AARHE: Rule files

Land Movement (new rule) -
Quote
during the retreat step of any combat cycle either side can declare “fight to death” and from next cycle onwards there are no further retreats
Quote
no thats not good, we don’t want the possibility of the attacker being thwarted by the defender retreating before combat.
no you can’t retreat before combat
retreat step (step 7: Press Attack or Withdrawattack) occurs after units fire (step 2, 4, 5)

yes but make the language clear: I still have no idea what the rule is as you wrote it. Write in simple language.

example: the defender can retreat on x round….  no more ‘unit fire step sequence’ unless its real basic.

Quote
but recall in AARHE defender declare intentions first in the retreat step
Quote
under that system the attack was always mandated for at least one turn.
don’t worry it still is in my proposal, you just misread (see above)
Quote
New idea: during each active players turn, his land forces may make a number of free moves:
yeah we have a similar rule already
the optional rule Strategic Redeployment
you can apply your idea to simplify Strategic Redeployment

ok we keep that then, but consider a lower starting value and tied to industry and placement, so more factories give you more SR points. this is good for the game.

Naval Movement -
Quote
working on it.
ok

Stalinst Xenophobia -
Quote
*Chinese territories goes to Soviet control if more Soviet troops than US/UK
Quote
this is too gamey.
ok…
constructive inputs welcomed

Quote
No Chinese outside China ( china includes japanese occupied China and British held China- in AA50)
The only way an ally can enter China is if an axis controls it, and they are taking it back
except in the Soviets case they enjoy the IPC and it does not go to China
thats very simple.
I am not fond of a “no Chinese outside China” rule
AARHE is not about turning AAR into AA50 !
people just play AA50 if they you want a separate China

well thats the next step, plus our 1939 map is basically lifted of ideas to make AA50, we should start getting into the new fashion of the day and embrace the new ideas. AARHE must take in these new concepts because AA50 is the new revised and Revised is the old Milton Bradley now…

after that bit it was just back to what you proposed before except the restriction now applies to all Allies
I already said why I don’t like it
its a restrictive rule trying to enforce a replay of history
a rule more suited for our friend Flashman’s house rules

yes perhaps thats true.

Russia made Mongolia independent and there was nothing China could do about it
Russia could well make Sinkiang independent if they wanted to
no one could stop Russia from sending troops to China, it was a Soviet choice
US supported China with air force, they could have done more if they wanted to, it was a US choice

Mongolia is neutral by aligned to Russia. The bottom line is Russia is not gonna invade Chinese territories that are Chinese controlled, nor will China allow Russia to do this as being an ally. China and Russia have a long history of conflicts, but in that day Stalin had no desire to attack the Chinese.

I tried my best if you still disagree there we are at a stalemate
in that case we should just leave both yours and my China rule out
like we said already its not bad, Japan already can’t blitz the 2 inland Chinese territories and 3 territories in the Far East

yes i guess its a push out for both ideas.

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
hence I asked where you want the player do be able to mobilize this turn? at the new location or old location?
I propose you can mobilize at old location, and then you can move factories at the end of mobilize phase
this way we can remove the one-off aspect of once per game limit, help Russia more times, yet not over powering
Quote
The Soviets can option to relocate the factories during build phase, and the move takes place at placement phase. One factory per Soviet turn and each one time per game. thats the rule. Obviously he cant place units in a moved factory till next turn.
if I am reading this correct you don’t want the player to be able to mobilise at the new nor old location of the IC
so how about just let the rule be self contained in phase 6: mobilize new units?
I am trying to remove the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 6) aspect of the rule
for reasons similar to why we removed the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 7) aspect of the old tech rule

they move the factory during build phase and place in placement phase. I guess we can allow the placement in the moved factory in the same turn, but it dont look good.

I am also trying to remove the once per game limit, because one-off rules are a waste of document space, reader attention span, and requires players to remember more things
I don’t think its over powering to remove the once-per-game limit since its restricted to within original Soviet territories and that you can’t mobilise on it this turn (as above)

I looked at that, but it may lead to tricks. The Soviets could not move all her factories in one turn, but as i said before we can allow placement on the same turn as placement of the new factory…so resolved.

