Hurray Tekkyy is here!!! finally man glad to see you back!
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12105.0
oh
thought we were talking about grammar fixes
anyway that list is a list of issues and needed clarifications
first item
Quote
prioritise and bring up one issue at a time
post the question again or link a post
Quote from: Imperious Leader on October 06, 2008, 10:05:13 pm
Tekkyy : please make this clear in the 1939 file. I notice its not explained how these work. lets discuss.
ah yes the national victory
they are just used for assessment rather than ending a game
(ending a game follows non-optional portion of AARHE rules)
just because Japan reaches its goals, it doesn’t make the war in Europe ends
AS you can see some of these need work. They are too easy for say Germany to get them done. They have no viability if they are just useless ideas that have no effect on victory. Perhaps we should tweek them as alternative victory conditions or provide IPC bonus for occupation like AA50 does.
anyway I don’t have the time to maintain the 1939 file
its a doc file
just edit it
and email it to me and I put it on my webspace
I can do this, but the problems are with the 4.0 and not the 1939 file.
also their is a thread specifically dealing with the list of issues to be fixed for 4.0.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12105.0
lets get these done first.
AS you can see some of these need work. They are too easy for say Germany to get them done.
too easy?
besides Seize Mideast Oil all of them are like end game situations and can’t be achieved early game
They have no viability if they are just useless ideas that have no effect on victory.
national victory conditions are a guage of national success
how else do you want to use them?
should war in Europe end when war in Asia is won by Japan
its a complex combination of team, national, city, income victory condtions, and also limited-turns game
depends what you want
I can do this, but the problems are with the 4.0 and not the 1939 file.
my comment was regarding changes to 1939 that you would like
ah, yes
thats also what I quoted in my last post
those are not grammar/wording changes or specific adjustments that I can just go to do
and my reply was bring up one item as a time, discussing them in the existing thread if discussion started already
Quote
AS you can see some of these need work. They are too easy for say Germany to get them done.
too easy?
besides Seize Mideast Oil all of them are like end game situations and can’t be achieved early game
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. I would at least add some text to how they are played to make them relevant to 4.0
Quote
They have no viability if they are just useless ideas that have no effect on victory.
national victory conditions are a gauge of national success
yes but if they have no formal duty, they are just fluff
how else do you want to use them?
should war in Europe end when war in Asia is won by Japan
Yes that was the idea with them originally, it should be possible for one axis nation to win and the other to fail, 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.
those are not grammar/wording changes or specific adjustments that I can just go to do
and my reply was bring up one item as a time, discussing them in the existing thread if discussion started already
yes lets begin this… pick one at a time. Old salty and Biergaden brought these up
@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
