AARHE: Rule files

[Imperious Leader]

Strategic Bombing Raid
Quote
OK look at the example where a nation with 1 bomber wants to bomb and has just 1-2 fighters and the other side has 6 fighters…well you can see that the attackers mission will result in failure
but thats the thing, realistically if your enemy has superior air force and you insist on bombing them…you are simply taking on great risks

your option should be to hit the less guarded territories, or get rockets

Thats not the option, If a nation only has one factory, then the poor nations cant attack the swarm of fighters. Thats not play balance. I want to encourage players to have the SAME ACCESS to all strategies, because they all dont start with large air forces. IN the war historically UK didnt have the air forces as Germany but still managed to bomb Berlin.

The game must reflect this. And Rockets are not a viable option for the opening period of the game.

Counter Air
Quote
in the first case its like an SBR attack but with no bombers. your goal is to kill planes. Attacker at 1, defender at 2
this is a good rule.
yeah no bombers because they are much slower
and unlike SBR there are no bombers to protect
so I think fighters of both side should be fighting at 2

NO defending are at 2 because they dont need to worry about fuel, escorts have limited time to escort before they need to fly back. The OOB rule got it correct, plus its a compromise from your issue against limiting the defense.

proposed text
Counter Air (CA)
Fighter may perform CA against any enemy territory. Defender must send at least the same number of air units in the territory to defend. They may not perform Air Reinforcement this turn. Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal and remove casualties. Fighters fight at 2. Bombers fight at 1.

I think this would work i note that ONLY in this case both attacker and defender fighters are at 2. I think it should also be at 1 and 2 like in SBR, but in this case the attacker CAN outnumber the defender in total planes.  I am right think about it carefully.

Also, The sentence underlined makes no sence to me.

keep it like this:

Defensive Air Support Mission (DAS)
During your enemies’ turn your air units may move to assist your land units defending in adjacent combat situations. DAS are declared after all combat moves are declared and before resolving any combat. DAS may not be performed during USSR player’s special opening turn.

Counter Air Mission (CA)
Air units may make an interdiction attack against air units in a hostile territory. One cycle of aerial combat occurs between your air units and hostile air units at dog fighting values. AA guns fire before this aerial combat. Your air units must retreat to the original territory. The defender may not use air units in a territory targeted by CA for Defensive Air Support up to the number of planes that the attacker brought in to perform CA mission.

Strategic Bombing Run (SBR)
Bomber may perform SBR against a hostile territory. During SBR attacks the defending player can bring in planes to fight against bombers defending at a 2. The attacker can bring in escorts to escort his bombers and they attack at 1. The maximum number of defending planes cannot exceed the total number of attacking air units including bombers. Only one round of air combat occurs prior to SBR rolls. The attacker can not bring in more escorts than bombers. Note: The AA gun rolls only against the bombers and not against the escorting fighters. The surviving bombers roll 1D6 which reduces the IPC of the player immediately.

Ground Interdiction Mission (GI)
Bomber may make an interdiction attack against land units in a hostile territory. You may bring other air units besides bomber as escorts. AA guns fire before this aerial combat. One cycle of aerial combat occurs between your air units and defending air units at dog fighting values. If a bomber survives it may roll for ground interdiction with die value equal to number of land units performing combat reinforcements now prevented from moving.

maybe the rule doesn’t make sense and should be removed
should it prevent non-combat reinforcement, or should it prevent retreat, or should it require total air superiority
this kind of rule has only appeared in hex games anyway right?

The rule prevents the existing units from moving ON THEIR TURN. It makes no claim as to units moving into and or thru the territory. Its very simple and effective use of suppression to prevent forces from advancing. its fine as it is.

[Imperious Leader]

This is the original AA rule that we are using.

Fighter Escorts and Interceptors
Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting. Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.
After antiaircraft fire is resolved against the attacking air units, if there are any defending fighters an air battle occurs between the attacking and defending air units. This combat is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with a few exceptions. The fighters have an attack value of 1 and a defense value of 2, and the bombers have no attack value. In addition, the combat lasts for only one round. After the battle, any surviving bombers proceed to carry out the raid as normal.
Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory. If that territory is captured, the fighters may move one space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attackers

[tekkyy]

Strategic Bombing Raid

Thats not the option, If a nation only has one factory, then the poor nations cant attack the swarm of fighters.

note in AARHE you bomb the territory to destroy income
we also had a rule (contributed by switch) where you bomb the industrial complex to destroy production capacity

IN the war historically UK didnt have the air forces as Germany but still managed to bomb Berlin.

we can think of why and model that
it just seems artifical to limit the size of the escort fleet or intercept fleet

so UK can bomb without losing too much
maybe its due to the length of the dogfight during an SBR being shorter than normal combat
in this case to be realistic we reduce the combat values

0 for escort fighters
1 for intercept fighters

Counter Air

I think this would work i note that ONLY in this case both attacker and defender fighters are at 2.

yes only in CA
attacking fighters in SBR are handicapped as they are escorting the bombers
but in CA attacking fighters are much closer to equal footing

Defender must send at least the same number of air units in the territory to defend.They may not perform Air Reinforcement this turn.

