• Logistics
    Quote
    Example: Axis have 2 transports, so all units greater than 4 cost 1 IPC to maintain in Africa?
    it’ll be unrealistic cos say the German transports could be in the Baltic

    Oh yes i guess i didnt say transports in Medd. OK lets remove logistics for now and come back.

    also, think the goal at the moment is to
    *simplify complex but important rules
    *remove or make optional complex but unimportant rules (rules that only affect non-core gameplay anyway)

    Spending or Saving IPC - removed

    Convoy Raid
    Quote
    SO you don’t like the fun of rolling it out? I think its fun to get to roll dice and possibly get 1,2 or 3 IPC damage
    removing unneeded dice is only secondary
    the primary issue is I think 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough already

    ok lets do this… which is the original idea from day one… 1 IPC but for each sub in specific ocean…or somebody buys subs out of harms way to qualify.

    Lend-Lease - done

    Naval repair
    yeah ideally  there should be cost and time
    but we have to find something simple
    cost: ok d6 is fine
    time: you cannot use the unit this turn

    right 1 D6, plus you wait one turn for repair to conclude and its done at SZ adjacent to factory. Also, if you roll 1-2 perhaps you can repair at neutral -1/+1  ( the ones you can dock at)


  • ok lets do this… which is the original idea from day one… 1 IPC but for each sub in specific ocean…or somebody buys subs out of harms way to qualify.

    yeah is has to be general enough yet not irrelevant
    don’t want to bleed players neither

    proposal text (informal langauge):

    _Convoy Raid
    You collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy submarine in its adjacent sea zone.

    The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 7 to 15 and 33 to 35. Maximum damage is 10 IPC.

    The USSR player collects 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 3 and 4. Maximum damage is 5 IPC._

    right 1 D6, plus you wait one turn for repair to conclude and its done at SZ adjacent to factory. Also, if you roll 1-2 perhaps you can repair at neutral -1/+1  ( the ones you can dock at)

    yeah we’ll work on neutrals in phase 8 diplomacy
    especially since I am leaning towards neutrals should be optional

    proposal text:

    Naval Repair
    Damaged naval units can be repaired in sea zones adjacent to a friendly Industrial Complex. Roll a die and pay the value in IPC. Place the unit in the territory and return it to the sea zone upright in “Mobilize New Units” phase.


  • i am going on a trip till wednesday so i cant respond till then.


  • Quote
    ok lets do this… which is the original idea from day one… 1 IPC but for each sub in specific ocean…or somebody buys subs out of harms way to qualify.
    yeah is has to be general enough yet not irrelevant
    don’t want to bleed players neither

    proposal text (informal langauge):

    Convoy Raid
    You collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy submarine in its adjacent sea zone.

    The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 7 to 15 and 33 to 35. Maximum damage is 10 IPC.

    The USSR player collects 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 3 and 4. Maximum damage is 5 IPC.

    I like the text, but not liking the IPC cap. I dont think it should be capped. Also, If a German sub is in specific SZ, i propose this:

    German player takes all his subs and consults a chart and rolls a die. He indexes his result with his total number of subs and targets either UK or USA. I will make a chart for each. That way is not so fixed and the result can target one or the other.

    You can also do it this way: all subs within 2 SZ of a UK or USA territory roll on these charts, so you need subs near those territory to qualify.

    ON lend lease, you take total subs German has and references it to total Lend Lease, so if USA sends in more, then more can be sunk

    example: Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 12 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 4 IPC

    Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 20 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 7 IPC

    Quote
    right 1 D6, plus you wait one turn for repair to conclude and its done at SZ adjacent to factory. Also, if you roll 1-2 perhaps you can repair at neutral -1/+1  ( the ones you can dock at)
    yeah we’ll work on neutrals in phase 8 diplomacy
    especially since I am leaning towards neutrals should be optional

    proposal text:

    Naval Repair
    Damaged naval units can be repaired in sea zones adjacent to a friendly Industrial Complex. Roll a die and pay the value in IPC. Place the unit in the territory and return it to the sea zone upright in “Mobilize New Units” phase.

    ok i am good with this. Diplomacy would be optional BUT included with the document.


