way
do you want the player to be able to build this turn at the IC’s old location? new location?no this is a unique situation some national based modeling is required especially for the fact that the Soviets cant share spaces with the Allies. They need not optional rules they need standard rules to make it balanced. The Soviets with just 12 IPC a turn are not strong enough in Revised unless they have the Partisans and moving factory rules.
also, following the simplication of tech
we should deal with factory destruction and factory movement (Soviet only) in one phase of the turn sequence not two
do you think we should “declare + perform” in phase 2 purchase or phase 6 mobilize?we don’t need any clarification of this. The Soviets can move the factory during placement phase of their turn, no need to add any weird rules. My printed rules ( from the file) are perfectly clear on this. We dont need this mumbo-jumbo… “declare, mobilize, perform” professorial text either.
-
Land Movement (new rule) -
OK you are saying the option to retreat for both sides is only on the first round?
close
on the first combat cycle both sides are free to retreat
during the retreat step of any combat cycle either side can declare “fight to death” and from next cycle onwards there are no further retreatsI dont see what your saying with this example.
I am using that example as a reason why ability to retreat is not related to movement points
ok so the defender declares this? then the attacker can decide 1) to continue, 2) to retreat completely, 3) to retreat partially?
no both sides can declare this during the retreat step of the combat cycle
but recall in AARHE defender declare intentions first in the retreat stepto me it is important both sides has this ability
because in the game a territory is not one city but a large regionlets see what the proposed text is on this from the above remarks…
Phase 4: Conduct Combat
Land Combat
Press Attack or Withdraw
During the Press Attack or Withdraw step the defender declares intentions before attacker. You may retreat completely or partially. You may also declare “fight to death”, where no further retreats are allowed by either side in this combat from the next cycle.Air Movement - done
Airborne Drop (optional) - done
Naval Movement -
tekky: I wait for stronger reasoning from you
IL: ill get you something tomorrow on this.
tekkyy: ok you get us something on this later
IL: ok ok my intention was to make something slightly different than AA50, allowing for a few transports to get thru the sub blockade. I guess we can just have each sub getting one roll and if suceeds one transport is gone, rest get thru the picket line of subs.no need to restate your proposed rule
I find the escorted vs unescorted exception unrealistic
you said you’ll get something to backup it upif you can’t than we shouldn’t make the exception
leaving an unrealistic OOB rule uncorrected is bad, but making an unrealistic rule is worseAA50’s rule models that submarines are slow hence all surface naval units can run through
your rule models that transports are slowNaval Units Co-occupation - done
Submarine Movement - done
Air Reinforcement - done
Strait Interdiction - done
Canal - done
Terrain - done
Stalinst Xenophobia -
OK so what do you propose?
an optional rule to model the reason why Russia didn’t
the rule is used to discourages Soviet from entering China until it is strategic for Allies to do so
you should recall I’ve proposed a few already*Chinese territories goes to Soviet control if more Soviet troops than US/UK
*Chinese territories income goes to zero if more than one player have troops thereIf tanks only move one space in Russia, then the proposed new Soviet rules for China and limitations on its occupation of Chinese territories is not required.
well than maybe we don’t need the China rule after all
tanks move one space in “snowy” territories
eg. Yak, Bur, Sfe
tanks move on space in “mountainous” territories
eg. Sin, ChiRome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done
Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later
Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - done
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
you misunderstood
I am not saying make Soviet Factories optional
I am trying to remove the one-off aspect of the rule (less accounting for players, less waste of document space)hence I asked where you want the player do be able to mobilise this turn? at the new location or old location?
I propose you can mobilise at old location, and then you can move factories at the end of mobilise phase
this way we can remove the one-off aspect of once per game limit, help Russia more times, yet not over poweringwe should deal with factory destruction and factory movement (Soviet only) in one phase of the turn sequence not two
we don’t need any clarification of this. The Soviets can move the factory during placement phase of their turn, no need to add any weird rules. My printed rules ( from the file) are perfectly clear on this.
hmm, you seem to be claiming credit for our discussion
the proposed file you posted only had one sentence for this rule
and it was written under Phase 3: Combat-move !anyway doesn’t matter
what matter now is that we both agree this rule is in Phase 6: Mobilizedo you think we should “declare + perform” in phase 2 purchase or phase 6 mobilize?