Also, The sentence underlined makes no sence to me.

same as before just worded differently
CA missions lets you attack and tie down defending air units

so if attacker sends 3 fighters, at least the same number of defending air units in the territory are tied down
if the defender has more than 3 air units in the territory he can send them to defend too if he wants

keep it like this:
Defensive Air Support Mission (DAS)…

DAS rule is “Close Air Support” in reality, which is just normal combat in the game
hence we don’t have DAS anymore

what we do have is “Air Reinforcement” in phase 3: combat move
come on, this was only like a week or 2 ago

Counter Air Mission (CA)…
Strategic Bombing Run (SBR)…

hehe you’ve just relisted the rules
we’ll see, still discussing ideas

Ground Interdiction

The rule prevents the existing units from moving ON THEIR TURN. It makes no claim as to units moving into and or thru the territory. Its very simple and effective use of suppression to prevent forces from advancing. its fine as it is.

just saying “its fine as it is” doesn’t add weight to your argument
hopefully you can reply to my concerns directly

I’ve only seen this kind of rule in hex games (squad level) and games with turns representing short time periods
applying it to axis and allies revised…
it doesn’t make sense for entire armies to be pinned by bombers
it doesn’t make sense for bombers to remain in enemy territory for 6 months

D-Day had a GI rule right?
its hex level, short time periods, and Allies have air superiority

Fighter Escorts and Interceptors
Defending interceptors must return to their original territory.

the time frame in AARHE is that air missions are resolved before normal combats,
air missions occur before Air Reinforcement or DAS units arrive

[Imperious Leader]

Strategic Bombing Raid
Quote
Thats not the option, If a nation only has one factory, then the poor nations cant attack the swarm of fighters.
note in AARHE you bomb the territory to destroy income
we also had a rule (contributed by switch) where you bomb the industrial complex to destroy production capacity

yes and thats an issue for the next version for AA50HE. If you want to do it now thats fine. But the real point is we want to give equal opportunity for anybody even with one bomber to bomb the enemy and not get wiped out.

Quote
IN the war historically UK didnt have the air forces as Germany but still managed to bomb Berlin.
we can think of why and model that
it just seems artifical to limit the size of the escort fleet or intercept fleet

Yes but its also not realistic to have a situation where the entire bomber force is wiped out because the other guy has 2-3 more planes. If you just got one bomber and can never build another due to the costs it just closes off the strategy for only richer nations, but historically UK bombed Berlin in 1940 and they had a much smaller air force….so its got to be allowed somehow.

so UK can bomb without losing too much
maybe its due to the length of the dogfight during an SBR being shorter than normal combat
in this case to be realistic we reduce the combat values

0 for escort fighters
1 for intercept fighters

Lowering the value to Zero im afraid is not good enough, we should just limit the quantities. its got to be 1-2 because thats the minimum, plus its easy to remember the old AAE rule.

Counter Air
Quote
I think this would work i note that ONLY in this case both attacker and defender fighters are at 2.

yes only in CA
attacking fighters in SBR are handicapped as they are escorting the bombers
but in CA attacking fighters are much closer to equal footing

ok lets try that. lets see the scripting…

Quote
Defender must send at least the same number of air units in the territory to defend.They may not perform Air Reinforcement this turn.
Quote
Also, The sentence underlined makes no sence to me.
same as before just worded differently
CA missions lets you attack and tie down defending air units

so if attacker sends 3 fighters, at least the same number of defending air units in the territory are tied down
if the defender has more than 3 air units in the territory he can send them to defend too if he wants

but you write the name MUST… thats not the way to write it out. One is rather limited in CA from performing other missions as the defender unless you have extra planes than the attacker.

Quote
keep it like this:
Defensive Air Support Mission (DAS)…
DAS rule is “Close Air Support” in reality, which is just normal combat in the game
hence we don’t have DAS anymore

what we do have is “Air Reinforcement” in phase 3: combat move
come on, this was only like a week or 2 ago

yes old terminology. ok CAS

Ground Interdiction

Quote
The rule prevents the existing units from moving ON THEIR TURN. It makes no claim as to units moving into and or thru the territory. Its very simple and effective use of suppression to prevent forces from advancing. its fine as it is.
just saying “its fine as it is” doesn’t add weight to your argument
hopefully you can reply to my concerns directly

I’ve only seen this kind of rule in hex games (squad level) and games with turns representing short time periods
applying it to axis and allies revised…
it doesn’t make sense for entire armies to be pinned by bombers
it doesn’t make sense for bombers to remain in enemy territory for 6 months

Its not that the bombers are “hovering” for 6 months, its that they are blowing the crap out of railroads, trains, roads,transportation centers…anything that effects movement to other fronts. Not to look at thing so literally. Its just the same idea as SBR except the damage is infrastructure thats effects transportation. It can be done at a strategic or tactical level.

Its just air suppression and total control of the sky. At the Bulge the Germans had no air and the tactic stopped the armor dead in its tracks from forward movement to the Meuse.

I guess its the same idea from AA D-Day…well sort of.

Quote
Fighter Escorts and Interceptors
Defending interceptors must return to their original territory.
the time frame in AARHE is that air missions are resolved before normal combats,
air missions occur before Air Reinforcement or DAS units arrive

well just write the mission out is very short sequence like you did before, but real short. The way it was written was not clear.

