1-1.png
My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.
AARHE: Rule files
-
ok then lets keep it as you scripted. lets move on to next section.
-
next section are the combat sequences, hit allocation, and retreat
lets start with land combathit allocation
your file didn’t have this section
so I presume you want to remove the rule that tanks hit tanks first?combat sequence
your file didn’t make changesI am thinking to let air units fire at the same time as anti-aircraft gun
in LHTR/OOB there are 2 outcomes for anti-aircraft (kill enemy planes before they drop bombs, or fail to shoot them)
in reality there is a 3rd and probably most common outcome (enemy planes dropped bombs and you shot some down)this also means we don’t have to write a combat sequence
(which scares some players)
we now merely have two small headings to clarify “Conduct opening fire” and “Press Attack or Retreat” of LHTR/OOB’s1\. Place units on battle board 2\. Conduct opening fire 3\. Remove opening fire casualties 4\. Attacking units fire 5\. Defending units fire 6\. Remove casualties 7\. Press attack or withdraw 8\. Concluding CombatStep: Conduct opening fire
Air units only fire in opening fire step. After allocating anti-aircraft casualties, roll for attacking air units and allocate casualties. Then roll for defending air units and allocate casualties.Step: Press attack or withdraw
your proposal
Land Combat Retreats
Either player can retreat after any full combat round. Retreat can be in full or in part. The attackers retreat must be to at least one of the territories the attacker can from. The defender can retreat to any controlled space. The defender always chooses retreat declarations first.
this is functionally fineAmphibious assault
think we need to make it simpler
what are the most important aspects for you?for me its
*retreat from amphibious assault by converting to infantry
*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basisyour proposal
On the first round of any invasion by sea, all defending units fire first on the starting combat round. Invading Infantry are the only land units that may attack on the first round followed by any other units on latter rounds. Attacking pieces are removed and don’t fire in return. After that point combat is conducted normally.
too powerful and unrealistic
its not like the whole defending army had this preemptive power
think its better to just give defender +1your proposal
In addition, the invading player may still retreat, except all retreating non-infantry units are converted to infantry before embankment on transports.
yeah convert to infantry, thats fine
your proposal
When invading the attacker is limited in the number of land units he may bring into battle by the IPC value of the territory that is invaded. It is also limited to 2 land units per round if the territory invaded is a mountainous or snowy terrain. Each round this number can be increased by this same value until all attacking units are in play. For example: in France the British decide to invade but can only bring in 6 land units the first round, 12 units the second, etc.
don’t think IPC is a good indication
there are more points of landing on the huge coastline of France than the small UK isleand in the end axis and allies territories are huge
so I tend to only agree with restrictions for “small” territories like Gibraltar and Wake Islandrestriction on mountainous terrain is difficult
in the it must be playable as Southern Europe and Japan are mountainousyour proposal
If the American player decided to use the D-Day option, this is doubled so it would be 6 land units per nation.
I notice your D-Day thing, and looking back we haven’t discussed round sequence…I must ask if you are thinking of getting rid of our beloved “all axis, all allies” round sequence?
-
hit allocation
your file didn’t have this section
so I presume you want to remove the rule that tanks hit tanks first?yes we get rid of this. its bogging the game down. no more tanks hit tanks…etc
combat sequence
your file didn’t make changesI am thinking to let air units fire at the same time as anti-aircraft gun
in LHTR/OOB there are 2 outcomes for anti-aircraft (kill enemy planes before they drop bombs, or fail to shoot them)
in reality there is a 3rd and probably most common outcome (enemy planes dropped bombs and you shot some down)this also means we don’t have to write a combat sequence
(which scares some players)
we now merely have two small headings to clarify “Conduct opening fire” and “Press Attack or Retreat” of LHTR/OOB’s
Code:1. Place units on battle board
2. Conduct opening fire
3. Remove opening fire casualties
4. Attacking units fire
5. Defending units fire
6. Remove casualties
7. Press attack or withdraw
8. Concluding Combatyes i prefer this as well. make it more simple. but you need to add a step where the defender can allocate adjacent planes for support. Also, on item #7: should read Press attack or retreat declarations.