We dont need this mumbo-jumbo… “declare, mobilize, perform” professorial text either.
don’t worry, when I said “declare + perform” that was not a proposal text
I just wanted you to know what I mean
so far so good, in this round of discussion we got rid of some span-across-phase aspects
(1. tech dice 2. destroying factories 3. moving soviet factories) -
Land Movement (new rule) -
Quote
OK you are saying the option to retreat for both sides is only on the first round?
close
on the first combat cycle both sides are free to retreat
during the retreat step of any combat cycle either side can declare “fight to death” and from next cycle onwards there are no further retreatsno thats not good, we don’t want the possibility of the attacker being thwarted by the defender retreating before combat.
New idea: during each active players turn, his land forces may make a number of free moves:
all land units may move one space even if they already moved up to a fixed value of current placements.
so if the Soviets can place up to 11 units with all her factories, then she can move that many one extra space.
Germany has one factory so its value is 10.
UK is 8
so on.
Factories represent extensive industrial buildup which includes transportation improvements ( rail and better roads) due to its implied ability to move the products in an efficient manner.
Quote
ok so the defender declares this? then the attacker can decide 1) to continue, 2) to retreat completely, 3) to retreat partially?
no both sides can declare this during the retreat step of the combat cycle
but recall in AARHE defender declare intentions first in the retreat stepunder that system the attack was always mandated for at least one turn.
Quote
Naval Movement -
tekky: I wait for stronger reasoning from you
IL: ill get you something tomorrow on this.
tekkyy: ok you get us something on this later
IL: ok ok my intention was to make something slightly different than AA50, allowing for a few transports to get thru the sub blockade. I guess we can just have each sub getting one roll and if suceeds one transport is gone, rest get thru the picket line of subs.no need to restate your proposed rule
I find the escorted vs unescorted exception unrealistic
you said you’ll get something to backup it upworking on it.
Stalinst Xenophobia -
Quote
OK so what do you propose?
an optional rule to model the reason why Russia didn’t
the rule is used to discourages Soviet from entering China until it is strategic for Allies to do so
you should recall I’ve proposed a few already*Chinese territories goes to Soviet control if more Soviet troops than US/UK
*Chinese territories income goes to zero if more than one player have troops therethis is too gamey.
no allies allowed in China
No Chinese outside China ( china includes japanese occupied China and British held China- in AA50)
The only way an ally can enter China is if an axis controls it, and they are taking it back
except in the Soviets case they enjoy the IPC and it does not go to China.thats very simple.
Quote
If tanks only move one space in Russia, then the proposed new Soviet rules for China and limitations on its occupation of Chinese territories is not required.
well than maybe we don’t need the China rule after alltanks move one space in “snowy” territories
eg. Yak, Bur, Sfe
tanks move on space in “mountainous” territories
eg. Sin, ChiSoviet Winter (scenario rule) - later
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
you misunderstood
I am not saying make Soviet Factories optional
I am trying to remove the one-off aspect of the rule (less accounting for players, less waste of document space)hence I asked where you want the player do be able to mobilize this turn? at the new location or old location?
I propose you can mobilize at old location, and then you can move factories at the end of mobilize phase
this way we can remove the one-off aspect of once per game limit, help Russia more times, yet not over poweringThe Soviets can option to relocate the factories during build phase, and the move takes place at placement phase. One factory per Soviet turn and each one time per game. thats the rule. Obviously he cant place units in a moved factory till next turn.
Quote
Quote
do you think we should “declare + perform” in phase 2 purchase or phase 6 mobilize?
We dont need this mumbo-jumbo… “declare, mobilize, perform” professorial text either.
don’t worry, when I said “declare + perform” that was not a proposal text
I just wanted you to know what I mean
so far so good, in this round of discussion we got rid of some span-across-phase aspects
(1. tech dice 2. destroying factories 3. moving soviet factories)see above post. it should be clear where and when these actions take place.
