AARHE: Rule files

Logistic costs are quite expensive. Maybe 1 IPC per land unit in amphibious assault is too much.
How about 1 IPC per transport instead?

==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?

I noticed Capture of defender’s retreating army to not affect gameplay much. You roll for each tank in excess of defender at 1…just doesn’t do much. Could consider removing it.

============= im working on something and i also have this opinion. Lets get rid of it, but i propose this to replace it:

If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.

Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement has complex restrictions, and we are talking about a passive turn decision. Currently there is one cycle delay and if defender does not survive first cycle then its too late combat is over and the reinforcement have to go back where they came from. Now then you have to remember those units as they can’t do non-combat reinforcement.
We have defender retreat already, so its not too bad to not allow land units ability to reinforce.
I recall you didn’t like it much anyway.

============== thank god almighty you finally see my point!. Get rid of this idea ASAP. God i really hated it, but allowed it to remain because im a team player. I am sending you the Iron Cross with oak leaves direct from Berlin HQ

Air reinforcement (DAS) remains. But I am thinking to remove the delay (there is delay only when relocating from 2 spaces away). Or, only allow DAS a range of 1 (instead of the current 2).

=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.

Counter Air (CA) mission was actually used by people. Recall CA stops the defending air units from relocating to a different territory.
Was it the intention that those defending air units can defending in the current territory?

================ Yes they can also perform defense. But only one offensive air mission and CA is one such operation. Im glad they see the value in this form of combat. Remember they fight at Air dogfight values.

eg. UK performs CA mission at SEU so German air units at SEU can’t relocate to defend WEU. Now, if UK also invades SEU should the German air units at SEU be occupied by UK’s CA mission or should they be able to defend SEU?

==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.

Ground Interdiction (GI) mission was almost not touched. It can be removed if we go ahead and remove the land units combat reinforcement.

================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.

The simplified Naval Combat Sequence (from discussion season end of last year resulting in removal of screening and other bits) was under test. People still had a hard time getting the naval combat seqeuence.
This one will require a discussion season of its own when we do nothing else about AARHE but this.

===== ok lets start one. Post how you like it revised and we will trim it.

I also wonder if In Amphibious Assault can be a bit simply. Its not the sequence here. Its how only infantry fight in first cycle. Attacker needs to surive first cycle to offload tanks and artillery for second cycle. Its realistic to say they must secure the beach before offloading tanks but then again you wonder if its too tactical / below level of abstract.
Arillery firing in opening-fire and infrastructure defence raising infantry defence by 1 is already giving defender nice bonus.

=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.

post it and we will have a look.

I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE

AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION…

Map is 85% done.

I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 23, 2008, 04:22:12 pm
==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?
The invasion is amphibious assault.
Doesn’t matter how many landed. The current rule is 1 IPC per land unit.

You asked where was it landed.
Are you considering making it different?

Could make it…
no cost for normal terrain. 1 IPC for mountainous terrain (and then get rid of mountainous offload limit).

I just want to know if this was a real invasion or you just landed to exchange a few pieces with the enemy and get pushed off. That type of thing is not what were after and as a tactic were trying to cut out. Invasions need to be a major undertaking where a substantial investment is offered and the goal is victory. In ww2 if Normany failed the allies would take 2-3 years to regroup and make another effort. it would have been disaster. This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

Quote
If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.
Well there is a problem with letting Armor attack another space. It breaks the game mechanics of each unit only fighting in one space per turn.

*if armor can attack multiple spaces per turn, then why not air units?
*it could get in the way of defender retreats, requiring more complexity to the rule

As you see if we break that game mechanics, it could gets messy.

ok nevermind. lets junk it.

Quote
=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.
I go for only adjacent planes can DAS

(rule is so much simpler not having to describe what happens in the different outcomes due to delay)

ok adjacent then.

Quote
================ Yes they can also perform defense.
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)

\one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player

so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?

no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.

Quote
==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn

Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

Quote
================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.
ah yes
even though we are removing combat reinforcement of land units, it can still stop non-combat reinforcement

yes and you also know that would be its mission on that turn. those planes cannot perform other missions. Its fair. Its basically the rule from AA D-day, but scripted for strategic game.

Quote
=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.
post it and we will have a look.
ok next thing to do
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)

Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?

Quote
I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE

AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION….

Map is 85% done.

I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.
Well its in Latex now. So I can give you a simple text file. A nice word file would take time me to format.
Alternative we could look into PDF editor (eg. Adobe) or Postscript editor (another output of Latex).

Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.

Send me whatever you got so i can get it on my page, plus links for lyx or whatever its called.