[tekkyy]

Strategic Bombing Raid

IL: Thats not the option, If a nation only has one factory, then the poor nations cant attack the swarm of fighters.
tekkyy: note in AARHE you bomb the territory to destroy income
we also had a rule (contributed by switch) where you bomb the industrial complex to destroy production capacity
IL: yes and thats an issue for the next version for AA50HE. If you want to do it now thats fine. But the real point is we want to give equal opportunity for anybody even with one bomber to bomb the enemy and not get wiped out.

no I was reminding you that SBR is performed on a territory not industrial complex in AARHE
ie. you can SBR Western Europe
this is regarding “nation only has one factory”

my stance isn’t to create equal opportunity
as I said before, if a player wants to suicide (inferior airforce performing SBR against superior airforce) its their choice to do so

losses during an SBR are prefectly normal
recall the comparison between the (A) Blitz, (B) V1 rockets, and © Allies strategic bombing compaign
(B) was much more cost effective, but it is not to say (A) or © is stupid
in (A), Germany vs UK, Germany can afford the losses
in ©, US+UK vs Germany, US+UK can afford the losses

Yes but its also not realistic to have a situation where the entire bomber force is wiped out because the other guy has 2-3 more planes.

its realistic if your 1 bomber division was outnumbered by the enemies’ 2-3 fighter divisions

its just suicide, the general wouldn’t have ordered such a move
solution below

but historically UK bombed Berlin in 1940 and they had a much smaller air force….so its got to be allowed somehow.

here we are talking about scale and damage that are orders of magnitude smaller
solution below

Lowering the value to Zero im afraid is not good enough, we should just limit the quantities. its got to be 1-2 because thats the minimum, plus its easy to remember the old AAE rule.

recall an old AARHE rule, where you can perform SBR at 50% effectiveness
we could use this rule, call it Night Bombing or something
we then limit bomber:escort and bomber:interceptor ratio to 1:2 as you wished

Counter Air

ok lets try that. lets see the scripting…

Counter Air (CA)
Fighter may perform CA against any enemy territory. Defender selects at least the same number of air units in the territory to fight. The selected air units may not perform Air Reinforcement this turn. Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal and remove casualties. Fighters fight at 2. Bombers fight at 1. Attacking fighters must retreat to the original territory in Non-combat Move phase.

but you write the name MUST… thats not the way to write it out. One is rather limited in CA from performing other missions as the defender unless you have extra planes than the attacker.

thats because its not optional
if Germany sends 3 fighters on a CA mission to London
UK MUST send at least 3 air units to fight

Ground Interdiction

Its not that the bombers are “hovering” for 6 months, its that they are blowing the crap out of railroads, trains, roads,transportation centers…anything that effects movement to other fronts.

ok we could keep it
but regardless I don’t agree with

The rule prevents the existing units from moving ON THEIR TURN.

it should be preventing movement of enemy land units ON YOUR TURN
ie. “Reinforcement” during phase 5: Non-combat Move

well just write the mission out is very short sequence like you did before, but real short. The way it was written was not clear.

combat move:
1. active players declare combat moves and air missions
2. passive players declare air reinforcement (because X attacking CA units prevents X defending units from performing air reinforcement)

conduct combat:
1. resolve air missions (eg. SBR)
2. resolve normal combat

I am also trying to write it short
hence I just said
Air missions are resolved before normal combats and before Air Reinforcement units arrive.
it could be written differently of course

[Imperious Leader]

Strategic Bombing Raid
Quote
IL: Thats not the option, If a nation only has one factory, then the poor nations cant attack the swarm of fighters.
tekkyy: note in AARHE you bomb the territory to destroy income
we also had a rule (contributed by switch) where you bomb the industrial complex to destroy production capacity
IL: yes and thats an issue for the next version for AA50HE. If you want to do it now thats fine. But the real point is we want to give equal opportunity for anybody even with one bomber to bomb the enemy and not get wiped out.
no I was reminding you that SBR is performed on a territory not industrial complex in AARHE
ie. you can SBR Western Europe
this is regarding “nation only has one factory”

my stance isn’t to create equal opportunity
as I said before, if a player wants to suicide (inferior airforce performing SBR against superior airforce) its their choice to do so

losses during an SBR are perfectly normal
recall the comparison between the (A) Blitz, (B) V1 rockets, and © Allies strategic bombing campaign
(B) was much more cost effective, but it is not to say (A) or © is stupid
in (A), Germany vs UK, Germany can afford the losses
in ©, US+UK vs Germany, US+UK can afford the losses

OK script the rule, but just don’t use that typical language where you have to read the thing 10 times to understand it.

Quote
Yes but its also not realistic to have a situation where the entire bomber force is wiped out because the other guy has 2-3 more planes.
its realistic if your 1 bomber division was outnumbered by the enemies’ 2-3 fighter divisions

its just suicide, the general wouldn’t have ordered such a move
solution below

Quote
but historically UK bombed Berlin in 1940 and they had a much smaller air force….so its got to be allowed somehow.
here we are talking about scale and damage that are orders of magnitude smaller
solution below

Quote
Lowering the value to Zero im afraid is not good enough, we should just limit the quantities. its got to be 1-2 because thats the minimum, plus its easy to remember the old AAE rule.
recall an old AARHE rule, where you can perform SBR at 50% effectiveness
we could use this rule, call it Night Bombing or something
we then limit bomber:escort and bomber:interceptor ratio to 1:2 as you wished

During night bombing their is no fighter defense, so i guess thats the key to allow the equal opportunity. So the SBR must be declared as Day ( which allows unlimited fighter defense) or night which is 50% effective and NO fighter defense.

ok done.

Counter Air
Quote
ok lets try that. lets see the scripting…

Counter Air (CA)
Fighter may perform CA against any enemy territory. Defender selects at least the same number of air units in the territory to fight. The selected air units may not perform Air Reinforcement this turn. Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal and remove casualties. Fighters fight at 2. Bombers fight at 1. Attacking fighters must retreat to the original territory in Non-combat Move phase.

this will work. add it.