-
Land Movement (new rule) -
during the retreat step of any combat cycle either side can declare “fight to death” and from next cycle onwards there are no further retreats
no thats not good, we don’t want the possibility of the attacker being thwarted by the defender retreating before combat.
no you can’t retreat before combat
retreat step (step 7: Press Attack or Withdrawattack) occurs after units fire (step 2, 4, 5)but recall in AARHE defender declare intentions first in the retreat step
under that system the attack was always mandated for at least one turn.
don’t worry it still is in my proposal, you just misread (see above)
New idea: during each active players turn, his land forces may make a number of free moves:
yeah we have a similar rule already
the optional rule Strategic Redeployment
you can apply your idea to simplify Strategic RedeploymentNaval Movement -
working on it.
ok
Stalinst Xenophobia -
*Chinese territories goes to Soviet control if more Soviet troops than US/UK
this is too gamey.
ok…
constructive inputs welcomedNo Chinese outside China ( china includes japanese occupied China and British held China- in AA50)
The only way an ally can enter China is if an axis controls it, and they are taking it back
except in the Soviets case they enjoy the IPC and it does not go to China
thats very simple.I am not fond of a “no Chinese outside China” rule
AARHE is not about turning AAR into AA50 !
people just play AA50 if they you want a separate Chinaafter that bit it was just back to what you proposed before except the restriction now applies to all Allies
I already said why I don’t like it
its a restrictive rule trying to enforce a replay of history
a rule more suited for our friend Flashman’s house rulesRussia made Mongolia independent and there was nothing China could do about it
Russia could well make Sinkiang independent if they wanted to
no one could stop Russia from sending troops to China, it was a Soviet choice
US supported China with air force, they could have done more if they wanted to, it was a US choiceI tried my best if you still disagree there we are at a stalemate
in that case we should just leave both yours and my China rule out
like we said already its not bad, Japan already can’t blitz the 2 inland Chinese territories and 3 territories in the Far EastSoviet Factories (a new rule) -
hence I asked where you want the player do be able to mobilize this turn? at the new location or old location?
I propose you can mobilize at old location, and then you can move factories at the end of mobilize phase
this way we can remove the one-off aspect of once per game limit, help Russia more times, yet not over poweringThe Soviets can option to relocate the factories during build phase, and the move takes place at placement phase. One factory per Soviet turn and each one time per game. thats the rule. Obviously he cant place units in a moved factory till next turn.
if I am reading this correct you don’t want the player to be able to mobilise at the new nor old location of the IC
so how about just let the rule be self contained in phase 6: mobilize new units?
I am trying to remove the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 6) aspect of the rule
for reasons similar to why we removed the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 7) aspect of the old tech ruleI am also trying to remove the once per game limit, because one-off rules are a waste of document space, reader attention span, and requires players to remember more things
I don’t think its over powering to remove the once-per-game limit since its restricted to within original Soviet territories and that you can’t mobilise on it this turn (as above) -
Land Movement (new rule) -
Quote
during the retreat step of any combat cycle either side can declare “fight to death” and from next cycle onwards there are no further retreats
Quote
no thats not good, we don’t want the possibility of the attacker being thwarted by the defender retreating before combat.
no you can’t retreat before combat
retreat step (step 7: Press Attack or Withdrawattack) occurs after units fire (step 2, 4, 5)yes but make the language clear: I still have no idea what the rule is as you wrote it. Write in simple language.
example: the defender can retreat on x round…. no more ‘unit fire step sequence’ unless its real basic.
Quote
but recall in AARHE defender declare intentions first in the retreat step
Quote
under that system the attack was always mandated for at least one turn.
don’t worry it still is in my proposal, you just misread (see above)
Quote
New idea: during each active players turn, his land forces may make a number of free moves:
yeah we have a similar rule already
the optional rule Strategic Redeployment
you can apply your idea to simplify Strategic Redeploymentok we keep that then, but consider a lower starting value and tied to industry and placement, so more factories give you more SR points. this is good for the game.