Quote
This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.

Quote
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)
one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player

====== Planes fighting dogfights and then defending or attacking is not two missions. Its part of the same mission except your clearing the sky of planes before your hits count against land targets. Thats still the same mission.

DAS is no longer an air missions but rather a simple relocation
(it is called air reinforcement to distinguish it from CA/SBR/GI air missions)

this is because current DAS rule is merely a relocation of air units
hence I might as well remove the DAS word all together

(in the old days DAS air units has to return to original territory
but that required a paragraph of complex rules to cater for battle outcomes and to fit into other rules like defender retreat
so now DAS simply gets to you relocate your air units)

DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military

Quote
Quote
so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?
no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.
Quote
Quote
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn
Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.

I mean like this…

during active turn, air units that perform CA/SBR/GI OR normal combat (1 thing)
this is so units fight in one space per turn
also this is so we don’t end up with sort of two combat phases (to resolve air missions and then to resolve normal combat)

during passive turn, air units perform normal combat only (1 thing)
unless it was targeted by CA, where it then additionally performs dogfighting against CA air units (2 things)

++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission. A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.

Quote
Quote
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)
Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?
or how about all attacking land units fight at 1 on first round?

and by the way we still let defending artillery fire in opening-fire on first round.

==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.

This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.
so since there is a cost penalty for “being pushed off”
could cost of amphibious assault be reduced to 1 IPC each transport?

+++++++++++++++++++++ok fine make it so…

Quote
==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.
so with that we get rid of art/arm offloading second cycle thing

could a similar simplification be made for amphibious assault on mountainous?
lets says all attacking land units fight at 0, on 1st cycle amphibious assault on mountainous
and then we get rid of offloading limit for amphibious assault on mountainous
Quote

+++++++++++++++ ok make it consistent for both…

DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military
Quote
A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.
yeah I undestand DAS is real military term
but thats not what the rule is about
the rule is about relocating air units in your passive turn, before conduct combat

DAS refers to a more generic thing in real life
like how you said “potentially flying to another territory”

DAS in current territory is simply normal combat

the rule is about DAS in adjacent territory, hence I suggest called it just Air Reinforcement or whatever the military term is

++++++++++++++ any time the defender send planes to assist in combat its a DAS mission. Not “combat reinforcement”

Quote
++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission.
its not about calling it an air mission
defending air units can do what you call “basic defense” (ie. one cycle dogfight)
but that is the entire thing attacking CA air units gets to do this turn (ie. the same one cycle dogfight)

after doing this “basic defense”, defending air units also gets to perform normal combat (if that territory is also attacked conventionally)

+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.

thats like letting defending air units do two things at the same time
Quote
Quote
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn
Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.
so to not allow them do two things at the same time
I am think attacking CA air units should tie down defending air units
then they both only do one thing this turn

The attacker given equal odds in terms of material is always at a disadvantage, because the defender can recover because the fight is over his own land, so travel time is cut and ability to defend is easier for him because he has less distance, while the attacker has to fly from far away with limited fuel and ammo so he can have limited time to deal with dogfights, etc.

CA is a way to milk down the enemy airforce. Eventually you will have to attack a territory with enemy planes and land forces and finish the job. But its definatly a good tactic when you are land units poor and air force rich.

Quote
+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.
hehe actually I am saying the opposite
that they shouldn’t be able to do two things at the same time
but fine that just depends on our model of timeline

anyway defending air units shall not defend in two space
3 CA air units should tie down 3 defending air units, which shall not perform DAS

======= ok fine so if they get CA, they are stopped from flying over to perform DAS, but they still can defend their own territory if also attacked.  It is possible for the attacker to do CA, to stop a ‘horde’ of defending planes from performing DAS and take it on the chin as they say, this rule will stop everybody from putting all the planes in one territory, because the attacker can send just one plane on CA and stop like 6 planes from doing DAS, but he will learn and disperse his air force into air fronts each supporting segments of the line. But the rule of 1:1 for CA missions is good also because that exception wont get ‘tricked’ by the system.

make it so.

ok fine.

all you need to type is:

Economic Isolation of small islands:
If you occupy the sea zone that surrounds the small island groups, the controlling player of that island group does not receive income until the sea zone is cleared of enemy ships.

now heres the next part:

A sea zone part of a path* [see Spending or Saving IPC] is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit
(except Transport) destroys 1 IPC. This is applied to IPC going via the path.

rewrite it without the mumbo jumbo.

1. Each German or Italian naval unit outside the Baltic and Mediterranean sea can strip one IPC of income from either UK or USA (if at war).