Ground Interdiction
Quote
Its not that the bombers are “hovering” for 6 months, its that they are blowing the crap out of railroads, trains, roads,transportation centers…anything that effects movement to other fronts.
ok we could keep it
but regardless I don’t agree with
Quote
The rule prevents the existing units from moving ON THEIR TURN.
it should be preventing movement of enemy land units ON YOUR TURN
ie. “Reinforcement” during phase 5: Non-combat Move

Interdiction:

Procedure:
Bombers are designated to specific territories. A token is placed and it remains in the territory till your next turn. If during the enemy turn he moves units in or out or traces SR thru the territory, then a roll occurs as per the rules.

Quote
well just write the mission out is very short sequence like you did before, but real short. The way it was written was not clear.

combat move:
1. active players declare combat moves and air missions
2. passive players declare air reinforcement (because X attacking CA units prevents X defending units from performing air reinforcement)

conduct combat:
1. resolve air missions (eg. SBR)
2. resolve normal combat

I am also trying to write it short
hence I just said
Air missions are resolved before normal combats and before Air Reinforcement units arrive.
it could be written differently of course

ok thats fine.

[tekkyy]

Strategic Bombing Raid

@Imperious:

During night bombing their is no fighter defense, so i guess thats the key to allow the equal opportunity. So the SBR must be declared as Day ( which allows unlimited fighter defense) or night which is 50% effective and NO fighter defense.

ok done.

_Strategic Bombing Run (SBR)
Bomber may perform SBR against any enemy territory. Attacker may send fighters as escorts. Defender may select fighters in the territory to defend. Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal and remove casualties. Defending fighters fight at 2. Attacking fighters fight at 1. Remove causalities. Each surviving bomber roll a die and territory income is reduced by that many IPCs during the next collect income phase.

Night Bombing
Bomber may perform Night Bombing agaisnt any enemy territory. Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal. Each bomber roll a die and territory income is reduced by 50% of die value rounded down, during the next collect income phase._

Ground Interdiction

Procedure:
Bombers are designated to specific territories. A token is placed and it remains in the territory till your next turn. If during the enemy turn he moves units in or out or traces SR thru the territory, then a roll occurs as per the rules.

give the full rule, elaborate “a roll occurs as per the rules”

if its like each unit roll to see if the movement was prevented
then it only makes sense for a hex map where a bomber bombs a choke point (a hex cell) while enemy units try to move through

just a while ago you were saying its not bombing the territory for 6 months
rather it just destroyed some roads and rails

don’t rush it
spend some time to think about:

*whether you want to model the bomber actively interdicting (bomb and pin enemy), or passively interdicting (bomb roads and rails)

*how to model the damage/effect, you can’t just give unlimited damage
-for active interdiction, each bomber can only prevents a numer of units
-for passive interdiction, its painful to guage, the enemy will just use another road

*how it will disrupt your ability to invade the territory

I’ve spend the time previously and saw the difficulty hence I sugguested we don’t have this rule

[Imperious Leader]

Strategic Bombing Raid

Quote from: Imperious Leader on February 12, 2009, 07:20:14 pm
During night bombing their is no fighter defense, so i guess thats the key to allow the equal opportunity. So the SBR must be declared as Day ( which allows unlimited fighter defense) or night which is 50% effective and NO fighter defense.

ok done.

Strategic Bombing Run (SBR)
Bomber may perform SBR against any enemy territory. Attacker may send fighters as escorts. Defender may select fighters in the territory to defend. Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal and remove casualties. Defending fighters fight at 2. Attacking fighters fight at 1. Remove causalities. Each surviving bomber roll a die and territory income is reduced by that many IPCs during the next collect income phase.

Night Bombing
Bomber may perform Night Bombing against any enemy territory. Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal. Each bomber roll a die and territory income is reduced by 50% of die value rounded down, during the next collect income phase.

on this last part Night bombing needs a sentence like: " no enemy fighters can intercept night bombers and no aerial combat occurs if night bombing is chosen"

Ground Interdiction

Quote
Procedure:
Bombers are designated to specific territories. A token is placed and it remains in the territory till your next turn. If during the enemy turn he moves units in or out or traces SR thru the territory, then a roll occurs as per the rules.
give the full rule, elaborate “a roll occurs as per the rules”

if its like each unit roll to see if the movement was prevented
then it only makes sense for a hex map where a bomber bombs a choke point (a hex cell) while enemy units try to move through

just a while ago you were saying its not bombing the territory for 6 months
rather it just destroyed some roads and rails

don’t rush it
spend some time to think about:

*whether you want to model the bomber actively interdicting (bomb and pin enemy), or passively interdicting (bomb roads and rails)

Well then in the version of AA50HE this will be most definatly the option because the SBR of factories also effects of SR capacity of the nation.

WE need to make the interdiction a viable but not disastrous form of combat. Id prefer each bomber prevents X number of units from movement freely into or out of the territory. Its definatly something that should be included. Id like to keep it very similar to AA D-Day.