Quote
well thats the next step, plus our 1939 map is basically lifted of ideas to make AA50, we should start getting into the new fashion of the day and embrace the new ideas. AARHE must take in these new concepts because AA50 is the new revised and Revised is the old Milton Bradley now…
yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?

anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHE

you better believe it.

Land Movement (new rule) - removed, replaced by this fight to death thing.

ok pending scripting on that.

Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -
Quote
yes but make the language clear: I still have no idea what the rule is as you wrote it. Write in simple language
example: the defender can retreat on x round….  no more ‘unit fire step sequence’ unless its real basic.
I want to keep it simple too
I thought “retreat step” is not ambiguous
but you got confused when I said “retreat step of the combat cycle”

anyway here is another go
During the “Press Attack or Withdraw” step of the combat cycle, the defender declares all actions before the attacker declares any. You may retreat some or all of your units. After that you may declare to “fight to death” with the remaining units. From the next combat cycle, there can be no further retreat by either side.

OK lets get this straight:

defender declares his intentions ( retreat, continue, or die fighting)
attacker then decides one of first 2 options
If defender declared the third option, then attacker is stuck to fight to death?

Naval Movement - on hold

Stalinst Xenophobia - done, no China rules
but other bits like Allies can’t enter Soviet held original Soviet territories is included

ok ok

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
they move the factory during build phase and place in placement phase. I guess we can allow the placement in the moved factory in the same turn, but it dont look good.
I am not asking we allow units to be mobilize at an IC that is moving this turn
you don’t want to and I also don’t want to
we just say
You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn.

I am trying to have it self contained in phase 6: mobilize
remove the requirement to declare in phase 2: purchase
just like how we remove the requirement to declare tech dice in phase 2: purchase

ok then what is the new scripting on this?

Quote
I looked at that, but it may lead to tricks. The Soviets could not move all her factories in one turn, but as i said before we can allow placement on the same turn as placement of the new factory…so resolved.
you don’t want Soviets to be able to move all her factories in one turn right?
thats fine, I am not asking to lift the one IC per turn limit
I am asking to lift the once per game for an IC limit
don’t think its too powerful provided you can’t mobilize at a moving IC this turn

Well actually its “each factory can move one time per game” if the Soviets build a new factory it too can have the option. Its not one time you can move one factory, but EACH factory can move once.

lets see new scripting>>?

Quote
yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?
anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHE
Quote
you better believe it.
what do you mean by better believe it?
as in you think you would put a revised rule into a house rule for classic?
as in you think AA50HE can be a lot simpler than AARHE?

Its an American expression: its the vital reason why the effort is being made is the connotation.

Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -
Quote
OK lets get this straight:
defender declares his intentions ( retreat, continue, or die fighting)
attacker then decides one of first 2 options
If defender declared the third option, then attacker is stuck to fight to death?

(1) yes defender declares one of 3 options
(2) no attacker then decides also from all 3 options
(3) no if defender declares the third option, attacker is not stuck yet, but BOTH sides are stuck from next cycle of combat

reasoning below

regarding (1) we haven’t mentioned removal of AARHE’s partial retreat, if you want to partial retreat I have to think about retreat rules accordingly

regarding (2) both side has the ability to turn the combat into a no-more-retreat-style, this is important as I don’t want to disadvantage the attacker. so if we model what the defender can do to tie down attacking forces we also model what the attacker can do to tie down the defending forces from retreating

regarding (3) its from next cycle onwards because I don’t want the defender to have ability to suddenly stop the attacker from retreating. You wanted to give the defender ability to trench in and pose for city fighting. So no retreat  should be from next cycle of combat onwards. If attacker wants to conquer they are in for a messy fight with no retreat.
Now, my proposal does allow attacker to make stuck any unretreated defending units. This is I think is reasonable in the context of defender being passive forces in axis and allies.