  • ok no caps
    forgot about UK Lend Lease
    adding that now, but think its simpler to have no overlapping sea zones between UK and Lend Lease shippping
    giving the two distinct sea zones, since shipping from UK colonies are going via east Altantic not west Altantic

    proposal text
    _Convoy Raid
    You 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._

    @Imperious:

    I like the text, but not liking the IPC cap. I dont think it should be capped.

    yeah ok
    I’ve got rid of the cap as you wish, if you change your mind we can set a new higher limit

    The reason for capping is that the new system models hitting general shipping rather than flow of war shippping. War economy has more immunity than general economy. Also, wouldn’t want to see players bleed ridiculously.

    Also, If a German sub is in specific SZ, i propose this:
    German player takes all his subs and consults a chart and rolls a die. He indexes his result with his total number of subs and targets either UK or USA. I will make a chart for each. That way is not so fixed and the result can target one or the other.

    Consulting a chart might be too much. The new system should be simpler than the old system.
    Recall the primary reason for not using dice is that 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough. Secondary reason was so we have a simpler rule.

    You can also do it this way: all subs within 2 SZ of a UK or USA territory roll on these charts, so you need subs near those territory to qualify.

    Wait. Remember you wanted to have specific sea zone so the game is not decided in Brazil lol.
    Also, it was your idea that US, Germany and USSR be not affected by Convoy Raids. Only UK, Pacific and Lend Lease.

    ON lend lease, you take total subs German has and references it to total Lend Lease, so if USA sends in more, then more can be sunk
    example: Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 12 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 4 IPC
    Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 20 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 7 IPC

    yeah ok
    no limits to lend lease damage

    ok i am good with this. Diplomacy would be optional BUT included with the document.

    yeah ok
    since it is a phase in the turn sequence, its reasonable to give exception to Diplomacy and include in the main document


  • proposal text
    Convoy Raid

    You 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.

    I think the UK and USA should be expanded: USA east coast and gulf of Mexico/west indies/Brazil. UK: some SZ off africa and off Middle east

    Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2008, 12:29:25 pm
    I like the text, but not liking the IPC cap. I dont think it should be capped.
    yeah ok
    I’ve got rid of the cap as you wish, if you change your mind we can set a new higher limit

    The reason for capping is that the new system models hitting general shipping rather than flow of war shippping. War economy has more immunity than general economy. Also, wouldn’t want to see players bleed ridiculously.

    For UK to bleed that much Germany would need to build way too many subs and lose the game elsewhere.

    Quote
    Also, If a German sub is in specific SZ, i propose this:
    German player takes all his subs and consults a chart and rolls a die. He indexes his result with his total number of subs and targets either UK or USA. I will make a chart for each. That way is not so fixed and the result can target one or the other.
    Consulting a chart might be too much. The new system should be simpler than the old system.
    Recall the primary reason for not using dice is that 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough. Secondary reason was so we have a simpler rule.

    ok we keep it simple.

    Quote
    You can also do it this way: all subs within 2 SZ of a UK or USA territory roll on these charts, so you need subs near those territory to qualify.
    Wait. Remember you wanted to have specific sea zone so the game is not decided in Brazil lol.
    Also, it was your idea that US, Germany and USSR be not affected by Convoy Raids. Only UK, Pacific and Lend Lease.

    ok ok

    Quote
    ON lend lease, you take total subs German has and references it to total Lend Lease, so if USA sends in more, then more can be sunk
    example: Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 12 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 4 IPC
    Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 20 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 7 IPC
    yeah ok
    no limits to lend lease damage

    ok ok

    Quote
    ok i am good with this. Diplomacy would be optional BUT included with the document.
    yeah ok
    since it is a phase in the turn sequence, its reasonable to give exception to Diplomacy and include in the main document

    ok ok ill make these changes and revise text. Ill post it tomorrow or monday. Then we continue on next section.


