@Imperious:
They are easier to achieve than the normal VC. I don’t see the value in them because we have victory conditions, and these most likely would be easy to also achieve if your close to victory.
Japan can do well and win for the Axis while Germany finishes the game without achieving enough of the national victory conditions
yes but if they have no formal duty, they are just fluff
they do have a duty
if you don’t achieve them, you lost “nationally”
Yes that was the idea with them originally, it should be possible for one axis nation to win and the other to fail
to me once you considered all the possible combinations, you realise its not easy to define how to end the game
Germany could be in a good shape
but because Japan achieves their conditions the game ends and Germany loses
doesn’t seem right
the quick fix would be to make national victory conditions the 4th game mode
that way you don’t have to worry about how it tanggles up with the city, IPC, etc game modes
so partnerships dont need to take place to the extent they do under our current VC. THAT was the entire point of historical victory conditions. I feel we need to make a batter effort to tie this together to give it vitality and drive this point home.
yeah, we can use national victory conditions as the 4th separate game mode
yeah, we can use national victory conditions as the 4th separate game mode
well then lets add some text to explain what these conditions are about. Its very vague as written.
Tekkyy so whats next on the agenda?
oh yeah I just realise we don’t have to add 4th game mode
its already there under Historical Victory
currently Victory Condition is
_Victory is achieved if victory conditions are maintained for one full game round. Three game modes are possible.
Victory City: Axis wins if they control 45 VCP (Victory City Points). Allies win if they control 55 VCP. Each victory city has a VCP value.
Historical Victory: The first nation that achieves it ranks first, with other nations ranking second and third accordingly. A list of historical victory conditions is found at the appendix.
Economic Victory: Both teams bid the number of rounds that they want the game to last. The team that bids the higher number of turns plays Axis. The team controlling the majority of territory IPC at the end wins the game._
so I’ll change Historical Victory to this?
National Victory: Three national goals are selected randomly. The first nation to achieve the goals wins. A list of national victory conditions are found at the appendix[page blah].
perhaps we should turn the Historical victory conditions into IPC bonus of X IPC a turn that they are achieved, like in the new AA50 game?
um you saying you don’t want historical victory anymore?
(just after we have AA50, with the same style historical conditions…)
“IPC bonus of X IPC a turn” is just the individual economic victory in classic no?
Its pattern is similar to AA50. Look at the national objectives. They are basically a rip off of our idea for historical victory conditions except it rewards players with IPC, we don’t, we just say they won another aspect of our game, but it has no weight to a player other than a title of 1st or 2nd place.
Since we actually came up with these ideas, we also take back “borrow” an idea from AA50.
Lets assign our Historical victory as IPC. You decide how much. Look at the ones for AA50 in the fact sheet.
@Imperious:
Lets assign our Historical victory as IPC. You decide how much. Look at the ones for AA50 in the fact sheet.
so its going to be a free-for-all game mode?
instead of historical conditions, its just IPC level?
Its a bonus for achieving historical conditions for conquest/liberation. Each one you take pays you a bonus, so when its clear your winning the game ends sooner because you got paid extra money and can now buy more stuff… Its just an optional rule anyway. The Historical conditions make have to be tweeked for 39 due to the new territories.
http://www.mediafire.com/?idiztkxjmne
here is the link for 4.1 AARHE i got it to 32 pages. its an easy read.
no thats more like AARIL 1.0 :wink:
notice some changes
what do you want to change?
language? structure? rules?
discuss, agree, and do only one thing thanks
(eg. if its language then you change that and touch nothing else…)
this is how I did it in the past months
someone sugguest, we discuss, agree and I update the changelog
otherwise I’ll have to compare to current file side-by-side
slowly and painfully discover and discuss what you’ve changed!
Yes its a step toward a less fat AARHE. Its got some cuts, but took the ideas and made the result less painfull to go thru as far as some of the more tedious steps in combat.
of course i have a latter file, but will look at CAP as a support for losing some of the naval flavor.