This is too complicated. lets use something i am familiar with borrow the wargame retreat rules:

Before any round the defender followed by the attacker declares which units he wants to retreat. Units declared that are retreating do not fire in the subsequent round. If either side rolls up and gets more kills than what is left the additional hits go against retreating units and these dont fire back.

example: attacker has 4 tanks against 3 defending infantry. Defender decides that he will retreat 2 infantry, so attacker rolls out and gets 3 hits, so the defender rolls his two hits, then the defender removes both his defending force plus one retreating unit.

Naval Movement - on hold

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
Well actually its “each factory can move one time per game” if the Soviets build a new factory it too can have the option. Its not one time you can move one factory, but EACH factory can move once.
lets see new scripting>>?
yeah I know
and I am suggesting to remove “each factory can move one time per game” limit but keep the “move only one factory per turn” limit
it shouldn’t be too powerful since you can’t mobilize units at a moving IC this turn

we don’t want the same factory moving more than once. thats the point. That removes the power of moving a mobile factory every turn.

Phase 6: Mobilize New Units
Soviet Factories
The Soviet player may move one Industrial Complex to an adjacent space. Both spaces must be Soviet held original Soviet territories. You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn.

this is too weak. one space? why? its useless to make it one space. The Soviet factories were moved out of bomber range, which means it needs to be more than one.

its nothing wrong with “one factory per turn can move or be destroyed” and " placements arrive the following turn that you place factory."

by the way try to read the whole post before you type up your reply
sometimes it appears you read and reply at the same time which makes the response funny

Retreat (phase 4: conduct combat) -
Quote
This is too complicated. lets use something i am familiar with borrow the wargame retreat rules:
its amazing when say “too complicated”
my “fight to death” rule is much simpler than your “fight to death” rule
its the answering of your questions that was long

the actually rule as posted in one post earlier is that either side can declare it and then both sides much fight to death from next combat cycle

Quote
example: attacker has 4 tanks against 3 defending infantry. Defender decides that he will retreat 2 infantry, so attacker rolls out and gets 3 hits, so the defender rolls his two hits, then the defender removes both his defending force plus one retreating unit.
um…ok that’s a retreat rule for partial retreat
but we are discussing a retreat rule for fight to death at the moment

They are totally linked. The retreat option in this case could be complete, and the attacker would get all his rolls killing what he can and the balance of the defending forces retreating. This is a basic new system…no more fight to the death, but a minor attacker advantage.

partial retreat rule does not replace a fight to death rule
to refresh your memory, this long discuss about retreat is because
*A. you want ability for one to fight to death and tie down the enemy
*B. I want attacker to be able to retreat even if it did performed too well in combat rolls killed defending units

under what they do in the wargame, thats possible to achieve w/o any fight to the death rules. take a look.

from what you’re saying it seems you are no longer pursuing your issue A, please confirm now!
if you are no longer pursuing A, then we can simply keep AARHE’s current rule (that you can always retreat) to solve my issue B

i am not longer persuing any option thats complicated and that includes the 4.0 rules.

Naval Movement - hows this coming along?
fact remains that transports are slow  (Liberty class 11.5 knots) with or without escorts
transports simply can’t join a dash through a hostile area performed by a fleet of destroyers (Fletcher class 36.5 knots) and carriers (Essex class 33 knots)

some sugguestions:
A. use AA50 rule except transports can’t go through enemy submarines, or
B. use AA50 rule except each submarine can fire once, hits can only be allocated on transports

i was favoring option B. I prefer the transports run thru the gauntlet of possible sub attacks, which was the reason why they roll for interception and attack, while it was a 1:1 basis ( excess transports pass and are not rolled against)

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
Quote
we don’t want the same factory moving more than once. thats the point. That removes the power of moving a mobile factory every turn.
you want this rule to help the Soviets
I don’t think it’ll help USSR enough if it each IC can only move once per game
anyway once per game is more suitable as a National Advantage

4.1 is not using any NA’s this is a short version, so some of the more needed items need to remain to help balance out the Soviet predicament because we dont allow allied units in Russia, so lend lease is not enough and the soviets need other things to help them out as a result of playtest.