  • @Imperious:

    I think the UK and USA should be expanded: USA east coast and gulf of Mexico/west indies/Brazil. UK: some SZ off africa and off Middle east

    not hitting USA and Russia now so don’t need Mexio Brazil etc

    for UK I did thought about South Africa or Egypt SZ
    but its unrealistic for UK to transport through Med Sea if Axis took Egypt
    to avoid complex rule to cater for Med Sea route vs. South Africa route…think its neat to only have East Altantic, the final destination for both route

    The reason for capping is that the new system models hitting general shipping rather than flow of war
    shippping. War economy has more immunity than general economy. Also, wouldn’t want to see players bleed ridiculously.

    For UK to bleed that much Germany would need to build way too many subs and lose the game elsewhere.

    yeah for simplicity I agreed to remove the cap away and adjusted the proposal text
    was just stating a strange situation that could happen
    all good

    ok ok ill make these changes and revise text. Ill post it tomorrow or monday. Then we continue on next section.

    hopefully the new file follows our discussion sharply
    yeah already looking forward to phase 2: purchase units and developments

    also we could do phase 0 first
    I was thinking we could remove
    *references to websites to download AARHE
    *references to websites to buy game pieces
    *victory cities with 0 victory city points (since the only purpose of them was to repair naval units but we only allow that at an Industrial Complex now)


  • hopefully the new file follows our discussion sharply

    yes exactly.

    yeah already looking forward to phase 2: purchase units and developments

    also we could do phase 0 first

    WE should do the parts in the same sequence as they are printed in the file so its easy to track.

    I was thinking we could remove
    *references to websites to download AARHE
    *references to websites to buy game pieces
    *victory cities with 0 victory city points (since the only purpose of them was to repair naval units but we only allow that at an Industrial Complex now)

    Lets not get hasty till we are done and need to integrate it as replacement for lite 1.0


  • if you are busy I can do the compiling
    this file contains only Phase 1: collect income

    http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081218experimental.doc
    http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081218experimental.pdf

    check to make sure we understood each other correctly


    Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments

    Variable Industrial Complex Costs, Scorched Earth
    Thinking of putting it together under one heading Industrial Complex.
    You proposed “cost = 15 - IPC”. I am ok.

    Variable Infantry Costs
    In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you proposed “infantry per turn = IPC”. I am ok but I want “build infantry at VC only” rule to remain.
    You didn’t proposed infantry cost changes. No changes from me at this stage.

    Purchase Developments
    In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you didn’t proposed changes. No changes from me at this stage.


  • Yea i have been busy…

    Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments

    Variable Industrial Complex Costs, Scorched Earth
    Thinking of putting it together under one heading Industrial Complex.
    You proposed “cost = 15 - IPC”. I am ok.

    yes this is a simple way to do it.done.

    Variable Infantry Costs
    In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you proposed “infantry per turn = IPC”. I am ok but I want “build infantry at VC only” rule to remain.
    You didn’t proposed infantry cost changes. No changes from me at this stage.

    Yea infantry at VC limited by the value of the VC in addition to the rule from OOB. But at original home factories you should be able to build non infantry pieces limited by IPC PLUS infantry also at this level again limited by IPC

    So at Germany they can make 10 infantry and 10 units of any other type except infantry…. Important to know that you cant build 11 or more infantry in Germany at any time.

    Purchase Developments
    In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you didn’t proposed changes. No changes from me at this stage.

    Ill post the next section tonight.


  • Tunisia

    was not spelled correctly.


  • But at original home factories you should be able to build non infantry pieces limited by IPC PLUS infantry also at this level again limited by IPC

    Yeah. But this limit already applies to all IC.
    Original or not, an IC can only produce a number of non-infantry units up to its IPC value.

    Purchase Developments
    Can we simplify this one. Instead of the current free/purchasable

    Germany 2/4
    Italy  1/2
    Japan 1/3
    Soviet Union 1/3
    United Kingdom 1/2
    United States 2/4

    Can we just make it

    Germany and US 2/4
    Other 1/2

    Victory City (non-binding discussing, just an understanding)
    now that we have a simpler infantry limit, we no longer require victory city points varying between 0 and- 6 points. I sugguest simplify to major cities 2 points and minor cities 1 point. We’ll talk about this when we get back to introduction / game sequence.