Step: Conduct opening fire
Air units only fire in opening fire step. After allocating anti-aircraft casualties, roll for attacking air units and allocate casualties. Then roll for defending air units and allocate casualties.yes right
Step: Press attack or withdraw
your proposal
Land Combat Retreats
Either player can retreat after any full combat round. Retreat can be in full or in part. The attackers retreat must be to at least one of the territories the attacker can from. The defender can retreat to any controlled space. The defender always chooses retreat declarations first.
this is functionally fineok great.
Amphibious assault
think we need to make it simpler
what are the most important aspects for you?for me its
*retreat from amphibious assault by converting to infantry
*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basisyour proposal
Quote
On the first round of any invasion by sea, all defending units fire first on the starting combat round. Invading Infantry are the only land units that may attack on the first round followed by any other units on latter rounds. Attacking pieces are removed and don’t fire in return. After that point combat is conducted normally.
too powerful and unrealistic
its not like the whole defending army had this preemptive power
think its better to just give defender +1The defender needs to get to fire first, but this can be limited to artillery like we have it before.
so:
- shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
- defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
- attacking units fire
- defending infantry fire
how bout this?
your proposal
Quote
In addition, the invading player may still retreat, except all retreating non-infantry units are converted to infantry before embankment on transports.
yeah convert to infantry, thats fineok
your proposal
Quote
When invading the attacker is limited in the number of land units he may bring into battle by the IPC value of the territory that is invaded. It is also limited to 2 land units per round if the territory invaded is a mountainous or snowy terrain. Each round this number can be increased by this same value until all attacking units are in play. For example: in France the British decide to invade but can only bring in 6 land units the first round, 12 units the second, etc.
don’t think IPC is a good indication
there are more points of landing on the huge coastline of France than the small UK isleand in the end axis and allies territories are huge
so I tend to only agree with restrictions for “small” territories like Gibraltar and Wake IslandThey are huge territories but invasions are only performed in narrow sections. The limitations are realistic. playtest it and you will see less invasions, but more stronger invasions rather than raids.
restriction on mountainous terrain is difficult
in the it must be playable as Southern Europe and Japan are mountainousInvading specific mountain areas is nearly impossible to do with large forces. Japan should not be mountain.
your proposal
Quote
If the American player decided to use the D-Day option, this is doubled so it would be 6 land units per nation.
I notice your D-Day thing, and looking back we haven’t discussed round sequence…I must ask if you are thinking of getting rid of our beloved “all axis, all allies” round sequence?no not at all. That cant be changed. its great. we should have some rules on multi national forces.
-
yes i prefer this as well. make it more simple. but you need to add a step where the defender can allocate adjacent planes for support.
thats “Air Reinforcement”, which is declared during “combat move” phase
Also, on item #7: should read Press attack or retreat declarations.
that list was just what LHTR had as a combat sequence
its not a AARHE combat sequence which I am saying we don’t need to makeThe defender needs to get to fire first, but this can be limited to artillery like we have it before.
so:- shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
- defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
- attacking units fire
- defending infantry fire
how bout this?
ok we just say defending artillery fire in opening fire in the first cycle of combat
but for shore bombardment, I was sugguesting:*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basis
]They are huge territories but invasions are only performed in narrow sections. The limitations are realistic. playtest it and you will see less invasions, but more stronger invasions rather than raids.
what kind of raids are you seeing in your games?
in AARHE you collecting income at end of turn, so UK doesn’t collect income from Western Europe to replace losses unless they can hold it
add that basic shore bombardment change (not an original idea) there would be little incentive to raid?
what I am thinking is your limit does not affect small attacking force, but disadvantage large attacking force
I disagree with the rule as I consider the capturing of beaches and ports to be shorter than the 1st cycle of combat, a small thing in the overall campaign that last several cycles
where majority of the fighting occurs inlandInvading specific mountain areas is nearly impossible to do with large forces. Japan should not be mountain.
territories are labelled “mountainous” in AARHE according to actual geography
if Japan is not to be labelled mountainous than Southern Europe (with a higher % of plains) can’t be mountainous…and than if Southern Europe is not mountainous something else in turn shouldn’t be…lets make defender advantage (for amphibious assault on mountainous terrain) itself realistic rather than blame other rules
no not at all. That cant be changed. its great. we should have some rules on multi national forces.
well I am not sure OOB or LHTR National Advantages are compatible with AARHE
it wasn’t the intention for players to use OOB National Advantage or Technology in AARHE -
Quote
yes i prefer this as well. make it more simple. but you need to add a step where the defender can allocate adjacent planes for support.