2. Each Japanese Naval unit in the Pacific and within in any path of sea zones between British or American factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost either of these players 1 IPC.

3. Each British and American Submarine in the Pacific Ocean in any path of sea zones between Japanese factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost the Japanese player 1 IPC.

These ideas and what we have from your text are totally different. What you wrote allows:

1. Soviets to attack German IPC
2. British to attack Italian
3. British to attack German IPC
4. American to attack German IPC

Reality: Germany didn’t have any merchant trade by sea except by iron ore deposits from Sweden. And the Soviets never had any capability to interfere with it.

Britain didn’t sink any Italian merchant ships, they sunk transports sending supplies to support DAK, and this was 85% done by fighters based in Malta.

Britain didn’t sink any Japanese merchant trade either.

Japan did sink some American trade in the Pacific. VERY LITTLE

American subs pulverized Japanese trading in the mid and late war period as they closed inside to Japan. It should have been persued more because it nearly starved Japan

Quote
Economic Isolation of small islands:
If you occupy the sea zone that surrounds the small island groups, the controlling player of that island group does not receive income until the sea zone is cleared of enemy ships.
Just because an island (eg. East Indies) is under blockade, resources (4 IPC) don’t just evaporate.
The resources can be spent on the island itself.
Hence I tried to incorporate it into convoy raiding, to keep it real.

But as mentioned previously I am not fond of allowing one single naval unit to destroy everything. I think convoy raiding is enough.

++++++++++++++ But that was the point of the greater east Asia prosperity sphere, to build a insurmountable line of fortified outposts of islands to protect Japans holdings. If Japan cant do that they should not get the income. Perhaps we can say on the second turn of isolation, the owning player does not receive income. That would give japan a chance to recover. Besides you keep bringing up that 4 IPC thing, when it is only the most resource rich island on the map, while most of these buggers are 1 IPC.

Quote
rewrite it without the mumbo jumbo.
Heres the problem.
I prefer it written short, consistent, and in game terms.
You prefer the W@W style. Static, nation oriented, historic replay style of writing.

Its not Xeno W@W, rather its more clear to people who are just picking up these rules for the first time and don’t want to have to figure what your getting at and can clearly understand whats going on in a self contained writing style. Its not important if you want a universal writing style, what is important is the mass players who benefit from this can get on with playing the game as soon as they finish reading it ONE TIME.

We shouldn’t have to remember which particular player can be raided by which particular players.
We shouldn’t let players have immunity even if the game goes differently to history.

++++++++++These rules are also trying to balance the game, The axis are in need of some basic tools considering the fact that they are economically totally outclassed. And we address this by giving play balance and some historical justification. Your point would be correct if each nation started out with the same IPC and the same military forces.

Quote

1. Each German or Italian naval unit outside the Baltic and Mediterranean sea can strip one IPC of income from either UK or USA (if at war).
2. Each Japanese Naval unit in the Pacific and within in any path of sea zones between British or American factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost either of these players 1 IPC.
3. Each British and American Submarine in the Pacific Ocean in any path of sea zones between Japanese factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost the Japanese player 1 IPC.
   I’ve already explained why static systems are unrealistic.
   You can read the back log if you wish.

++++ what is written above is not a “static system” its just an outline of how income is stripped by naval ships, so that people are not confused into thinking that the axis are in the tank even more because we went against history in a variant designed to model History, and secondly, you made everybody have the same ability to sack 4 IPC or whatever because you want to give the allies even more things they can use their superior fleet for which bring imbalance.

I see this time you’ve expanded your system with wordings like “path”.
Its getting longer and longer. But it still doesn’t get rid of problems I’ve already mentioned.

What you wrote allows:
*10 German submarines at distant unrelated sea zones (eg. Argentina) hit UK for 10 IPC per turn
*10 Japanese submarines at Hawaii hit US for 10 IPC per turn
*10 US submarines at New Guinea hit Japan for 10 IPC per turn

++++++++ yes this is true, but its also true that the Axis cant pay for these items unless they are not spending it for land units. In the case of Argentina they are sinking ships that travel either to and from S America or go around the southern end. Look at a map of where the U-Boats operated and you will have the correct answer. www.uboat.net

In the case of Hawaii, this is also true. If japan can build that many subs and send them near American territories, then the USA player has either lost the game already or Germany just fell a bit early and they used every thing possible for Europe.

In the case of New Guinea, you can also look up what happened to Japanese shipping by American subs. If America built the historical equal to 10 subs, it would have been really effective.