The air missions are all together
ASW tech went down a box
changes due to lots of playtesting of all of the included new concepts
ID is gone. Its too much seasoning and not enough flavor…so AA gun is back, but modified
the goal was not to leave ambiguity. It should require perhaps 2 reads to be clear.
Historical VC is gone… not enough bang for the buck
SPA was not utilzed well enough
seems to me that list is far from complete
I only glanced at the file and I can recall a few changes like IC cost
I believe you’re reinventing the wheel, AARHE:Lite has a simplified system already
@Imperious:
Yes its a step toward a less fat AARHE. Its got some cuts, but took the ideas and made the result less painfull to go thru as far as some of the more tedious steps in combat.
we’ve reduced the complexity of AARHE alot since the peak
but if you still find it tedious (though I have a feeling you are thinking the old rules)
then you are hammering away at the wrong thing!
read AARHE:Lite again and we go from there
AARHE:Lite’s combat is not tedious
*minimal combat sequence change from LHTR
*most realism is done via hit allocation
quite efficient
of course i have a latter file, but will look at CAP as a support for losing some of the naval flavor.
strange, very strange
you want to remove the tedious combat steps and yet introduce CAP again?
if we use a simple non-tedious system (like that in AARHE:Lite) and add CAP in…it’ll be so awarkard
everything is simple and suddenly there is CAP with big proportions
to refresh your memeory
we had CAP before! remember?
but got rid of it because it was just too much
players already have to do ASW allocation
the naval combat sequence was crazy with the mega combo of ASW + CAP + submarine fire + more…
(AARHE:Lite don’t even have ASW allocation)
The air missions are all together
but air missions were already all together, in Conduct Combat
except for two paragraphs in Combat Move
*air mission, merely a reminder that you can now declare air missions in Combat Move besides LHTR’s ‘attack’ and ‘SBR’
*DAS/Air Reinforcement, this is NOT an air mission (this is merely a rule to allow relocation of air units before combat)
anyway I haven’t been as keen as you have been with having “air missions” in a less fat AARHE
ASW tech went down a box
changes due to lots of playtesting of all of the included new concepts
ID is gone. Its too much seasoning and not enough flavor…so AA gun is back, but modified
the goal was not to leave ambiguity. It should require perhaps 2 reads to be clear.
Historical VC is gone… not enough bang for the buck
SPA was not utilzed well enough
only
*ASW tech down a box
*removal of historical victory condition
were discussed
anyway these two and the other changes, if we do them, I have to do to both AARHE and AARHE:Lite and update the two changelogs
in the end
so how do you want to do this less fat AARHE?
I believe the best and shortest way is to work on AARHE:Lite
make AARHE:Lite your 97% fat free AARHE
1. you sugguest, we tick off
2. I upate AARHE:Lite (and on AARHE too if relevant)
3. when its done, only then, you do your transform/language/MSWORD thingy
vision
I think this updated AARHE:Lite will bring great things for us
lets playtest electronically finally
you say the list of your changes is from playtesting
but I know, I know what the situation really is
you’ve always played AARHE marginally different with your group
at times, more differently than oldsalty or Bierwagen
after we update AARHE:Lite
we playtest against each other ok?
this project needs to more or less finalise
AARHE:Lite will be the result of our work after all this (since 2006)
a common point we agree on
where as AARHE full thing, everyone just play it differently
you want to remove the tedious combat steps and yet introduce CAP again?
nothing more than AAP
also, the idea for what was cut was a tedious and not fun amphibious landing rules with all sorts of sets and different steps in each round.
The DAS from 2 space range is too powerful
ASW rules are totally confusing for new people. The new system is simple as can be.
Air with naval and air with land was a chore.
Submarine interactions on economy much easier with Xeno style rules. 2 sentences and its done. Not like 3 pages of ridiculous over complicated explanations and people cant get a clue whats going on.
Id defense is too complicated. the new system has faults…still looking at it. basically going with low luck rules on them with OOB rules.
Technology and diplomacy are perfect. don’t need any changes…only remove the useless extra pieces like SPA and transport planes. Nobody buys them anyway.
If you read the new ideas you clearly see the idea and dont have to read it a second time. Everything needs to be self contained in its own section and written in simple language.