thats “Air Reinforcement”, which is declared during “combat move” phaseQuote
Also, on item #7: should read Press attack or retreat declarations.
that list was just what LHTR had as a combat sequence
its not a AARHE combat sequence which I am saying we don’t need to makeQuote
The defender needs to get to fire first, but this can be limited to artillery like we have it before.
so:- shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
- defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
- attacking units fire
- defending infantry fire
how bout this?
ok we just say defending artillery fire in opening fire in the first cycle of combat
but for shore bombardment, I was sugguesting:
Quote
*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basis
Quote
]They are huge territories but invasions are only performed in narrow sections. The limitations are realistic. playtest it and you will see less invasions, but more stronger invasions rather than raids.
what kind of raids are you seeing in your games?Invasions now are in the form of just invading for the purpose of killing units to prevent reinforcement to other areas, they are less frequent than OOB, but the purpose of what they have become is still not like the new rules have intended.
On the sequence for invasions:
- shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
- defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
- attacking units fire
- defending infantry fire
the idea above seems correct, but you got to keep SB bonus per 4 units landing like 4.0
in AARHE you collecting income at end of turn, so UK doesn’t collect income from Western Europe to replace losses unless they can hold it
add that basic shore bombardment change (not an original idea) there would be little incentive to raid?
what I am thinking is your limit does not affect small attacking force, but disadvantage large attacking force
I disagree with the rule as I consider the capturing of beaches and ports to be shorter than the 1st cycle of combat, a small thing in the overall campaign that last several cycles
where majority of the fighting occurs inlandQuote
Invading specific mountain areas is nearly impossible to do with large forces. Japan should not be mountain.
territories are labelled “mountainous” in AARHE according to actual geography
if Japan is not to be labelled mountainous than Southern Europe (with a higher % of plains) can’t be mountainous…and than if Southern Europe is not mountainous something else in turn shouldn’t be…Japan is mountainous, but these are in the interior. So for invasions its effect is too great because it makes this important territory virtually impossible to invade. In Southern Europe its more like Norway where the cliffs and poor terrain are located much closer to the shoreline. Hitler feared the British would invade in the Balkans, but knew they didn’t have to be defended too much because of the terrain was so favorable for the defender.
Quote
no not at all. That cant be changed. its great. we should have some rules on multi national forces.
well I am not sure OOB or LHTR National Advantages are compatible with AARHE
it wasn’t the intention for players to use OOB National Advantage or Technology in AARHEWell lets just say their is no need to change the movement sequence.
-
Invasions now are in the form of just invading for the purpose of killing units to prevent reinforcement to other areas, they are less frequent than OOB, but the purpose of what they have become is still not like the new rules have intended.
I think thats an issue with “reinforcement”, not amphibious assault
reinforcement: passive land units that did not fight in combat can move to adjacent friendly territory in “non-combat move”you can increase the difficulty of amphibious assault but it won’t stop UK from attacking Western Europe with a small force to stop units in Western Europe from performing “reinforcement”
but its a problem anyway…defending units at Western Europe can just retreat to Germany or South Europe instead of using “reinforcement” rule to move in NCM…unless both are under attack (can’t retreat to unresolved combat zone)
and both under attack then the player is under attack left right and centre and I would say its fair he has to wait for his active turn to move
the idea above seems correct, but you got to keep SB bonus per 4 units landing like 4.0
what about my proposal of SB ships giving +1 to infantry instead (1-to-1)?
AARHE 4.0’s one SB die per 4 units landing sort of took SB out of the game, especially in the Pacific
importantly, neither of us want battles to be over (in opening fire) before it started due to SB
- defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
yes we previously had defending artillery fire in opening fire on 1st cycle of combat, are you saying we should include tanks?
Japan is mountainous, but these are in the interior. So for invasions its effect is too great because it makes this important territory virtually impossible to invade. In Southern Europe its more like Norway where the cliffs and poor terrain are located much closer to the shoreline. Hitler feared the British would invade in the Balkans, but knew they didn’t have to be defended too much because of the terrain was so favorable for the defender.
Japan’s mountains are pretty close to the edge too
it also has a low % of coast line invadable (Japan vs. Eastern part of Southern Europe)
however, the territory “South Europe” includes the plains of Italyas for “important territory virtually impossible to invade”, South Europe surely gets invaded while Japan usually gets invaded in end game
so I think the mountainous amphibious limit of 2 units on 1st cycle, 4 on 2nd, 6 on 3rd…are just too low for both South Europe and Japan
how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?Well lets just say their is no need to change the movement sequence.