Quote

These ideas and what we have from your text are totally different. What you wrote allows:

1. Soviets to attack German IPC
2. British to attack Italian
3. British to attack German IPC
4. American to attack German IPC

Nope.
The simple consistent rule models actual shipping.
Russia, Germany and US territories are lumped together. For the most of it you can’t hit their shipping. Until the status quo changes.

That consistent rule as you call it is not a historical model from ww2. Its an everything for everybody approach that turns a historical game into checkers. Otherwise whats stopping the American player from building SS panzers? You cant just lump together stuff that didn’t happen in world war two in sole pursuit of “universality” Remember this IS a historical version.

However if Germany takes Africa and they want to spend the money at Berlin, they’ll have to protect the related sea zones.

++++++++ Nope. I already made it clear that Germany is not effected by IPC naval raids. Besides they use the medd as the focal point of supplies, which the allies can only attack directly with planes if they control Malta or whatever.

And if Germany controls southern America, then the game is usually over anyway…

Quote
Reality: Germany didn’t have any merchant trade by sea except by iron ore deposits from Sweden. And the Soviets never had any capability to interfere with it.

Britain didn’t sink any Italian merchant ships, they sunk transports sending supplies to support DAK, and this was 85% done by fighters based in Malta.

Britain didn’t sink any Japanese merchant trade either.

Japan did sink some American trade in the Pacific. VERY LITTLE

American subs pulverized Japanese trading in the mid and late war period as they closed inside to Japan. It should have been persued more because it nearly starved Japan

Thats historic replay.
Its only realistic is the game happens the same as history.

My system is basic, universal and remains realistic regardless even if Germany takes Africa, or US takes South Pacific.

That would be fine for a ‘universal’ version of Revised. This is a Historical version. It is also a balanced version. Not one time in playtest have i ever used what you wrote on that 4 IPC thingy, rather we used the historical model, because for balance reasons the axis have a very small navy and would have to retool the economy totally differently to start buying 10 subs. If they did that Russians would crush Germany

Quote
++++++++++++++ But that was the point of the greater east Asia prosperity sphere, to build a insurmountable line of fortified outposts of islands to protect Japans holdings. If Japan cant do that they should not get the income. Perhaps we can say on the second turn of isolation, the owning player does not receive income. That would give japan a chance to recover. Besides you keep bringing up that 4 IPC thing, when it is only the most resource rich island on the map, while most of these buggers are 1 IPC.
yes but for one single naval unit to destroy whatever the island produce seems unrealistic
convoy raiding does the same thing but factors in more ships required to intercept more income/shipping/coastline

I bring up 4 IPC thing because there are just as many high income islands as low income islands
East Indies 4, Borneo 4, Phillipines 3 vs Okinawa 1, New Guinea 1, Hawaii 1

Ok so the solution to island isolation would be to deny income after a second turn of isolation. This gives the owning player one turn to remedy the issue. Other than that and its his own fault.

Quote

Its not important if you want a universal writing style, what is important is the mass players who benefit from this can get on with playing the game as soon as they finish reading it ONE TIME.
then you shouldn’t have to remember which country can be affects by which country

But the universal approach allows anybody to take the income, A historical version only allows the nations what historically and realistically could have done this. Of course is a game like attack, everybody can do what they want because all have equal capabilities.

Quote
++++++++++These rules are also trying to balance the game, The axis are in need of some basic tools considering the fact that they are economically totally outclassed. And we address this by giving play balance and some historical justification. Your point would be correct if each nation started out with the same IPC and the same military forces.
do things for realism not balancing
until you’ve done substantial playtesting you have no idea on the state of game balance
you could easily be making it worst
AARHE is very different to revised, Germany armor and air force crushes Russia
lets not complaint about abattlemap and start playtesting

Yes right I do playtest… on the actual map that cost me $185.00 to print. I am playing the 1939 version and i can say that if you allow the allies to take off income its imbalanced. The Germans have a small window to win, but they have something thats reasonable.