I know you don’t like it but draft something you would go with if included as optional rules.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

on this last part Night bombing needs a sentence like: " no enemy fighters can intercept night bombers and no aerial combat occurs if night bombing is chosen"

ok

WE need to make the interdiction a viable but not disastrous form of combat. Id prefer each bomber prevents X number of units from movement freely into or out of the territory. Its definatly something that should be included. Id like to keep it very similar to AA D-Day.
I know you don’t like it but draft something you would go with if included as optional rules.

prevent X units…ok thats active interdiction
effects are during YOUR turn

it’ll be “out of” the territory not “into”
as you are bombing the territory not neighbouring territories

wonder if it should have [dogfighting]
wonder if it should prevent [retreat]

Ground Interdiction (GI)
Bomber may perform GI against any enemy territory. [Attacker may send fighters as escorts. Defender may select fighters in the territory to defend.] Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal and remove casualties. [Defending fighters fight at 2. Attacking fighters fight at 1.] Remove causalities. Each surviving bomber roll a die. Defender select a number of land units equal to the die value. They are unable to [Retreat or] perform Reinforcement this turn.

[Imperious Leader]

Ground Interdiction (GI)
Bomber may perform GI against any enemy territory. [Attacker may send fighters as escorts. Defender may select fighters in the territory to defend.] Resolve antiaircraft fire as normal and remove casualties. [Defending fighters fight at 2. Attacking fighters fight at 1.] Remove causalities. Each surviving bomber roll a die. Defender select a number of land units equal to the die value. They are unable to [Retreat or] perform Reinforcement this turn.

This could be a one round dogfight. ok so one bomber can prevent up to 6 units from moving OUT of territory or using the territory for Strategic redeployment. Sometimes it makes a difference because you dont have say 6 units in the territory, but you do need to move units thru the territory to another territory ( say from france to poland via Germany)

[tekkyy]

active interdiction means interdicting movement of enemy units during your turn
so ground interdiction (GI) is not related to strategic redeployment (SR), which is movement of your units during your turn

don’t mix strategic redeployment with reinforcement, which is movement of enemy units (that did not fight) during your turn

air units and air missions added
(GI not there yet)
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20090224experimental.doc
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20090224experimental.pdf

beware, it is already 5 and 6 pages respectively
as we discuss the rest of phase 4: conduct combat we must not let complex or unneeded rules remain

[Imperious Leader]

ok then lets keep it as you scripted. lets move on to next section.

[tekkyy]

next section are the combat sequences, hit allocation, and retreat
lets start with land combat

hit allocation
your file didn’t have this section
so I presume you want to remove the rule that tanks hit tanks first?

combat sequence
your file didn’t make changes

I am thinking to let air units fire at the same time as anti-aircraft gun
in LHTR/OOB there are 2 outcomes for anti-aircraft (kill enemy planes before they drop bombs, or fail to shoot them)
in reality there is a 3rd and probably most common outcome (enemy planes dropped bombs and you shot some down)

this also means we don’t have to write a combat sequence
(which scares some players)
we now merely have two small headings to clarify “Conduct opening fire” and “Press Attack or Retreat” of LHTR/OOB’s

1\. Place units on battle board
2\. Conduct opening fire
3\. Remove opening fire casualties
4\. Attacking units fire
5\. Defending units fire
6\. Remove casualties
7\. Press attack or withdraw
8\. Concluding Combat

Step: Conduct opening fire
Air units only fire in opening fire step. After allocating anti-aircraft casualties, roll for attacking air units and allocate casualties. Then roll for defending air units and allocate casualties.

Step: Press attack or withdraw
your proposal
Land Combat Retreats
Either player can retreat after any full combat round. Retreat can be in full or in part. The attackers retreat must be to at least one of the territories the attacker can from. The defender can retreat to any controlled space. The defender always chooses retreat declarations first.
this is functionally fine

Amphibious assault
think we need to make it simpler
what are the most important aspects for you?

for me its
*retreat from amphibious assault by converting to infantry
*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basis

your proposal

On the first round of any invasion by sea, all defending units fire first on the starting combat round. Invading Infantry are the only land units that may attack on the first round followed by any other units on latter rounds. Attacking pieces are removed and don’t fire in return. After that point combat is conducted normally.

too powerful and unrealistic
its not like the whole defending army had this preemptive power
think its better to just give defender +1

your proposal

In addition, the invading player may still retreat, except all retreating non-infantry units are converted to infantry before embankment on transports.

yeah convert to infantry, thats fine

your proposal

When invading the attacker is limited in the number of land units he may bring into battle by the IPC value of the territory that is invaded. It is also limited to 2 land units per round if the territory invaded is a mountainous or snowy terrain. Each round this number can be increased by this same value until all attacking units are in play. For example: in France the British decide to invade but can only bring in 6 land units the first round, 12 units the second, etc.

don’t think IPC is a good indication
there are more points of landing on the huge coastline of France than the small UK isle

and in the end axis and allies territories are huge
so I tend to only agree with restrictions for “small” territories like Gibraltar and Wake Island

restriction on mountainous terrain is difficult
in the it must be playable as Southern Europe and Japan are mountainous

your proposal

If the American player decided to use the D-Day option, this is doubled so it would be 6 land units per nation.

I notice your D-Day thing, and looking back we haven’t discussed round sequence…I must ask if you are thinking of getting rid of our beloved “all axis, all allies” round sequence?

[Imperious Leader]

hit allocation
your file didn’t have this section
so I presume you want to remove the rule that tanks hit tanks first?

yes we get rid of this. its bogging the game down. no more tanks hit tanks…etc

combat sequence
your file didn’t make changes

I am thinking to let air units fire at the same time as anti-aircraft gun
in LHTR/OOB there are 2 outcomes for anti-aircraft (kill enemy planes before they drop bombs, or fail to shoot them)
in reality there is a 3rd and probably most common outcome (enemy planes dropped bombs and you shot some down)

this also means we don’t have to write a combat sequence
(which scares some players)
we now merely have two small headings to clarify “Conduct opening fire” and “Press Attack or Retreat” of LHTR/OOB’s
Code:

1. Place units on battle board
2. Conduct opening fire
3. Remove opening fire casualties
4. Attacking units fire
5. Defending units fire
6. Remove casualties
7. Press attack or withdraw
8. Concluding Combat

yes i prefer this as well. make it more simple. but you need to add a step where the defender can allocate adjacent planes for support. Also, on item #7:  should read Press attack or retreat declarations.