The new ideas in many cases take the same flavor but model it simple.
AARHE lite was basically take the same complicated ideas but just hodge podge fewer of them on paper. the problem was the entire document needed to be a dumb down version, but we kept the same stuff. its not what the people want.
They just want to read the thing once or twice and start playing the rules need to be simple with no questions to be asked.
The volume of questions can only lead to conclusions that the rules were complicated and subject to interpretations.
I have played different versions because frankly the complicated rules blow people away… they are too much for normal AA players. I think this new version is the new lite version.
I would play a game, but not with a program like AAA
I would just set up the 1942 with no pieces and roll real dice on the table and i guess each round we decide if we retreat.
I need to first finish the file… i have 2 versions since the one i posted… ill get it done then you make point by point which need clarification or make new ideas. The only idea that seems weak is the AA guns, but ID is too complicated as it stands.
Tekkyy please just pull the concepts you less favor one by one and well have a look.
I will submit the file today
I need to first finish the file… i have 2 versions since the one i posted… ill get it done then you make point by point which need clarification or make new ideas. The only idea that seems weak is the AA guns, but ID is too complicated as it stands.
Tekkyy please just pull the concepts you less favor one by one and well have a look. I will submit the file today
I can’t believe you are still doing this
we are in a hole, please stop digging
I have been commenting on points only to be polite
do realise you are getting a bit rude?
(submit? you can release AARIL and AA50HE at any time lol…but right at the beginning of AARHE you said you don’t own the project)
no discuss-adjust-agree-update process, no changelog…
its easy for YOU
but painful for me who needs to read your whole file side by side with the latest file
it takes me a lot of time to do this and I am afraid I can’t afford it
my position remains that we use the existing system of discussion-adjust-agree
I update the AARHE:Lite file as points are agreed/ticked off
after that, if the rules are short enough (like 5 pages 1 column)
then you can experiment with MSWORD, self-contained structure, etc wbut the rules must remain untouched for that purpose
if you want to adjust AARHE (with 30 pages) then I strongly disagree with going MSWORD
for a small file MSWORD is ok, for large file its pain to update spacing
adding one sentence requires reviewing the whole document
I can tell you already OOB is not written with MSWORD
for many practical reasons
(by the way you did this last time too
you came back from your other projects and decided to make a colour version of AARHE
you took an old 2.0 file, something like 6 months old
made wholesome changes
wasted months of past development time
took like month to discuss the new file just to get it back on its fleet
only then we get to start reviewing your changes)
@Imperious:
nothing more than AAP
whats AAP?
also, the idea for what was cut was a tedious and not fun amphibious landing rules with all sorts of sets and different steps in each round.
amphibous assault and naval combat were both simplified
we didn’t simplify it enough partially because you didn’t want to, if you recall you even introduced mountainous amphibious assault
The DAS from 2 space range is too powerful
DAS from 2 space away is an old rule
I am really scared :-(
if you had to remove it you are reading the wrong file
ASW rules are totally confusing for new people. The new system is simple as can be.
it’ll be interesting to see if it is simpler than AARHE:Lite 's system
Air with naval and air with land was a chore.
I’ll have to see
because you had no changelog its pain lot of reading for me to do
can’t comment yet
Submarine interactions on economy much easier with Xeno style rules. 2 sentences and its done. Not like 3 pages of ridiculous over complicated explanations and people cant get a clue whats going on.
hm, it was never any close to 3 pages
I hope you are not mixing AARHE up with your other projects
don’t know what Xeno used, hopes its not the unrealistic convoy boxes
Id defense is too complicated. the new system has faults…still looking at it. basically going with low luck rules on them with OOB rules.
the search die attack die system is not nice
it was partially because we didn’t want to use a D12
anyway, low luck is scary and I hope your system doesn’t involve OOB’s “only one AA can fire” thing
Technology and diplomacy are perfect. don’t need any changes…only remove the useless extra pieces like SPA and transport planes. Nobody buys them anyway.