Quote

++++ what is written above is not a “static system” its just an outline of how income is stripped by naval ships, so that people are not confused into thinking that the axis are in the tank even more because we went against history in a variant designed to model History, and secondly, you made everybody have the same ability to sack 4 IPC or whatever because you want to give the allies even more things they can use their superior fleet for which bring imbalance.
it is static as it does not consider what is happening is the game, where are IPCs going to
my system don’t go against history, if Germany is confined to Europe like in history, then Allies can’t really perform convoy raid on Germany just like history
Allies can have a fleet in Altantic but it won’t do anything because Germany does not have shipping there, unless Germany performs differently to history

In AARHE both sides are given the historical abilities and also the ability to develop diplomacy and weaponry, but for example Germany is NOT given the ability to become the worlds largest naval power, because if they tried that it would bust them in every other theater of war, Likewise the allies are not going to get a jump on German merchant trade because frankly Germany was blockaded from trading outside of Europe, just like in ww1….so why in a version thats claiming to be Historical can you even consider giving the allies an equal ability to develop submarine warfare to the extent that Germany or Italy is losing IPCs because the British have ships in the Atlantic?  If Germany didn’t trade with say Mexico, then why can they possibly be penalized in the same manner as Germany herself did against the allies did in the real war?

Quote
++++++++ yes this is true, but its also true that the Axis cant pay for these items unless they are not spending it for land units. In the case of Argentina they are sinking ships that travel either to and from S America or go around the southern end. Look at a map of where the U-Boats operated and you will have the correct answer. www.uboat.net
that is the player’s option
the same can be said for Allies’ SBR bombing vs building landing air units

Argentina is only an example, the point is your (1) does not consider “where” like in (2) and (3)
and also none of them consider actual shipping
its ridiculous you can lose more than you ship
to bleed a player like that is unrealistic

What? who said lose a ship? We are discussing the western allies losing 1 IPC for each German sub or surface ship in Atlantic or Indian ocean. The rule exactly allows the only nation that historically effected the other nations to lose IPC, so that we are modeling what historically happened. Only the western allies had got income in this manner along with japan, so to model this we need those 3 lines of text.

this is quite similar to why AARHE have a round limit for SBR/rocket.

OK, but the British player is going to develop tech and buy more ships to sink the German ships. What we are doing is basically to simplify the convoy box system that normally would be in the game. Thats the starting point. The result because this system where you simply counted the German/ Italian ships and subtracted from western allies. That is the only thing we are doing. It worked in AAE and AAP.

Quote
In the case of Hawaii, this is also true. If japan can build that many subs and send them near American territories, then the USA player has either lost the game already or Germany just fell a bit early and they used every thing possible for Europe.
I wouldn’t have such judgement
AARe had a static system too
1/2 IPC per submarine near IC
Japan can easily afford to gradually build submarines to park at Hawaii or Western US

In the 1939 version Japan cant do anything of the sort. They need to focus on realistic ideas. I remember AARe having a 1 IPC loss rule, but i guess they went to .5 IPC. In play testing i don’t see the need to go lower than 1 IPC.

Quote

In the case of New Guinea, you can also look up what happened to Japanese shipping by American subs. If America built the historical equal to 10 subs, it would have been really effective.
well well well, in WWII American subs were actually positioned at the right place to hit convoys

a super high concentration of submarines at South East Pacific don’t do much against shipping at South East Asia

But thats not the rule! In the pacific the case is different, you need to be within ( in between ) the path from enemy controlled territory and factory.

OK LETS TRY THIS:

new idea….  Each submarine or surface ship within 2 sea zones of any western allied controlled territory can destroy one IPC ( must roll as usual) not to exceed the total value of this territory.

Example: If German subs are off Canada, they can take income not exceeding the total income of Canadian territories, plus they need to roll as usual. This method does not drain the economy.

How bout you try realistic numbers of subs and ships to see how much Germany actually destroys.

Quote
That consistent rule as you call it is not a historical model from ww2. Its an everything for everybody approach that turns a historical game into checkers. Otherwise whats stopping the American player from building SS panzers? You cant just lump together stuff that didn’t happen in world war two in sole pursuit of “universality” Remember this IS a historical version.
it models realism
if gameplay occurs like history then things fall into place like history
its that simple

but players are not forced to do as the nation did in history

We are talking about capabilities. its not realistic to allow everybody to be able to do anything. Italy cant make the a bomb,

USA is not going to turn into a nazi state and fight the allies.

Some things are not to be allowed in a historical game.

The British are not going to be allowed to all of the sudden to become some huge submarine building nation and sink all the german convoys when the Germans don’t even have convoys. You might as well also ignore the fact that Germany is almost land locked, but force the allies to only invade Germany by sea. Thats about the same level as what you propose with the allies ability to sink “fantom German merchant convoys”

Quote
++++++++ Nope. I already made it clear that Germany is not effected by IPC naval raids. Besides they use the medd as the focal point of supplies, which the allies can only attack directly with planes if they control Malta or whatever.
can’t just use what happened in history and apply it to all possible cases

if Germany captured more than small holdings in North Africa I don’t see why don’t need to secure convoy routes

or if you think switching between ships and trucks multiple times (eg. Australia to Africa via sea, across Africa via land, Africa to UK via sea) is an effective way to transport then we can relax my system further to allow that

If German captured all of Africa the supplies would run into the medd and transport to southern Europe. It would not go by way of the Atlantic and get shot at and sunk by the allies, yet your universal system allows this.