Step: Conduct opening fire
Air units only fire in opening fire step. After allocating anti-aircraft casualties, roll for attacking air units and allocate casualties. Then roll for defending air units and allocate casualties.

yes right

Step: Press attack or withdraw
your proposal
Land Combat Retreats
Either player can retreat after any full combat round. Retreat can be in full or in part. The attackers retreat must be to at least one of the territories the attacker can from. The defender can retreat to any controlled space. The defender always chooses retreat declarations first.
this is functionally fine

ok great.

Amphibious assault
think we need to make it simpler
what are the most important aspects for you?

for me its
*retreat from amphibious assault by converting to infantry
*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basis

your proposal
Quote
On the first round of any invasion by sea, all defending units fire first on the starting combat round. Invading Infantry are the only land units that may attack on the first round followed by any other units on latter rounds. Attacking pieces are removed and don’t fire in return. After that point combat is conducted normally.
too powerful and unrealistic
its not like the whole defending army had this preemptive power
think its better to just give defender +1

The defender needs to get to fire first, but this can be limited to artillery like we have it before.

so:

1. shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
2. defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
3. attacking units fire
4. defending infantry fire

how bout this?

your proposal
Quote
In addition, the invading player may still retreat, except all retreating non-infantry units are converted to infantry before embankment on transports.
yeah convert to infantry, thats fine

ok

your proposal
Quote
When invading the attacker is limited in the number of land units he may bring into battle by the IPC value of the territory that is invaded. It is also limited to 2 land units per round if the territory invaded is a mountainous or snowy terrain. Each round this number can be increased by this same value until all attacking units are in play. For example: in France the British decide to invade but can only bring in 6 land units the first round, 12 units the second, etc.
don’t think IPC is a good indication
there are more points of landing on the huge coastline of France than the small UK isle

and in the end axis and allies territories are huge
so I tend to only agree with restrictions for “small” territories like Gibraltar and Wake Island

They are huge territories  but invasions are only performed in narrow sections. The limitations are realistic. playtest it and you will see less invasions, but more stronger invasions rather than raids.

restriction on mountainous terrain is difficult
in the it must be playable as Southern Europe and Japan are mountainous

Invading specific mountain areas is nearly impossible to do with large forces. Japan should not be mountain.

your proposal
Quote
If the American player decided to use the D-Day option, this is doubled so it would be 6 land units per nation.
I notice your D-Day thing, and looking back we haven’t discussed round sequence…I must ask if you are thinking of getting rid of our beloved “all axis, all allies” round sequence?

no not at all. That cant be changed. its great. we should have some rules on multi national forces.

[tekkyy]

yes i prefer this as well. make it more simple. but you need to add a step where the defender can allocate adjacent planes for support.

thats “Air Reinforcement”, which is declared during “combat move” phase

Also, on item #7:  should read Press attack or retreat declarations.

that list was just what LHTR had as a combat sequence
its not a AARHE combat sequence which I am saying we don’t need to make

The defender needs to get to fire first, but this can be limited to artillery like we have it before.
so:

1. shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
2. defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
3. attacking units fire
4. defending infantry fire
   how bout this?

ok we just say defending artillery fire in opening fire in the first cycle of combat
but for shore bombardment, I was sugguesting:

*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basis

]They are huge territories  but invasions are only performed in narrow sections. The limitations are realistic. playtest it and you will see less invasions, but more stronger invasions rather than raids.

what kind of raids are you seeing in your games?

in AARHE you collecting income at end of turn, so UK doesn’t collect income from Western Europe to replace losses unless they can hold it

add that basic shore bombardment change (not an original idea) there would be little incentive to raid?

what I am thinking is your limit does not affect small attacking force, but disadvantage large attacking force

I disagree with the rule as I consider the capturing of beaches and ports to be shorter than the 1st cycle of combat, a small thing in the overall campaign that last several cycles
where majority of the fighting occurs inland

Invading specific mountain areas is nearly impossible to do with large forces. Japan should not be mountain.

territories are labelled “mountainous” in AARHE according to actual geography
if Japan is not to be labelled mountainous than Southern Europe (with a higher % of plains) can’t be mountainous…and than if Southern Europe is not mountainous something else in turn shouldn’t be…

lets make defender advantage (for amphibious assault on mountainous terrain) itself realistic rather than blame other rules

no not at all. That cant be changed. its great. we should have some rules on multi national forces.

well I am not sure OOB or LHTR National Advantages are compatible with AARHE
it wasn’t the intention for players to use OOB National Advantage or Technology in AARHE

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
yes i prefer this as well. make it more simple. but you need to add a step where the defender can allocate adjacent planes for support.
thats “Air Reinforcement”, which is declared during “combat move” phase

Quote
Also, on item #7:  should read Press attack or retreat declarations.
that list was just what LHTR had as a combat sequence
its not a AARHE combat sequence which I am saying we don’t need to make

Quote
The defender needs to get to fire first, but this can be limited to artillery like we have it before.
so:

1. shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
2. defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
3. attacking units fire
4. defending infantry fire
   how bout this?
   ok we just say defending artillery fire in opening fire in the first cycle of combat
   but for shore bombardment, I was sugguesting:
   Quote
   *no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basis

Quote
]They are huge territories  but invasions are only performed in narrow sections. The limitations are realistic. playtest it and you will see less invasions, but more stronger invasions rather than raids.
what kind of raids are you seeing in your games?