I think by “movement sequence” you meant “round sequence”
yeah we can keep AARHE’s existing round sequencewe got carried away, I am trying to say that you mentioned D-Day but there is no D-Day (or any other OOB-wording National Advantages) in AARHE
-
Quote
Invasions now are in the form of just invading for the purpose of killing units to prevent reinforcement to other areas, they are less frequent than OOB, but the purpose of what they have become is still not like the new rules have intended.I think thats an issue with “reinforcement”, not amphibious assault
reinforcement: passive land units that did not fight in combat can move to adjacent friendly territory in “non-combat move”you can increase the difficulty of amphibious assault but it won’t stop UK from attacking Western Europe with a small force to stop units in Western Europe from performing “reinforcement”
but its a problem anyway…defending units at Western Europe can just retreat to Germany or South Europe instead of using “reinforcement” rule to move in NCM…unless both are under attack (can’t retreat to unresolved combat zone)
and both under attack then the player is under attack left right and centre and I would say its fair he has to wait for his active turn to move
well yes the defender can retreat, but the invasions still go on in spite of the income collection value from OOB.
Quote
the idea above seems correct, but you got to keep SB bonus per 4 units landing like 4.0
what about my proposal of SB ships giving +1 to infantry instead (1-to-1)?AARHE 4.0’s one SB die per 4 units landing sort of took SB out of the game, especially in the Pacific
importantly, neither of us want battles to be over (in opening fire) before it started due to SB
yes but in 4.0 we have both the +1 and 4 units get one SB rule, your proposal is already the 4.0 rule.
I don’t know what to do with this. Perhaps just return it to OOB to make it easier
Quote
2) defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
yes we previously had defending artillery fire in opening fire on 1st cycle of combat, are you saying we should include tanks?Its either artillery get preemptive fire or anything with a barrel can shoot, for tanks this would be committing armor early enough in the invasion which would have had a huge effect on D-Day. I would like the rule to be more simple but effective.
Quote
Japan is mountainous, but these are in the interior. So for invasions its effect is too great because it makes this important territory virtually impossible to invade. In Southern Europe its more like Norway where the cliffs and poor terrain are located much closer to the shoreline. Hitler feared the British would invade in the Balkans, but knew they didn’t have to be defended too much because of the terrain was so favorable for the defender.
Japan’s mountains are pretty close to the edge too
it also has a low % of coast line invadable (Japan vs. Eastern part of Southern Europe)
however, the territory “South Europe” includes the plains of Italyas for “important territory virtually impossible to invade”, South Europe surely gets invaded while Japan usually gets invaded in end game
well its also such an important place, i think the label it mountain is not good for game play situations.
so I think the mountainous amphibious limit of 2 units on 1st cycle, 4 on 2nd, 6 on 3rd…are just too low for both South Europe and Japan
Thats why i propose landing = total land pieces with IPC value… so southern Europe can be invaded by 6 units on round 1 and 12 on round 2…etc. Norway would still be at 2 because its value is 2.
how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?yes lets do that. script it.
Quote
Well lets just say their is no need to change the movement sequence.
I think by “movement sequence” you meant “round sequence”
yeah we can keep AARHE’s existing round sequencewe got carried away, I am trying to say that you mentioned D-Day but there is no D-Day (or any other OOB-wording National Advantages) in AARHE
right no NA in this 4.1 if we go with NA they will be universal national advantages so that its equal and balanced for everyone.
-
yes but in 4.0 we have both the +1 and 4 units get one SB rule, your proposal is already the 4.0 rule.
I don’t know what to do with this. Perhaps just return it to OOB to make it easierit’ll be good to bring back SB for the Pacific
but we don’t want OOB’s SB winning land battlemaybe I didn’t explain clearly
I am proposing SB +1 to infantry….instead of the SB rollsIts either artillery get preemptive fire or anything with a barrel can shoot, for tanks this would be committing armor early enough in the invasion which would have had a huge effect on D-Day. I would like the rule to be more simple but effective.
yep ok, include tanks
well its also such an important place, i think the label it mountain is not good for game play situations.