Quote
That would be fine for a ‘universal’ version of Revised. This is a Historical version. It is also a balanced version. Not one time in playtest have i ever used what you wrote on that 4 IPC thingy, rather we used the historical model, because for balance reasons the axis have a very small navy and would have to retool the economy totally differently to start buying 10 subs. If they did that Russians would crush Germany
again I emphasis historic realism not historic replay
in terms of balanced or not maybe you should start playtesting fully rather than cherry picking rules you like where funny things can happen

If we succeed is modeling history AND also modeling what was realistically possible AND providing play balance so that the axis win nearly equally that the allies , then we have done what we needed to do. I can guarantee you that the way you keep making everything universal, its not the key to providing a historical or realistic version. Id rather playtest a version thats historical and realistic and then play test, than the other way around.

the 4 IPC thing is new, in attempt to incorporate your island isolation
my system is really just 1 IPC, just like in your system
except my system do not allow you do bleed a player unrealistically

The only reason why you wrote that 4 IPC thing was based entirely on your refusal to make a number of simple sentences, which clarify who can attack what.

2 rules:

1. you don’t get income of small island territories if the other player occupies the sea zone for 2 complete turns.
2. each European Axis naval unit in the pacific and Indian ocean costs the British player 1ipc ( each ship must roll as per rules)

thats all were talking about, but latter i added the idea that USA/ UK subs next to a Japanese IPC territory can also do this but also will roll.

Thats about as hard as this thing gets, but i have you with this 4 IPC, everybody does everything, 10 subs take off 10 ipc thingy…… Thats not the rules even for a second. Its only what is written in those 2 sentences and you can add the third to give the allies some historical play.

Its not like writing these 2 sentences are going to land you in prison or you become the laughing stock of Australia?

It will make every thing easy to understand then that 4 IPC rubbish

Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 31, 2008, 11:25:38 pm
Ok so the solution to island isolation would be to deny income after a second turn of isolation. This gives the owning player one turn to remedy the issue. Other than that and its his own fault.
just because East Indies or Borneo is surrounded by enemy naval units
the 4 IPC is not going to vaporate
it can be used to to raise infantry at the VC for example

Tekkyy i have shown that how YOU wrote the 4 IPC thing makes it seem that anytime you isolate a small island the other guy loses 4 ipc. Only in one case can this actually happen…. with Borneo. With the new rule the other side has a chance to protect his empire, and also under this system its not universal (thank god) it only applies to specific historical nations that had developed this ability also historically.

Quote
But the universal approach allows anybody to take the income, A historical version only allows the nations what historically and realistically could have done this. Of course is a game like attack, everybody can do what they want because all have equal capabilities.
my universal approach allows anybody to take income, but only where appropriate
an arbitrary rule (even if reflecting history) will only be realistic for a small subset of games where players do the same as history…in the other cases it’ll won’t be reasonable
if Germany goes outside of Europe…lets say they took UK, then control of North Sea becomes important to them

If Germany took UK the game would be OVER… thats the point the Historically based game design has victory conditions which take care of these issues, so Germany would not get in that position. The German u-boat campaign was developed exclusively by Germany during 2 wars, UK, USSR, Italy, and even USA had not real appreciation of how to successfully run a submarine campaign designed to sink commerce. Thats why only certain nations are given this ability.

At the same time the allies also have unique historical advantages, such as economics and ability to develop technology which historically they did have. In a game design the balancing issues must reflect the actual relationships and try to measure these differences so they balance out. What your supporting is creating checkers where everybody starts out the same and totally ignoring the History aspect of it.

Quote
Yes right I do playtest… on the actual map that cost me $185.00 to print. I am playing the 1939 version and i can say that if you allow the allies to take off income its imbalanced. The Germans have a small window to win, but they have something thats reasonable.
now that you understand Germany can’t lose IPC just because they own Azores…you can get back to me after your next playtesting

But Germany can lose income if they lose Madagascar, or take India, or Norway, of if the Soviet sub is placed in the baltic, or this or that….

on AARHE standard map, at game setup, Germany’ll only be vulnerable to convoy raid on Algeria and Libya (total 2 IPC)…and later maybe for Norway (3 IPC) if they somehow lose Baltic…

But a Historical version must not have this because the Soviet player had no idea how to conduct these types of raids. Even if just 1 IPC was potentially at risk it would be a bad rule. This is a historical version and not a universal version. Revised is a universal version and the reason why we are doing a historical version.