  • Quote
    But at original home factories you should be able to build non infantry pieces limited by IPC PLUS infantry also at this level again limited by IPC
    Yeah. But this limit already applies to all IC.
    Original or not, an IC can only produce a number of non-infantry units up to its IPC value.

    I am saying something different. at original home factories you are limited as follows:

    1. you can build non infantry up to IPC value
    2. you can ALSO build infantry up to IPC value

    so in berlin you can build 10 tanks and 10 infantry, but you cant build 15 infantry and 5 tanks. This is not OOB rules at all.
    this is different. AT VC you again go by the value of IPC and can build only infantry at this value.

    Purchase Developments
    Can we simplify this one. Instead of the current free/purchasable

    Germany  2/4
    Italy  1/2
    Japan 1/3
    Soviet Union 1/3
    United Kingdom 1/2
    United States 2/4

    Can we just make it

    Germany and US 2/4
    Other 1/2

    Isn’t this too soon?

    Victory City (non-binding discussing, just an understanding)
    now that we have a simpler infantry limit, we no longer require victory city points varying between 0 and- 6 points. I sugguest simplify to major cities 2 points and minor cities 1 point. We’ll talk about this when we get back to introduction / game sequence.

    I think alot of discussion went on these points and for various reasons they were assigned this value and its printed on the map, so not sure if changes would ruin the game. They focus historical based objectives from these values. If it was 2 and 1 players would treat the VC as the same and not focus on the strong points… Thus battle of Stalingrad may never develop


  • so in berlin you can build 10 tanks and 10 infantry, but you cant build 15 infantry and 5 tanks. This is not OOB rules at all.

    yeah I know
    I confirm with another example
    Southern Europe can build 6 tanks and 6 infantry

    Isn’t this too soon?

    what do you mean by “too soon”?

    you mean too rushed ?
    I am not sugguesting this change for balance
    just trying to say it warrants a simplification

    you mean too early in game sequence / document ?
    in AARHE we buy developement dice before combat, and roll for them after combat
    so you can’t see tech result and perform combat accordingly
    nor can you see combat result and buy tech dice accordingly
    hence OOB’s the phase is called “purchase unit and developments”

    but if you feel its too tedious to make players buy the dice first and roll for them later in the turn
    then we let them buy and roll in same game phase like OOB

    I think alot of discussion went on these points and for various reasons they were assigned this value and its printed on the map, so not sure if changes would ruin the game. They focus historical based objectives from these values. If it was 2 and 1 players would treat the VC as the same and not focus on the strong points… Thus battle of Stalingrad may never develop

    yeah, that discussion was back in 2006, you me and The Duke mainly
    we used a few matrices to determine infantry raising capacity of nations
    this became the VCP values
    it is used for infantry build limit

    we now have a new infantry build limit (the victory city’s territory’s IPC)
    realism is still there, as we have “variable infantry costs”

    VCPs is now only used for victory condition
    so I sugguested a simplification to make it easier (eg. 2 VCP for Berlin, Rome, London….1 VCP for Kiev, Cairo…)
    if you think its too simple we can have up to 3 points, or even 4 points


  • Quote
    Isn’t this too soon?
    what do you mean by “too soon”?

    you mean too rushed ?
    I am not sugguesting this change for balance
    just trying to say it warrants a simplification

    you mean too early in game sequence / document ?

    No its fine.

    in AARHE we buy developement dice before combat, and roll for them after combat
    so you can’t see tech result and perform combat accordingly
    nor can you see combat result and buy tech dice accordingly
    hence OOB’s the phase is called “purchase unit and developments”

    but if you feel its too tedious to make players buy the dice first and roll for them later in the turn
    then we let them buy and roll in same game phase like OOB

    yes at the same time. good. construct proposed text.