Quote
this is too weak. one space? why? its useless to make it one space.
ok, we’ll make it you can relocate anywhere from and to, within Soviet held original Soviet territories

yes thats the original idea.anywhere.

Quote
its nothing wrong with “one factory per turn can move or be destroyed” and " placements arrive the following turn that you place factory."
referring to your link
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=22442
they are saying the plan wasn’t all that instant or magical
so I don’t think you should be able to mobilize at a moving IC this turn

each turn is 6 months that assumes alot of time to move.

anyway your placements arrive the following turn that you place factory is not well thought out
there is territory limit to number of units you can mobilize
if you pay more IPC than your deployment capacity the the IPC are lost, thats the axis and allies rule
we don’t want to make an except for this non-core rule do we? its only an adjustment rule

moving a factory is like building a factory. we use the same rules. you place in one turn the factory and place units the next. The only difference is in this case we are taking an existing factory and moving it instead.

Retreat (phase 4: conduct combat)
don’t have to decide on all details now
we just need to know we don’t need that “unused movement points” rule
we can continue now
discuss and finalize the many aspects of retreat when we go to phase 4: conduct combat

ok fine, this is now assumed under Strategic Redeployment.

last comments
*in OOB we declare decisions at the end of the combat cycle, I have reservations about shifting that to the
beginning of the cycle
*could try to remove partial retreat

ok then you declare what you retreat at start of round and these units dont fire.

Naval Movement
Quote
i was favoring option B. I prefer the transports run thru the gauntlet of possible sub attacks, which was the reason why they roll for interception and attack, while it was a 1:1 basis ( excess transports pass and are not rolled against)
thats fine, (B) is essentially 1:1
2 submarines can’t kill 4 transports…2 transports are 100% safe

yes thats what we should do. each sub has one opportunity to roll and the excess are safe. script it.

Naval Movement
Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports. Each enemy submarine rolls a die at its combat value. Hits can only be allocated on transports going through.

thats fine, and the naval force can elect to attack the sub and allow the transports movement in NCM thru the empty zone.

Soviet Factories
Quote
4.1 is not using any NA’s this is a short version, so some of the more needed items need to remain to help balance out the Soviet predicament because we dont allow allied units in Russia, so lend lease is not enough and the soviets need other things to help them out as a result of playtest.
we are both happy to boost the Soviets!
I am saying “each IC can move once per game” don’t help them much
its also one more thing to remember

Quote
moving a factory is like building a factory. we use the same rules. you place in one turn the factory and place units the next. The only difference is in this case we are taking an existing factory and moving it instead.
yeah ok place factory this turn, place units next turn
I don’t see the Soviet player abusing since they can’t build there this turn

Soviet Factories
At the beginning of Mobilize New Units phase, the Soviet player may relocate one Industrial Complex each turn. Both territories must be a currently held original Soviet territory. You may not mobilize new units at the Industrial Complex until the turn following relocation.

yes except see bold:

Convoy Raid
Collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy Submarine in the Island’s sea zone.
The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German Submarine or Destroyer in sea zones 7, 8, 11, and 12.
The Allies receive 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German Submarine or Destroyer in sea zones 1,2, 3, 4,
9 and 10. Damages in sea zone 3 and 4 can only be applied to USSR.

Soviet Partisans
The German player collects no IPC from original Soviet territories if they are not occupied by at least same
number of land unit as territory income value.

everything is fine except this above>

1. The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German Submarine or warship in sea zones 7, 8, 11, and 12.
   The Allies receive 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German Submarine or warship in sea zones 1,2, 3, 4,
   9 and 10.

2. The German player collects no IPC from original Soviet territories if they are not occupied by at least one land unit .

1a)
our idea was to include submarines and surface raiders right?

hence I didn’t include capital ships (larger and slower)

to represent German “merchart raiders” we could include Transport instead of Destroyer
then maybe for every German Submarine or Transport ?

if its realistic to include capital ships (please describe)
then maybe we won’t need to say submarines but just for every German naval unit (except Transport) ?

yes every ship that can fight is a surface raider potentially. of course no transports.