Quote
In AARHE both sides are given the historical abilities and also the ability to develop diplomacy and weaponry, but for example Germany is NOT given the ability to become the worlds largest naval power, because if they tried that it would bust them in every other theater of war
but if Russia was reduced to an unimportant IPC level, Germany can put attention to its navy
or if UK was taken by Germany…their war strategy would change

We don’t allow IF’s of that type, It simply was not capable for some nations to pursue specific strategies. Its like saying both the Americans and Italians should basically have the same access to technology and diplomacy or the same IPC. Why the heck do we then just give Italy 50 IPC’s a turn?///??? Thats would be a universal idea as well….

OK ill make a new map here are the new ipcs…

USSR 50 IPC
UK  50 IPC
USA 50 IPC
Germany 50 IPC
Japan 50 ipc
Italy  50 IPC

there… now its universal rules. great… Now everybody starts out with 40 inf, 10 tanks, and 5 artillery…now just have the same 10 NA’s for everybody… and we just keep doing this until we have… checkers

Quote
OK, but the British player is going to develop tech and buy more ships to sink the German ships. What we are doing is basically to simplify the convoy box system that normally would be in the game. Thats the starting point. The result because this system where you simply counted the German/ Italian ships and subtracted from western allies. That is the only thing we are doing. It worked in AAE and AAP.
in my system you also count, but only ships that actually blocks you
and you don’t just subtract from income, because you shouldn’t be able to lose more than you ship (verb)
if AAE or AAP lets you lose more than you ship (lose more than you realistically can), then I don’t like AAE or AAP

Forget “lose a ship”… this is about convoy boxes and how we can make AARHE by simulating the historical boxes that normally would be on the map in a simple way. The conclusion is that each qualifying ship rolls a dice and potentially it can cost the other player 1 IPC… thats it… now specifically the convoy boxes are always allies, because historically the allies traded over the sea, while Japan also depended on the sea for economics. To model this we allow only specific nations and specific locations of enemy ships that can even engage of these attacks.

We are not talking about who is “blocking” or “ships” getting lost or anything.

You tell me how we incorporate the allied convoy boxes from AAE and AAP into AARHE and stop adding convoy ideas for Germany and Italy aside from a possible Italian Medd box.

Quote
But thats not the rule! In the pacific the case is different, you need to be within ( in between ) the path from enemy controlled territory and factory.
New Guinea is the income generating territory, Tokyo is the factory
thats how your rule can turn out

Ok if the USA player has subs in the New Guinea sea zone for 2 turns, then Japan faces economic isolation and thats just fine.

Quote
OK LETS TRY THIS:
new idea….  Each submarine or surface ship within 2 sea zones of any western allied controlled territory can destroy one IPC ( must roll as usual) not to exceed the total value of this territory.
Example: If German subs are off Canada, they can take income not exceeding the total income of Canadian territories, plus they need to roll as usual. This method does not drain the economy.
How bout you try realistic numbers of subs and ships to see how much Germany actually destroys.
once again we’ve changed your rule one step closer to what my system offers

unless you can show something good at this stage I just won’t buy nation specific rules because they are only realistic for a small subset of game outcomes that followed exactly like history
I am afraid players are not going to play the game exactly as history

Then they are not interested in any historical edition. You cant sell people on ideas and then be afraid to tell them what the ideas are. AARHE is for people who prefer more realism and historical ideas in these games. The OOB rules are the Universal version and thats why we toil for years to create something different.

normally Canada resources would be shipped to UK
in that case 4 IPC might be all you can hit from East Canada sea zone

but if UK fell, UK continues the fight from Canada, building infantry with resources from their colonies…then the amount that can be hit will be greater
so limiting damage to 4 IPC is not realistic

Yes correct IF UK falls and USSR falls, and USA falls and Germany owns every single territory on the map…. THEN your correct but the game is nothing but the movie “Fatherland” played out for humor in a new world run by Germany. You always seem the bring examples of a game condition thats beyond the reach of the allies to win anyway to make your points to support how unfair it all sames.

or imagine Australia, its 2 IPC but with an IC it can build 2x4=8 IPC worth
UK colonies might send resources to Australia for that…then Japan has work to be done
its no longer 2 IPC we are takling about but potential 8 IPC worth of shipping

This rule does not do that. Its only going by the printed values,not some inflated 8 IPC thing

“realistic numbers of subs and ships” is a large range…but unimportant now that they are seeing the importance of limiting damage (as reflected in this revision you made) , rather than 1 IPC per ship for unlimited amounts

Lets just stick with the original idea. I cant argue for the new idea yet.