    Quote
    I think alot of discussion went on these points and for various reasons they were assigned this value and its printed on the map, so not sure if changes would ruin the game. They focus historical based objectives from these values. If it was 2 and 1 players would treat the VC as the same and not focus on the strong points… Thus battle of Stalingrad may never develop
    yeah, that discussion was back in 2006, you me and The Duke mainly
    we used a few matrices to determine infantry raising capacity of nations
    this became the VCP values
    it is used for infantry build limit

    It was created for more than one purpose. It conveyed mainly the value of these centers for the focus of battles, so the value cant be the simple 1 or 2 thing… thats would totally ruin the work. They had a secondary purpose of limiting infantry placement and costs.

    VCPs is now only used for victory condition
    so I sugguested a simplification to make it easier (eg. 2 VCP for Berlin, Rome, London….1 VCP for Kiev, Cairo…)
    if you think its too simple we can have up to 3 points, or even 4 points

    perhaps 0-5 scale, but the victory condition value was based on this index, so going 1/2 system would require many hours of thought with marginal change in play. keep the thing as it is. Thats not what was complicated about AARHE. Its everything else.


  • yes at the same time. good. construct proposed text.

    all we are doing is removing a rule (buy tech dice during purchasing units)
    so we just remove the paragraph Purchase Developments

    It conveyed mainly the value of these centers for the focus of battles, so the value cant be the simple 1 or 2 thing… thats would totally ruin the work.

    perhaps 0-5 scale, but the victory condition value was based on this index, so going 1/2 system would require many hours of thought with marginal change in play.

    hehe the one hand you say its important and on the other hand you say its marginal
    anyway we’ll talk about this when we get to that part of the document (intro bit before phase 1)

    http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081222experimental.doc
    http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081222experimental.pdf

    Tunisia spelling fixed
    phase 2 as discussed added
    two lines of phase 6 written down (your new build limit)

    check to see if we understood each other correctly


  • after you’ve check we understood each other correctly

    Phase 3: Combat Move

    Air Movement - OOB’s CM+NCM combined air movement is unrealistic
    so AARHE has the “50% limit”
    our concept is simple
    and removes the need to remember unsed points, which intersting makes it less tedious than OOB
    so I think we should keep it

    the wording “may use up to 50% of movement points” might sound confusing
    we can reword it
    air units may move a number of spaces up to the move value during combat move
    air units may move a number of spaces up to the move value during non-combat move
    fighter move at 3
    bomber move at 5

    Airborne Drop - optional rule, discuss later

    Naval Movement - I believe you both transports and submarines to not control sea zones, I was ok with transports but not ok with submarines
    I am now ok with it
    so I remove the dice roll bits after Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy Submarines and/or Transports. and just have that

    Naval Movement - also, do we keep the Damaged Aircraft Carrier and Cruiser move at 2. ?

    Naval Transport - this allows you to offload into friendly territory during Combat Move, a small thing that I thought of, its only for a rare issue…I sugguest remove

    Naval Occupation - this allows your naval units remain (not move in) in hostile sea zone without entering combat, I sugguest keep

    Submarine Movement - this lets ASW units roll a dice to stop hostile submarines from going through the ASW units’ sea zone
    lets simplified? just go along with the big destroyer-submarine 1-to-1 idea?
    Submarines may move through hostile sea zones. However, each enemy unit capable of Anti-Submarine Warfare
    (ASW) ends one submarine’s move.


  • This is Phase three.

    Phase 3: Combat Move

    Land Movement
    All units may move according to their movement restrictions and all land units with any unused movement points left over may allocate it to move to any other territory, even to reinforce or leave territories they had just attacked.

    Air Movement
    All fighters do not have to be launched before movement of aircraft carrier. They can move their full movement as long as the final movement is on a Carrier or Land territory. Players may not land on each others Carriers. Air units are not subject Anti-Air when overflying hostile territories. This only occurs when they attack a territory that contains an AA gun.

    Airborne Drop
    Bomber may act as transport for one airborne infantry to a hostile territory. Both units must start in the same territory. The airborne infantry may not retreat from this combat. If optional unit transport plane is taken only it may act as transport for airborne infantry. Unit offloaded before “Conduct Combat”. The bomber must drop off the airborne troops in the first enemy territory encountered.