yeah we can easily transport plane, the rules are written in mind when the optional units transport plane is not selected for play
not so sure about SPA, we designed the numbers to give it a role
If you read the new ideas you clearly see the idea and dont have to read it a second time. Everything needs to be self contained in its own section and written in simple language.
self contained has not worked inm history and unlikely to work
there is a reason why OOB and LHTR is written the way they are (phase by phase structure)
it however may work if we do my sugguest of making a less fat AARHE:Lite
when its just 10-15 rules, it could work
this is one reason why AARe worked with the semi-self-contained structure
and why it didn’t work well for enhanced realism rules, because it was too complex
The new ideas in many cases take the same flavor but model it simple.
yeah thats actually what AARHE:Lite does with production and combat
its much simpler than AARHE
AARHE lite was basically take the same complicated ideas but just hodge podge fewer of them on paper. the problem was the entire document needed to be a dumb down version, but we kept the same stuff. its not what the people want.
for much of production and combat AARHE:Lite is far simpler than AARHE
there is nothing wrong with keeping th same stuff for simple things (like collect income phase being at the end of the turn sequence)
to me its mainly the complex rules like air missions that you insisted on keeping when we created AARHE:Lite
They just want to read the thing once or twice and start playing the rules need to be simple with no questions to be asked.
The volume of questions can only lead to conclusions that the rules were complicated and subject to interpretations.
this will depend on how simple you want it
an adjusted AARHE, it’ll unlikely be simple enough
however an adjusted AARHE:Lite can do it
I have played different versions because frankly the complicated rules blow people away… they are too much for normal AA players. I think this new version is the new lite version.
we are much closer if we just adjust AARHE:Lite
while I can adjust AARHE
I would play a game, but not with a program like AAA
wasn’t thinking of axis and allies simulators but more like electronics boards like Abattlemap
I would just set up the 1942 with no pieces and roll real dice on the table and i guess each round we decide if we retreat.
another way is to use the edit function of TripleA I guess
Quote
I need to first finish the file… i have 2 versions since the one i posted… ill get it done then you make point by point which need clarification or make new ideas. The only idea that seems weak is the AA guns, but ID is too complicated as it stands.Tekkyy please just pull the concepts you less favor one by one and well have a look. I will submit the file today
I can’t believe you are still doing this
we are in a hole, please stop diggingI have been commenting on points only to be polite
do realise you are getting a bit rude?
(submit? you can release AARIL and AA50HE at any time lol…but right at the beginning of AARHE you said you don’t own the project)
I am just saying Lite is not good, AARHE can still exist but it still needs tweeks on language.
no discuss-adjust-agree-update process, no changelog…
its easy for YOU
but painful for me who needs to read your whole file side by side with the latest file
it takes me a lot of time to do this and I am afraid I can’t afford it
Yes it is time consuming, but much of the new concepts are concentrated. You have only too look at the core concepts to see the changes. I left much of the script the same. Of course the changes are the combat sequence, ASW, New AA gun system, removed some optional units, changes on placement, changes on some air missions, damage cost for 2 hit ships, and a few others.
I can bring up each new idea here and make it easier for you, who only need to comment on what you like/not like of each new idea. So i will do the work.
my position remains that we use the existing system of discussion-adjust-agree
I update the AARHE:Lite file as points are agreed/ticked off
yes right, but not like the way it was done before… not like laboratory tests… a bit more free form.
after that, if the rules are short enough (like 5 pages 1 column)
then you can experiment with MSWORD, self-contained structure, etc wbut the rules must remain untouched for that purpose
Its impossible to do this 5 page thing. Its more like 30 pages of simple ideas. AARHE cant be 5 pages or its not AARHE
if you want to adjust AARHE (with 30 pages) then I strongly disagree with going MSWORD
for a small file MSWORD is ok, for large file its pain to update spacing
adding one sentence requires reviewing the whole document
I can tell you already OOB is not written with MSWORD
for many practical reasons
I will be the editor this time, so i don’t have to deal with SPI syntax. You comment
(by the way you did this last time too
you came back from your other projects and decided to make a colour version of AARHE
you took an old 2.0 file, something like 6 months old
made wholesome changes
wasted months of past development time
took like month to discuss the new file just to get it back on its fleet
only then we get to start reviewing your changes)
Thats because the language is prohibiting people from enjoying it. It was professorial. It was like a stuffy professor who never did anything but read and wrote in a manner that was way over the head of everybody. I am writing this time i know it will have more warmth toward who is reading it and less like a 1040a tax return.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on November 29, 2008, 12:22:00 am
nothing more than AAP
whats AAP?