Invasions now are in the form of just invading for the purpose of killing units to prevent reinforcement to other areas, they are less frequent than OOB, but the purpose of what they have become is still not like the new rules have intended.

On the sequence for invasions:

1. shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
2. defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
3. attacking units fire
4. defending infantry fire

the idea above seems correct, but you got to keep SB bonus per 4 units landing like 4.0

in AARHE you collecting income at end of turn, so UK doesn’t collect income from Western Europe to replace losses unless they can hold it

add that basic shore bombardment change (not an original idea) there would be little incentive to raid?

what I am thinking is your limit does not affect small attacking force, but disadvantage large attacking force

I disagree with the rule as I consider the capturing of beaches and ports to be shorter than the 1st cycle of combat, a small thing in the overall campaign that last several cycles
where majority of the fighting occurs inland

Quote
Invading specific mountain areas is nearly impossible to do with large forces. Japan should not be mountain.
territories are labelled “mountainous” in AARHE according to actual geography
if Japan is not to be labelled mountainous than Southern Europe (with a higher % of plains) can’t be mountainous…and than if Southern Europe is not mountainous something else in turn shouldn’t be…

Japan is mountainous, but these are in the interior. So for invasions its effect is too great because it makes this important territory virtually impossible to invade. In Southern Europe its more like Norway where the cliffs and poor terrain are located much closer to the shoreline. Hitler feared the British would invade in the Balkans, but knew they didn’t have to be defended too much because of the terrain was so favorable for the defender.

Quote
no not at all. That cant be changed. its great. we should have some rules on multi national forces.
well I am not sure OOB or LHTR National Advantages are compatible with AARHE
it wasn’t the intention for players to use OOB National Advantage or Technology in AARHE

Well lets just say their is no need to change the movement sequence.

[tekkyy]

Invasions now are in the form of just invading for the purpose of killing units to prevent reinforcement to other areas, they are less frequent than OOB, but the purpose of what they have become is still not like the new rules have intended.

I think thats an issue with “reinforcement”, not amphibious assault
reinforcement: passive land units that did not fight in combat can move to adjacent friendly territory in “non-combat move”

you can increase the difficulty of amphibious assault but it won’t stop UK from attacking Western Europe with a small force to stop units in Western Europe from performing “reinforcement”

but its a problem anyway…defending units at Western Europe can just retreat to Germany or South Europe instead of using “reinforcement” rule to move in NCM…unless both are under attack (can’t retreat to unresolved combat zone)

and both under attack then the player is under attack left right and centre and I would say its fair he has to wait for his active turn to move

the idea above seems correct, but you got to keep SB bonus per 4 units landing like 4.0

what about my proposal of SB ships giving +1 to infantry instead (1-to-1)?

AARHE 4.0’s one SB die per 4 units landing sort of took SB out of the game, especially in the Pacific

importantly, neither of us want battles to be over (in opening fire) before it started due to SB

2. defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)

yes we previously had defending artillery fire in opening fire on 1st cycle of combat, are you saying we should include tanks?

Japan is mountainous, but these are in the interior. So for invasions its effect is too great because it makes this important territory virtually impossible to invade. In Southern Europe its more like Norway where the cliffs and poor terrain are located much closer to the shoreline. Hitler feared the British would invade in the Balkans, but knew they didn’t have to be defended too much because of the terrain was so favorable for the defender.

Japan’s mountains are pretty close to the edge too
it also has a low % of coast line invadable (Japan vs. Eastern part of Southern Europe)
however, the territory “South Europe” includes the plains of Italy

as for “important territory virtually impossible to invade”, South Europe surely gets invaded while Japan usually gets invaded in end game

so I think the mountainous amphibious limit of 2 units on 1st cycle, 4 on 2nd, 6 on 3rd…are just too low for both South Europe and Japan

how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?

Well lets just say their is no need to change the movement sequence.

I think by “movement sequence” you meant “round sequence”
yeah we can keep AARHE’s existing round sequence

we got carried away, I am trying to say that you mentioned D-Day but there is no D-Day (or any other OOB-wording National Advantages) in AARHE

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
Invasions now are in the form of just invading for the purpose of killing units to prevent reinforcement to other areas, they are less frequent than OOB, but the purpose of what they have become is still not like the new rules have intended.

I think thats an issue with “reinforcement”, not amphibious assault
reinforcement: passive land units that did not fight in combat can move to adjacent friendly territory in “non-combat move”

you can increase the difficulty of amphibious assault but it won’t stop UK from attacking Western Europe with a small force to stop units in Western Europe from performing “reinforcement”

but its a problem anyway…defending units at Western Europe can just retreat to Germany or South Europe instead of using “reinforcement” rule to move in NCM…unless both are under attack (can’t retreat to unresolved combat zone)

and both under attack then the player is under attack left right and centre and I would say its fair he has to wait for his active turn to move

well yes the defender can retreat, but the invasions still go on in spite of the income collection value from OOB.

Quote
the idea above seems correct, but you got to keep SB bonus per 4 units landing like 4.0
what about my proposal of SB ships giving +1 to infantry instead (1-to-1)?