1b)
yes ok, it’ll be simpler

yes ok, but as mentioned I think “1 land unit” won’t help USSR except in early game

Its a token bit of holding back for garrison duty. Germany wasted lots of resources protecting and finding enemies when they could be on the front lines , partially due to the resistance. This should include the balkans but it would be too harsh on the Italians who have basically nothing to start.

Phase 4: Conduct Combat
lets discuss air units and air missions first
(land and naval combat sequence later)

Air units
in your 112508 file you no longer have AARHE’s
a) land units hits can’t be allocated on enemy air units
b) friendly air units in excess of friendly land units fight at combat value of 1
yeah ok, its simpler and closer to OOB

yes more like OOB

we just say air units hits must be allocated against air units first
(hopefully a basic and consistent system across both land and naval combat)

Dogfights
you proposed these values
fighter = 3
bomber = 1
I think fighter should be 2

the values are already in the rules latter on in the file ( dogfight values)

Anti-aircraft
you proposed an auto kill 1 air unit for every 6 air units
you also ask the player to do this lining up thing
and that only one AA fire

OOB is too powerful
your proposal made it weaker, but OOB’s unlimited fire of AA gun remains
your proposal lets defender choose casualty (albeit before dice) but this still allows bombers to never die, but this was the issue which resulted in Revised AA rules vs. Classic AA rules

so I propose a simple rule, from some variant (world at war?)
each AA gun fire against up to 3 air units
still targetted
still hit on a 1
still $5

OK then a cap of 3 rolls per AA gun, hit on one. fine.

Counter Air
you proposed no no changes

Strategic Bombing Raid
you proposed defending air units fight at 2 and attacking escorts fight at 1, why?
I proposed only the fighters dogfight

SBR raid is one round and dogfights can be multiple rounds. The pre SBR dogfight is not meant to chew up planes. SOI we just keep the OOB from AAE.

you proposed attacker can’t bring more escorts than bombers, why?
you proposed defender can’t use more air units then total attacking air units, why?
I don’t think these limits are realistic, when enemy has a larger air force they should be able to hurt you

It wipes out small nations and does not give them a chance to fight or use these strategies. I want the air combat to be not bloody as before.

Ground Interdiction
your proposed rule’s refers to “combat reinforcements”
AARHE doesn’t have combat reinforcements since a long while back
we only have non-combat reinforcements

Yes this is stripped down. They must be adjacent in order to participate.

The rules no longer have “NC reinforcements” but they do have strategic redeployment.

Please in the future just copy and paste the exact wording of the new text we are covering at each phase like we were doing in the beginning. use only the file i provided that we were working from. Section by section. I dont know where your dealing with because some of the ideas you posted are in different places.

Air units
your text
Land Combat: Air Units
When both sides have air units present air units fight at air combat values. Aerial combat occurs and air units do not attack land units. Hits must be allocated on other air units before transport plane.

yes more like OOB
but keep AARHE’s rule of dogfight hits allocated on air units first right?

proposed text
Air Units
When both sides have air units present air units fight at air combat values. The hits must be allocated on air units first. Fighters fight at 2 and bombers fight at 1.

ok good. ill go with that.

Dogfights
your text
Dogfights
When planes fight in land battles they now are rolling against each other and allocating other air units as hits before land units can be hit. AS such they have different dogfight values as follows:
Fighters: 3
Fighter-Bomber: 2 ( optional unit)
Bomber: 1
Heavy Bomber: 2 (technology upgrade)
Jet fighters: 4 (technology upgrade)

the values I posted were what you had
I am saying I think fighter should be @ 2 or it’ll be bloody
no proposed text
closing this heading as discussed, “air units” heading and “dogfight” heading combined into one small heading

ok fighters are at 2, but fighter bombers are at 1 now.