Naval Movement -
Quote
working on it.
okStalinst Xenophobia -
Quote
*Chinese territories goes to Soviet control if more Soviet troops than US/UK
Quote
this is too gamey.
ok…
constructive inputs welcomedQuote
No Chinese outside China ( china includes japanese occupied China and British held China- in AA50)
The only way an ally can enter China is if an axis controls it, and they are taking it back
except in the Soviets case they enjoy the IPC and it does not go to China
thats very simple.
I am not fond of a “no Chinese outside China” rule
AARHE is not about turning AAR into AA50 !
people just play AA50 if they you want a separate Chinawell thats the next step, plus our 1939 map is basically lifted of ideas to make AA50, we should start getting into the new fashion of the day and embrace the new ideas. AARHE must take in these new concepts because AA50 is the new revised and Revised is the old Milton Bradley now…
after that bit it was just back to what you proposed before except the restriction now applies to all Allies
I already said why I don’t like it
its a restrictive rule trying to enforce a replay of history
a rule more suited for our friend Flashman’s house rulesyes perhaps thats true.
Russia made Mongolia independent and there was nothing China could do about it
Russia could well make Sinkiang independent if they wanted to
no one could stop Russia from sending troops to China, it was a Soviet choice
US supported China with air force, they could have done more if they wanted to, it was a US choiceMongolia is neutral by aligned to Russia. The bottom line is Russia is not gonna invade Chinese territories that are Chinese controlled, nor will China allow Russia to do this as being an ally. China and Russia have a long history of conflicts, but in that day Stalin had no desire to attack the Chinese.
I tried my best if you still disagree there we are at a stalemate
in that case we should just leave both yours and my China rule out
like we said already its not bad, Japan already can’t blitz the 2 inland Chinese territories and 3 territories in the Far Eastyes i guess its a push out for both ideas.
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
hence I asked where you want the player do be able to mobilize this turn? at the new location or old location?
I propose you can mobilize at old location, and then you can move factories at the end of mobilize phase
this way we can remove the one-off aspect of once per game limit, help Russia more times, yet not over powering
Quote
The Soviets can option to relocate the factories during build phase, and the move takes place at placement phase. One factory per Soviet turn and each one time per game. thats the rule. Obviously he cant place units in a moved factory till next turn.
if I am reading this correct you don’t want the player to be able to mobilise at the new nor old location of the IC
so how about just let the rule be self contained in phase 6: mobilize new units?
I am trying to remove the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 6) aspect of the rule
for reasons similar to why we removed the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 7) aspect of the old tech rulethey move the factory during build phase and place in placement phase. I guess we can allow the placement in the moved factory in the same turn, but it dont look good.
I am also trying to remove the once per game limit, because one-off rules are a waste of document space, reader attention span, and requires players to remember more things
I don’t think its over powering to remove the once-per-game limit since its restricted to within original Soviet territories and that you can’t mobilise on it this turn (as above)I looked at that, but it may lead to tricks. The Soviets could not move all her factories in one turn, but as i said before we can allow placement on the same turn as placement of the new factory…so resolved.
-
well thats the next step, plus our 1939 map is basically lifted of ideas to make AA50, we should start getting into the new fashion of the day and embrace the new ideas. AARHE must take in these new concepts because AA50 is the new revised and Revised is the old Milton Bradley now…
yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHE
Land Movement (new rule) - removed, replaced by this fight to death thing
Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -
yes but make the language clear: I still have no idea what the rule is as you wrote it. Write in simple language
example: the defender can retreat on x round…. no more ‘unit fire step sequence’ unless its real basic.I want to keep it simple too
I thought “retreat step” is not ambigious
but you got confused when I said “retreat step of the combat cycle”anyway here is another go
During the “Press Attack or Withdraw” step of the combat cycle, the defender declares all actions before the attacker declares any. You may retreat some or all of your units. After that you may declare to “fight to death” with the remaining units. From the next combat cycle, there can be no further retreat by either side.Naval Movement - on hold
Stalinst Xenophobia - done, no China rules
but other bits like Allies can’t enter Soviet held original Soviet territories is includedSoviet Factories (a new rule) -
they move the factory during build phase and place in placement phase. I guess we can allow the placement in the moved factory in the same turn, but it dont look good.