AARHE 4.0’s one SB die per 4 units landing sort of took SB out of the game, especially in the Pacific

importantly, neither of us want battles to be over (in opening fire) before it started due to SB

yes but in 4.0 we have both the +1 and 4 units get one SB rule, your proposal is already the 4.0 rule.

I don’t know what to do with this. Perhaps just return it to OOB to make it easier

Quote
2) defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
yes we previously had defending artillery fire in opening fire on 1st cycle of combat, are you saying we should include tanks?

Its either artillery get preemptive fire or anything with a barrel can shoot, for tanks this would be committing armor early enough in the invasion which would have had a huge effect on D-Day.  I would like the rule to be more simple but effective.

Quote

Japan is mountainous, but these are in the interior. So for invasions its effect is too great because it makes this important territory virtually impossible to invade. In Southern Europe its more like Norway where the cliffs and poor terrain are located much closer to the shoreline. Hitler feared the British would invade in the Balkans, but knew they didn’t have to be defended too much because of the terrain was so favorable for the defender.
Japan’s mountains are pretty close to the edge too
it also has a low % of coast line invadable (Japan vs. Eastern part of Southern Europe)
however, the territory “South Europe” includes the plains of Italy

as for “important territory virtually impossible to invade”, South Europe surely gets invaded while Japan usually gets invaded in end game

well its also such an important place, i think the label it mountain is not good for game play situations.

so I think the mountainous amphibious limit of 2 units on 1st cycle, 4 on 2nd, 6 on 3rd…are just too low for both South Europe and Japan

Thats why i propose landing = total land pieces with IPC value… so southern Europe can be invaded by 6 units on round 1 and 12 on round 2…etc.  Norway would still be at 2 because its value is 2.

how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?

yes lets do that. script it.

Quote
Well lets just say their is no need to change the movement sequence.
I think by “movement sequence” you meant “round sequence”
yeah we can keep AARHE’s existing round sequence

we got carried away, I am trying to say that you mentioned D-Day but there is no D-Day (or any other OOB-wording National Advantages) in AARHE

right no NA in this 4.1  if we go with NA they will be universal national advantages so that its equal and balanced for everyone.

[tekkyy]

yes but in 4.0 we have both the +1 and 4 units get one SB rule, your proposal is already the 4.0 rule.
I don’t know what to do with this. Perhaps just return it to OOB to make it easier

it’ll be good to bring back SB for the Pacific
but we don’t want OOB’s SB winning land battle

maybe I didn’t explain clearly
I am proposing SB +1 to infantry….instead of the SB rolls

Its either artillery get preemptive fire or anything with a barrel can shoot, for tanks this would be committing armor early enough in the invasion which would have had a huge effect on D-Day.  I would like the rule to be more simple but effective.

yep ok, include tanks

well its also such an important place, i think the label it mountain is not good for game play situations.

I still don’t get it
Japan doesn’t get invaded til end game

or are you ok with it now that we use the IPC limit not the limit of 2

how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?

yes lets do that. script it.

before I script I need one more detail

US invades Southern Europe (6 IPC)
1st cycle of combat, only 6 amphibious land units can roll
Germany rolls and gets 7 hits…does US allocate 6 or 7 casualties?

note, if US only have to allocate 6 casualties there is a side effect of reducing the power of the +1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy on 1st cycle of combat
(ie. for large battles, it might actually make amphibious assault easier than normal land-to-land assault)

the stricter limit of 2 land units per cycle, I would want to apply it to territories marked as “small” (eg. Wake Island)

[Imperious Leader]

yes but in 4.0 we have both the +1 and 4 units get one SB rule, your proposal is already the 4.0 rule.
I don’t know what to do with this. Perhaps just return it to OOB to make it easier

it’ll be good to bring back SB for the Pacific
but we don’t want OOB’s SB winning land battle

maybe I didn’t explain clearly
I am proposing SB +1 to infantry….instead of the SB rolls

ok so thats one round or every round? If just round one its not enough juice.

Quote
Its either artillery get preemptive fire or anything with a barrel can shoot, for tanks this would be committing armor early enough in the invasion which would have had a huge effect on D-Day.  I would like the rule to be more simple but effective.
yep ok, include tanks

ok then out of this defender will stock more armor for defense and not just have infantry. script it.

Quote
well its also such an important place, i think the label it mountain is not good for game play situations.
I still don’t get it
Japan doesn’t get invaded til end game

or are you ok with it now that we use the IPC limit not the limit of 2

Ok no limit of two except small island rule: Stacking limited to X and invasion limited to X.

Quote
Quote
how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?
yes lets do that. script it.
before I script I need one more detail

US invades Southern Europe (6 IPC)
1st cycle of combat, only 6 amphibious land units can roll
Germany rolls and gets 7 hits…does US allocate 6 or 7 casualties?

no it can only hit what lands, so 6. On round 2 you got 12 coming in.

note, if US only have to allocate 6 casualties there is a side effect of reducing the power of the +1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy on 1st cycle of combat
(ie. for large battles, it might actually make amphibious assault easier than normal land-to-land assault)

well its also connected to SB. The attacker has to get something decent because the defender in mountains is strong. I prefer to keep the terrain rule, which limits attacks on Norway which were harder to do anyway.

the stricter limit of 2 land units per cycle, I would want to apply it to territories marked as “small” (eg. Wake Island)

yes the 2 limit applies now to small islands/groups ( not Philippines, Borneo or east indies.)