Quote
We are talking about capabilities. its not realistic to allow everybody to be able to do anything. Italy cant make the a bomb,

USA is not going to turn into a nazi state and fight the allies.

….but is your universal world you allow anybody to do anything. Uk can start making SS units, France can have the worlds largest navy and the Soviets can sink all the non-land locked ipcs coming into Germany from the Baltic. All these ideas are equal with the USA player turning fascist in a universal world.

Some things are not to be allowed in a historical game.
though it seems you are talking about capabilities if the game happens the same as WWII
we model realism and everything falls into place
A bomb requires 10 tech boxes, only US is likely to achieve it
other nations can try (and probably fail) if they want
we use technology head start for that, rather than nation specific tech list
see? we don’t have to arbitrate it to history, models the factors…not force the outcome to happen exactly like history

We are giving each player the historical based tools to perform unique strategies to win, whether the actual players decide to engage in these strategies is not up to us, what our job is to model what was effective to each nation, and not rather make each nation have the same abilities as each other.

The American player can build A bombs more easily than Italy
The German player has developed U-boats to the extent where they nearly starved the island kingdom of England.

America can pursue technology and make a bomb and blow up Germany
Germany can build lots of subs and wipe out UK commerce

may the best nation win… thats AARHE in a nutshell.

If people want checkers and no idea of what actually was historically plausible, then keep playing OOB

Quote
If we succeed is modeling history AND also modeling what was realistically possible AND providing play balance so that the axis win nearly equally that the allies , then we have done what we needed to do. I can guarantee you that the way you keep making everything universal, its not the key to providing a historical or realistic version.
on the other I can guarantee you that if we keep making more static/arbitrary rules (even if they reflect history), the game would be realistic for only a small subset of game outcomes,
specifically those where players play like history

Play test then. but don’t encourage design where you start with checkers and everybody is left with " i thought this was a historical version?" and these blokes allow the British player to destroy German IPC’s just by having ships off the coast of African German controlled coastline.

Quote
Id rather playtest a version thats historical and realistic and then play test, than the other way around.
your system is historical but unrealistic
my system is realistic (and historic until you prove otherwise…so far your complaints such as Allies can hurt Germany or Germany can hurt Russia has been shot down…my system do you let you bleed a player by hitting on non-existent convoys)

Go look at the map and tell me which are the 2 island nations> UK and Japan, the whole convoy system thing is for nations that are islands and USA is sort of in this block. By extrapolation we conclude based on the war, that UK was nearly starved and Japan was nearly starved. Also, we conclude that USA lost alot of Liberty ships and the Murmansk convoys got attacked as they sent trade to USSR. In the latter war period American subs sunk a huge % of total foodstuffs going to japan because they were feeding off of Japan like vultures.

WE DO NOT conclude Germany lost income or Italy lost income, nor do we conclude American surface ships sunk japanese merchant ships to a high degree…. the solution is we model only the participating nations that historically were effected in this manner. WE DO NOT allow Germany to lose money because they grow food and build supplies from central Europe, while UK / USA must ship stuff to other places and also receive stuff via the SEA because they control many places that are outside in different part of the world or support these localities.

Quote

Quote
thats all were talking about, but latter i added the idea that USA/ UK subs next to a Japanese IPC territory can also do this but also will roll.
we got rid of the roll already
but if you want to introduce it again I guess we could…

fine reintroduce the rolling idea and playtest.

some reasons why I defend my system:
(also a benchmark I use against your evolving system (which is improving) and certainly has the possibility of passing and replacing my system in the future)

*you do not lose more than you ship
*enemy units do not hit your convoy when they are in a different part of the world
*remains realistic even if territory control changes

OMFG… what is this? why do you keep going back to losing one ship?

you lose one ipc  (potentially with a roll)
Enemy ships do not hit the convoy or “travel path” from another part of the world. Only German naval in Atlantic and Indian can cause 1 ipc damage each ship to british or American,  i guess the allies decide by committee who loses this, or the German player can declare, or we allow this to be dependant of how close he is to enemy IPC of territories separated by sea.

remains realistic even if territory control changes

This is the radioactive part of what you are arguing for.  UK is an island economy and Germany and Italy are NOT, but YOU want them to be treated the same…. that cant be possible unless we turn Germany into an island too.