I am not asking we allow units to be mobilize at an IC that is moving this turn
you don’t want to and I also don’t want to
we just say
You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn.I am trying to have it self contained in phase 6: mobilize
remove the requirement to declare in phase 2: purchase
just like how we remove the requirement to declare tech dice in phase 2: purchaseI looked at that, but it may lead to tricks. The Soviets could not move all her factories in one turn, but as i said before we can allow placement on the same turn as placement of the new factory…so resolved.
you don’t want Soviets to be able to move all her factories in one turn right?
thats fine, I am not asking to lift the one IC per turn limit
I am asking to lift the once per game for an IC limit
don’t think its too powerful provided you can’t mobilize at a moving IC this turn -
Quote
well thats the next step, plus our 1939 map is basically lifted of ideas to make AA50, we should start getting into the new fashion of the day and embrace the new ideas. AARHE must take in these new concepts because AA50 is the new revised and Revised is the old Milton Bradley now…
yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHE
you better believe it.
Land Movement (new rule) - removed, replaced by this fight to death thing.
ok pending scripting on that.
Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -
Quote
yes but make the language clear: I still have no idea what the rule is as you wrote it. Write in simple language
example: the defender can retreat on x round…. no more ‘unit fire step sequence’ unless its real basic.
I want to keep it simple too
I thought “retreat step” is not ambiguous
but you got confused when I said “retreat step of the combat cycle”anyway here is another go
During the “Press Attack or Withdraw” step of the combat cycle, the defender declares all actions before the attacker declares any. You may retreat some or all of your units. After that you may declare to “fight to death” with the remaining units. From the next combat cycle, there can be no further retreat by either side.OK lets get this straight:
defender declares his intentions ( retreat, continue, or die fighting)
attacker then decides one of first 2 options
If defender declared the third option, then attacker is stuck to fight to death?Naval Movement - on hold
Stalinst Xenophobia - done, no China rules
but other bits like Allies can’t enter Soviet held original Soviet territories is includedok ok
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
they move the factory during build phase and place in placement phase. I guess we can allow the placement in the moved factory in the same turn, but it dont look good.
I am not asking we allow units to be mobilize at an IC that is moving this turn
you don’t want to and I also don’t want to
we just say
You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn.I am trying to have it self contained in phase 6: mobilize
remove the requirement to declare in phase 2: purchase
just like how we remove the requirement to declare tech dice in phase 2: purchaseok then what is the new scripting on this?
Quote
I looked at that, but it may lead to tricks. The Soviets could not move all her factories in one turn, but as i said before we can allow placement on the same turn as placement of the new factory…so resolved.
you don’t want Soviets to be able to move all her factories in one turn right?
thats fine, I am not asking to lift the one IC per turn limit
I am asking to lift the once per game for an IC limit
don’t think its too powerful provided you can’t mobilize at a moving IC this turnWell actually its “each factory can move one time per game” if the Soviets build a new factory it too can have the option. Its not one time you can move one factory, but EACH factory can move once.
lets see new scripting>>?
-
yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?
anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHEyou better believe it.
what do you mean by better believe it?
as in you think you would put a revised rule into a house rule for classic?
as in you think AA50HE can be a lot simpler than AARHE?Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -
OK lets get this straight:
defender declares his intentions ( retreat, continue, or die fighting)
attacker then decides one of first 2 options
If defender declared the third option, then attacker is stuck to fight to death?(1) yes defender declares one of 3 options
(2) no attacker then decides also from all 3 options
(3) no if defender declares the third option, attacker is not stuck yet, but BOTH sides are stuck from next cycle of combatreasoning below
regarding (1) we haven’t mentioned removal of AARHE’s partial retreat, if you want to partial retreat I have to think about retreat rules accordingly
regarding (2) both side has the ability to turn the combat into a no-more-retreat-style, this is important as I don’t want to disadvantage the attacker. so if we model what the defender can do to tie down attacking forces we also model what the attacker can do to tie down the defending forces from retreating
regarding (3) its from next cycle onwards because I don’t want the defender to have ability to suddenly stop the attacker from retreating. You wanted to give the defender ability to trench in and pose for city fighting. So no retreat should be from next cycle of combat onwards. If attacker wants to conquer they are in for a messy fight with no retreat.