Axis and Allies Pacific CAP rules
Quote
also, the idea for what was cut was a tedious and not fun amphibious landing rules with all sorts of sets and different steps in each round.
amphibious assault and naval combat were both simplified
we didn’t simplify it enough partially because you didn’t want to, if you recall you even introduced mountainous amphibious assault
yes i was wrong and after playing OTB its clear Lite was not good.
Quote
The DAS from 2 space range is too powerful
DAS from 2 space away is an old rule
I am really scared sad
if you had to remove it you are reading the wrong file
DAS is now 1 space, due to playtesting.
Quote
Submarine interactions on economy much easier with Xeno style rules. 2 sentences and its done. Not like 3 pages of ridiculous over complicated explanations and people cant get a clue whats going on.
hm, it was never any close to 3 pages
I hope you are not mixing AARHE up with your other projects
no im not. I have just been playing AARHE for like last 6 months… not working on other stuff except the AA50 thing.
don’t know what Xeno used, hopes its not the unrealistic convoy boxes
I never ever have read the Xeno rules. I am just making a few convoy boxed for AA50… not AARHE, but as i said 1 million times. The rules for submarine attacks needed to be limited ONLY to a few cases, where you made it for everybody. Now its fixed back. just Germany can attack USA/UK and USA can attack japan. Thats all it needed to be and was never corrected and supplanted by an uber complicated structure of tracing IPC route and assigning damage to anybody.
Quote
Id defense is too complicated. the new system has faults…still looking at it. basically going with low luck rules on them with OOB rules.
the search die attack die system is not nice
it was partially because we didn’t want to use a D12
anyway, low luck is scary and I hope your system doesn’t involve OOB’s “only one AA can fire” thing
still working on AA. Not happy yet. Low Luck option is barely on the table.
Quote
Technology and diplomacy are perfect. don’t need any changes…only remove the useless extra pieces like SPA and transport planes. Nobody buys them anyway.
yeah we can easily transport plane, the rules are written in mind when the optional units transport plane is not selected for play
not so sure about SPA, we designed the numbers to give it a role
I think it was fluff that didnt improve the AARHE. it was a space waster.
Quote
If you read the new ideas you clearly see the idea and dont have to read it a second time. Everything needs to be self contained in its own section and written in simple language.
self contained has not worked inm history and unlikely to work
there is a reason why OOB and LHTR is written the way they are (phase by phase structure)it however may work if we do my sugguest of making a less fat AARHE:Lite
when its just 10-15 rules, it could work
this is one reason why AARe worked with the semi-self-contained structure
Thats unreadable. That thing is like writing cliff notes in grammar school. Its like AA slang speak.
and why it didn’t work well for enhanced realism rules, because it was too complex
Enhanced realism rules are great!. They are meant to not all be used but a platform of ideas for people who want just the sections they want more realistic.
Quote
The new ideas in many cases take the same flavor but model it simple.
yeah thats actually what AARHE:Lite does with production and combat
its much simpler than AARHE
yes well for the most part it was not a proven sucess.
Quote
AARHE lite was basically take the same complicated ideas but just hodge podge fewer of them on paper. the problem was the entire document needed to be a dumb down version, but we kept the same stuff. its not what the people want.
for much of production and combat AARHE:Lite is far simpler than AARHE
there is nothing wrong with keeping th same stuff for simple things (like collect income phase being at the end of the turn sequence)
Thats would never be changed. collect income must always be as it is in AARHE. Some of these ideas are core, and others are fluff and uninspired.
to me its mainly the complex rules like air missions that you insisted on keeping when we created AARHE:Lite
The air missions were not complicated, but the combat and movement rules for air units was complicated. Most of these air missions are an attraction to the AARHE experience.