    Naval Movement
    Naval units may go through and ignore sea zones consisting of only hostile submarines or transports. But if you move your unescorted transports into or thru sea zones occupied by enemy submarines, each defending submarine rolls its combat value. Each successful roll sinks one transport. Remaining transports may continue their operations.

    Naval units
    Naval units may remain in hostile sea zone without entering combat. This situation arises from newly built naval units, naval combat retreat via break-off, or withdrawal via submerge.

    Submarine Movement
    Submarines may go through hostile sea zones except zones containing an ASW unit. Each defending ASW unit rolls a die at ASW search value. Each successful roll forces one submarine to enter combat. Unforced submarines may choose to enter combat as well in that sea zone or continue their original movement. These rules are explained in detail latter.

    Strait Interdiction
    You may fire at hostile non-submarine naval units moving between the sea zones if you hold the respective territories. Roll 1 die against each unit destroying it on its hit value. Movement between the sea zones must be done in “Combat Move” if enemy controls the respective territories.

    Territories Sea Zones Hit Value
    Gibraltar   12/13 2
    United Kingdom     6/7 1
    Western Europe     6/7 1
    Turkey   15/16 2

    Terrain
    All land units must stop on entering desert, snowy, or mountainous terrains. Tank (and optional unit mechanised infantry) may not blitz through them. All defending land units in a snowy or mountainous terrain have their defence increased by 1. Small Island territories such as Gibraltar and small Pacific Islands cannot be occupied by more than 2 units or cannot be attacked by more than 2 units.

    Stalin Xenophobia
    NO mixing of any units with Soviet units (including naval). Soviet Units can liberate Japanese occupied Chinese territories and that’s the only time they can enter China. Soviet units can also ‘liberate’ any Axis occupied territories and keep them as their own even if they were previously owned by Allied nations.

    Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation
    Before Allies capture the Axis capitals Berlin or Tokyo, Japanese units may not be in the same territory or sea zone as German or Italian units.

    Soviet winter
    Once per game the Soviets can declare a severe winter just prior to the German player rolling for attacks and it effects the game as follows: All Soviet land units defend at +1 for the first round of combat, and all German units rolling a 5 or 6 must withdraw from further combat that turn.

    Partisans
    If the German or Italian player controls soviet territories but does not garrison them with at least one land unit, Partisans can attempt attacks on the IPC value as follows: For each un-garrisoned territory the German player rolls one D6 1-2= 1 IPC lost, 3-4= 2 IPC lost 5-6= 3 IPC lost.

    Soviet Factories
    The Soviet player can move 1 factory per turn to any other originally controlled territory.


  • OK lets do this. Ill update the file, we script the exact wording here section by section.

    I have MS word/office and your software is not good for this. The correct section 3 is posted. I will take section 1 and 2 and integrate into the document. We are not using 4.0 as reference, what i created is a word friendly version thats readable. The ideas contained are what we decide to keep or change.


  • OK lets do this. Ill update the file, we script the exact wording here section by section.

    yeah sure, if you say you have the time then you can do the compiling

    I have MS word/office and your software is not good for this.

    I posted a msword file, couldn’t your computer open it?

    The correct section 3 is posted. I will take section 1 and 2 and integrate into the document.

    what you posted is just from your proposal file
    I don’t think we should blend completed rules with proposal rules

    the experimental.doc files I’ve been posting is nice and small
    easy to track progress
    only has rules reviewed already

    We are not using 4.0 as reference, what i created is a word friendly version thats readable.

    yes we are going to make AARHE language more casual
    this is should be apparent in the experimental.doc file I posted

    think you are confusing proposal with reference
    you propose changes with reference to current rules

    The ideas contained are what we decide to keep or change.

    no that was straight from your proposal file, not what we decided to keep or change
    what we decided to keep or change is shown in experimental.doc file I posted
    it has the phase 1 and phase 2 that has completed discussion

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 4
  • 33
  • 2
  • 1
  • 3
  • 14
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

116

Online

17.4k

Users

40.0k

Topics

1.7m

Posts