Now, my proposal does allow attacker to make stuck any unretreated defending units. This is I think is reasonable in the context of defender being passive forces in axis and allies.Naval Movement - on hold
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Well actually its “each factory can move one time per game” if the Soviets build a new factory it too can have the option. Its not one time you can move one factory, but EACH factory can move once.
lets see new scripting>>?yeah I know
and I am sugguesting to remove “each factory can move one time per game” limit but keep the “move only one factory per turn” limit
it shouldn’t be too powerful since you can’t mobilize units at a moving IC this turnPhase 6: Mobilize New Units
Soviet Factories
The Soviet player may move one Industrial Complex to an adjacent space. Both spaces must be Soviet held original Soviet territories. You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn. -
Quote
yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?
anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHE
Quote
you better believe it.
what do you mean by better believe it?
as in you think you would put a revised rule into a house rule for classic?
as in you think AA50HE can be a lot simpler than AARHE?Its an American expression: its the vital reason why the effort is being made is the connotation.
Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -
Quote
OK lets get this straight:
defender declares his intentions ( retreat, continue, or die fighting)
attacker then decides one of first 2 options
If defender declared the third option, then attacker is stuck to fight to death?(1) yes defender declares one of 3 options
(2) no attacker then decides also from all 3 options
(3) no if defender declares the third option, attacker is not stuck yet, but BOTH sides are stuck from next cycle of combatreasoning below
regarding (1) we haven’t mentioned removal of AARHE’s partial retreat, if you want to partial retreat I have to think about retreat rules accordingly
regarding (2) both side has the ability to turn the combat into a no-more-retreat-style, this is important as I don’t want to disadvantage the attacker. so if we model what the defender can do to tie down attacking forces we also model what the attacker can do to tie down the defending forces from retreating
regarding (3) its from next cycle onwards because I don’t want the defender to have ability to suddenly stop the attacker from retreating. You wanted to give the defender ability to trench in and pose for city fighting. So no retreat should be from next cycle of combat onwards. If attacker wants to conquer they are in for a messy fight with no retreat.
Now, my proposal does allow attacker to make stuck any unretreated defending units. This is I think is reasonable in the context of defender being passive forces in axis and allies.This is too complicated. lets use something i am familiar with borrow the wargame retreat rules:
Before any round the defender followed by the attacker declares which units he wants to retreat. Units declared that are retreating do not fire in the subsequent round. If either side rolls up and gets more kills than what is left the additional hits go against retreating units and these dont fire back.
example: attacker has 4 tanks against 3 defending infantry. Defender decides that he will retreat 2 infantry, so attacker rolls out and gets 3 hits, so the defender rolls his two hits, then the defender removes both his defending force plus one retreating unit.
Naval Movement - on hold
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
Well actually its “each factory can move one time per game” if the Soviets build a new factory it too can have the option. Its not one time you can move one factory, but EACH factory can move once.
lets see new scripting>>?
yeah I know
and I am suggesting to remove “each factory can move one time per game” limit but keep the “move only one factory per turn” limit
it shouldn’t be too powerful since you can’t mobilize units at a moving IC this turnwe don’t want the same factory moving more than once. thats the point. That removes the power of moving a mobile factory every turn.
Phase 6: Mobilize New Units
Soviet Factories
The Soviet player may move one Industrial Complex to an adjacent space. Both spaces must be Soviet held original Soviet territories. You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn.this is too weak. one space? why? its useless to make it one space. The Soviet factories were moved out of bomber range, which means it needs to be more than one.
its nothing wrong with “one factory per turn can move or be destroyed” and " placements arrive the following turn that you place factory."
Suggested Topics