Quote
They just want to read the thing once or twice and start playing the rules need to be simple with no questions to be asked.
The volume of questions can only lead to conclusions that the rules were complicated and subject to interpretations.
this will depend on how simple you want it
an adjusted AARHE, it’ll unlikely be simple enough
however an adjusted AARHE:Lite can do it
no its all about the language, you have to write in a manner where a child can figure whats going on, but in less words. More words actually reform it as a complicated concept.
Quote
I have played different versions because frankly the complicated rules blow people away… they are too much for normal AA players. I think this new version is the new lite version.
we are much closer if we just adjust AARHE:Lite
while I can adjust AARHE
we cant go back to the Lite document. its already messed up beyond repair. It best to take the body of AARHE and tone down the complicated concepts.
Quote
I would play a game, but not with a program like AAA
wasn’t thinking of axis and allies simulators but more like electronics boards like Abattlemap
Quote
I would just set up the 1942 with no pieces and roll real dice on the table and i guess each round we decide if we retreat.
another way is to use the edit function of TripleA I guess
http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc
here is latest Lite proposal.
after the recent discussion of long posts
I strongly feel you are confused and don’t really know what you want
more like 30 pages
AARHE is 30 pages NOW
removing some rules (eg. those you already mentioned) -> 25 pages
tone down complicated rules -> 20 pages
optional rules in separate file* -> 15 pages
so it could be 15 pages
it could be the new AARHE
it’ll replace AARHE:Lite as you wished in that we won’t need a AARHE:Lite anymore
since AARHE is simple enough for the masses
*all those optional stuff like National Victory (removal pending only), National Advantages, etc are fluff and don’t add to core gameplay anyway
I can bring up each new idea here and make it easier for you, who only need to comment on what you like/not like of each new idea. So i will do the work.
if you bring up idea, we discuss, agree and tick off…then that is the existing system and all good
only thing changed is that you become the AARHE compiler
thats fine
but then you say this:
yes right, but not like the way it was done before… not like laboratory tests… a bit more free form.
laboratory tests? are you describing the existing suggest-discuss-agree-update procedure?
if so then yes I bloody prefer that rather than whatever you meant by free form
the proposal files (as you call the links) you’ve been uploading should only be for reference
there must be a current file containing only changes that have been ticked off
by the way, if you think you can’t handle it, you should don’t take on the role of the compiler
Thats because the language is prohibiting people from enjoying it. It was professorial.
lol now you are avoiding the question by talking about something else
I was referring to you taking an outdated 2.x file make 3.0
nothing to do with languge
purely an inconsiderate action wasting team time
don’t worry, if we succeed in making a “less fat” version of AARHE
then we have a chance of making dummy-talk style work for the rules file
yes i was wrong and after playing OTB its clear Lite was not good.
what the heck man? you gotta stop doing that :-P
you agree with me (that you were stopping us from having simpler combat sequence in AARHE) and in the same sentence you twist it to attack something else (that AARHE:Lite is not good)
AARHE:Lite doesn’t have the AARHE combat sequence
eg.
naval combat seq: no ASW step, no Battleship fire …
amphibous combat sequence: doesn’t exist
Enhanced realism rules are great!. They are meant to not all be used but a platform of ideas for people who want just the sections they want more realistic.
glad you realise that
now you should know why AARHE (being an actual ruleset) can’t use the “silo structure” and should use the “timeline structure” of OOB/LHTR
The air missions were not complicated, but the combat and movement rules for air units was complicated. Most of these air missions are an attraction to the AARHE experience.
wow you are attacking AARHE’s core rules
(core rules = eg. collect income at end of turn, air movement 50% rule, defender retreat…)
oh my, this is why we must not change rules before discussing
rather than commenting on the actual new rules I’ll have to check side-by-side and discuss why certain rules that I felt are simple yet important were removed and rules that I felt are complex and non-core to gameplay are kept or introduced…all before we can actually discuss new rules