Antiaircraft
your text
Anti-Air
Each starting factory comes with 1 AA gun and is rolled as follows: count the number of air units flying over and for every 6 air units allocate on hit by lining up the air units and the die roll destroys the unit in the sequence. If you have less than 6 air units, then follow the same procedure, except you need to roll the quantity of planes or less to score a hit. Example: Germany flies 3 fighters over London, so UK player needs to roll 3 or less to hit. Only one AA roll for all the air units.

yep like OOB but just cap of 3 rolls per AA gun
of course we keep the old AARHE rule of not shooting at over flying units

proposed text
Antiaircraft
Air units are only subject to antiaircraft fire at the territory they are attacking. Roll one die against each attacking air unit. You may only roll up to 3 dice per Antiaircraft gun.

ok i agree. fine.

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

Quote
SBR raid is one round and dogfights can be multiple rounds. The pre SBR dogfight is not meant to chew up planes. SOI we just keep the OOB from AAE.
hehe your system is not quite as simple as AAE/AAP
the only bit you took from AAE/AAP is the 2 and 1 combat values

OK look at the example where a nation with 1 bomber wants to bomb and has just 1-2 fighters and the other side has 6 fighters…well you can see that the attackers mission will result in failure, which means that the poor nation cant use this strategy. I want anybody to use the SBR at any time regardless of their position. This is compensation for our own escort/ interceptor rules we now use.

l

proposed text
Strategic Bombing Run (SBR)
Bomber may perform SBR against any enemy territory. Attacker may send fighters as escorts. Defender may send 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.

yes good.

Counter Air (CA)
I am still thining about this
want simplicity, consistency

Ground Interdiction
I am still thinking about this
want simplicity, consistency

in the first case its like an SBR attack but with no bombers. your goal is to kill planes. Attacker at 1, defender at 2
this is a good rule.

In the second case adjacent fighters can assist an attacked territory. fighting at air combat values

Quote
your proposed rule’s refers to “combat reinforcements”
AARHE doesn’t have combat reinforcements since a long while back
we only have non-combat reinforcements
Quote
Yes this is stripped down. They must be adjacent in order to participate.
The rules no longer have “NC reinforcements” but they do have strategic redeployment.
the stripped down part I think you are referring to phase 3: “Air Reinforcement”
Non-combat Reinforcement is in phase 5 and for land units

yes I did notice your 112508 file did not have the “Reinforcement” rule in phase 5 and only had “Strategic Redeployment” (SR)
SR has previously been an optional rule due to complexity
I wouldn’t agree to have it as a standard rule in the current form, let your idea of putting in your unused movement point idea into SR.

Its a great idea and its the only compensation left for the non- inclusion of the “armor moving one space, can use the second MP to retreat in NCM” we got rid of that idea because you felt is was too gamey, but this is a great idea.

regardless, in their current form SR is not a replacement for “Reinforcement” in phase 5
Reinforcement addresses a very different issue
it is due to defender retreat, making defending units under attack can move but untouched defending units may not…hence untouched defending units should be able to relocate

SR points can allocate units that just were in combat to allow the to retreat. SO thats the way we fit in the game the idea of greater movement. I am trying to fix the idea that the defender retreats and leaves the attacker exposed for counterattack.

Air Missions overall heading
your text
Air Missions
Each air unit can only perform one air mission per turn. It may not perform normal combat in the same turn. Air missions are declared with normal combat moves. Air missions are resolved before normal combats and before Defensive Air Support air units arrive.

adjustment to AAE/AAP system as you wish
defending air units cannot participate in normal combat

except for adjacent defending air can assist in air defense.

proposed text
Air Missions
Each air unit can only perform one air mission per turn. Air units performing air missions and air units defending against air missions may not participate in other combat this turn. Defending air units may retreat if territory control is lost. Air missions are resolved before normal combats and before Air Reinforcement units arrive.

I am not clear on the last sentence. I think your saying the active player performs all air missions first, while some of these types of mission require the defender to make decisions, so its not a proper thing to say the passive player cant allocate his planes for defensive missions like Air reinforcement or SBR interceptions.