AARHE: Rule files

[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.)

[tekkyy]

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

hehe I was worried about too much juice
in OOB you can win battles with SB and not actual infantry

anyway this is related to the model of how many cycles is amphibious landing and how many cyles is the overall battle…see below

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

for amphibous assault…
Step: Conduct opening fire
In the first cycle of combat, defending artillery and tanks only fire in this step only.

the +1 mountainous/snowy defense bonus was about defensive terrain bonus
I don’t think it should apply to the above preemptive shot
if you agree I would move the rule to the particular step:
Step: Defending units fire
In mountainous or snowy terrain territories, defending land units have their defence increased by 1 on the first cycle of combat.

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

I am having second thoughts
normandy landings (days) is a small part of the operation overlord (months)

its best we model the landing in first cycle of combat
also makes the rules simpler

like we already have
defending artillery/tanks preemptive fire…1st cycle only
+1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy…1st cycle only

so should try to make
shore bombardment (SB)…to be 1st cycle only?
landing limit…to be 1st cycle only?

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

yeah the old list only contains Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar
all below 10km^2

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
ok so thats one round or every round? If just round one its not enough juice.
hehe I was worried about too much juice
in OOB you can win battles with SB and not actual infantry

ok one round.

Quote
ok then out of this defender will stock more armor for defense and not just have infantry. script it.
for amphibous assault…
Step: Conduct opening fire
In the first cycle of combat, defending artillery and tanks only fire in this step only.

ok fine…

the +1 mountainous/snowy defense bonus was about defensive terrain bonus
I don’t think it should apply to the above preemptive shot
if you agree I would move the rule to the particular step:
Step: Defending units fire
In mountainous or snowy terrain territories, defending land units have their defence increased by 1 on the first cycle of combat.

ok thats fine.

Quote
no it can only hit what lands, so 6. On round 2 you got 12 coming in.
I am having second thoughts
normandy landings (days) is a small part of the operation overlord (months)

invasions need to occur less frequently and be less easy. This is an easy way to not allow a bunch of builds landing every turn just taking stuff for the hell of it.

like we already have
defending artillery/tanks preemptive fire…1st cycle only
+1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy…1st cycle only

so should try to make
shore bombardment (SB)…to be 1st cycle only?
landing limit…to be 1st cycle only?

ok first turn = IPC determines what can be landed

Quote
yes the 2 limit applies now to small islands/groups ( not Philippines, Borneo or east indies.)
yeah the old list only contains Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar
all below 10km^2

Add Hawaii, Solomon, and Okinawa, and list to include 1939 added islands which are small.

[tekkyy]

ok first turn = IPC determines what can be landed

proposed script:
_Step 1: Place units on battle board
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports a number of land units equal to the territory’s IPC value. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In the second cycle of combat (or at the end of first cycle if combat is won by attacker) the attacker offloads remaining units.

Step 1: Place units on battle board (territories marked as small)
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports two land units. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In subsequent cycles of combat the attacker may offload from Transport a number of land units to ‘‘top up’’ to two land units on the battle board._

Add Hawaii, Solomon, and Okinawa, and list to include 1939 added islands which are small.

Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar are <10 km^2 and marked as small in AARHE

Hawaii, Solomon and Okinawa are large enough as staging area and hence not marked as small in AARHE

Hawaii 28,311 km^2
Solomon 28,896 km^2
Okinawa 2,271 km^2

Allied forces in Battle of Okinawa is huge, 50% that of Battle of Normandy

last thing before moving to naval combat
if partial retreat is not hugely important I would prefer to get rid of it

[Imperious Leader]

I got an excellent solution for Shore bombardment!!!

A player may bring any number of ships he wants, what they now do is this:

The ship rolls out its attack roll and the number of what it rolls is the defending unit that is suppressed. A suppressed unit cannot fire but cannot also be taken as a combat loss. Its basically useless and should be retreated because it wont get to fire at all. So if you got a BB and it rolls a 3, then any unit that defends at 3 wont be firing and does not defend. Its not exactly destroyed but its basically a broken unit.  So a battleship can suppress all land units and air units that defend at 1-4, while a cruiser can effect only units 1-3.

Reasoning: SB had the goal of rendering the defender (which is dug in and at the advantage) basically unable to make use of his environment so he cant fire back. I would take this to mean he cant fire back from these prepared positions. The trick was to make it so that the attacker could have some choice on what unit he wanted to suppress because  the attacker had vital information prepared in advance as to where the defender had his strong points, which were blasted before the landings. This in terms of gameplay allows a stronger naval unit the opportunity to effect a wider range of units.

The other idea was this:

The BB or other SB unit rolls out and any time he hits he can select the unit that now defends at 1. So if a BB rolls a one, it can assign a defending tank a new defensive value of one.

in both systems no restrictions on naval units you bring in.

Quote
ok first turn = IPC determines what can be landed
proposed script:
Step 1: Place units on battle board
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports a number of land units equal to the territory’s IPC value. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In the second cycle of combat (or at the end of first cycle if combat is won by attacker) the attacker offloads remaining units.

this is good.

Step 1: Place units on battle board (territories marked as small)
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports two land units. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In subsequent cycles of combat the attacker may offload from Transport a number of land units to ‘‘top up’’ to two land units on the battle board.

Quote

Add Hawaii, Solomon, and Okinawa, and list to include 1939 added islands which are small.
Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar are <10 km^2 and marked as small in AARHE

Hawaii, Solomon and Okinawa are large enough as staging area and hence not marked as small in AARHE

Hawaii 28,311 km^2
Solomon 28,896 km^2
Okinawa 2,271 km^2

Allied forces in Battle of Okinawa is huge, 50% that of Battle of Normandy

ok thats fine your list is what will be used.

last thing before moving to naval combat
if partial retreat is not hugely important I would prefer to get rid of it

partial for attacker or defender?