I still don’t get it
Japan doesn’t get invaded til end gameor are you ok with it now that we use the IPC limit not the limit of 2
how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?yes lets do that. script it.
before I script I need one more detail
US invades Southern Europe (6 IPC)
1st cycle of combat, only 6 amphibious land units can roll
Germany rolls and gets 7 hits…does US allocate 6 or 7 casualties?note, if US only have to allocate 6 casualties there is a side effect of reducing the power of the +1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy on 1st cycle of combat
(ie. for large battles, it might actually make amphibious assault easier than normal land-to-land assault)the stricter limit of 2 land units per cycle, I would want to apply it to territories marked as “small” (eg. Wake Island)
-
yes but in 4.0 we have both the +1 and 4 units get one SB rule, your proposal is already the 4.0 rule.
I don’t know what to do with this. Perhaps just return it to OOB to make it easierit’ll be good to bring back SB for the Pacific
but we don’t want OOB’s SB winning land battlemaybe I didn’t explain clearly
I am proposing SB +1 to infantry….instead of the SB rollsok so thats one round or every round? If just round one its not enough juice.
Quote
Its either artillery get preemptive fire or anything with a barrel can shoot, for tanks this would be committing armor early enough in the invasion which would have had a huge effect on D-Day. I would like the rule to be more simple but effective.
yep ok, include tanksok then out of this defender will stock more armor for defense and not just have infantry. script it.
Quote
well its also such an important place, i think the label it mountain is not good for game play situations.
I still don’t get it
Japan doesn’t get invaded til end gameor are you ok with it now that we use the IPC limit not the limit of 2
Ok no limit of two except small island rule: Stacking limited to X and invasion limited to X.
Quote
Quote
how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?
yes lets do that. script it.
before I script I need one more detailUS invades Southern Europe (6 IPC)
1st cycle of combat, only 6 amphibious land units can roll
Germany rolls and gets 7 hits…does US allocate 6 or 7 casualties?no it can only hit what lands, so 6. On round 2 you got 12 coming in.
note, if US only have to allocate 6 casualties there is a side effect of reducing the power of the +1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy on 1st cycle of combat
(ie. for large battles, it might actually make amphibious assault easier than normal land-to-land assault)well its also connected to SB. The attacker has to get something decent because the defender in mountains is strong. I prefer to keep the terrain rule, which limits attacks on Norway which were harder to do anyway.
the stricter limit of 2 land units per cycle, I would want to apply it to territories marked as “small” (eg. Wake Island)
yes the 2 limit applies now to small islands/groups ( not Philippines, Borneo or east indies.)
-
ok so thats one round or every round? If just round one its not enough juice.
hehe I was worried about too much juice
in OOB you can win battles with SB and not actual infantryanyway this is related to the model of how many cycles is amphibious landing and how many cyles is the overall battle…see below
ok then out of this defender will stock more armor for defense and not just have infantry. script it.
for amphibous assault…
Step: Conduct opening fire
In the first cycle of combat, defending artillery and tanks only fire in this step only.the +1 mountainous/snowy defense bonus was about defensive terrain bonus
I don’t think it should apply to the above preemptive shot
if you agree I would move the rule to the particular step:
Step: Defending units fire
In mountainous or snowy terrain territories, defending land units have their defence increased by 1 on the first cycle of combat.no it can only hit what lands, so 6. On round 2 you got 12 coming in.
I am having second thoughts
normandy landings (days) is a small part of the operation overlord (months)its best we model the landing in first cycle of combat
also makes the rules simplerlike we already have
defending artillery/tanks preemptive fire…1st cycle only
+1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy…1st cycle onlyso should try to make
shore bombardment (SB)…to be 1st cycle only?
landing limit…to be 1st cycle only?yes the 2 limit applies now to small islands/groups ( not Philippines, Borneo or east indies.)
yeah the old list only contains Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar
all below 10km^2 -
Quote
ok so thats one round or every round? If just round one its not enough juice.
hehe I was worried about too much juice
in OOB you can win battles with SB and not actual infantryok one round.
Quote
ok then out of this defender will stock more armor for defense and not just have infantry. script it.
for amphibous assault…
Step: Conduct opening fire
In the first cycle of combat, defending artillery and tanks only fire in this step only.ok fine…
the +1 mountainous/snowy defense bonus was about defensive terrain bonus
I don’t think it should apply to the above preemptive shot
if you agree I would move the rule to the particular step:
Step: Defending units fire
In mountainous or snowy terrain territories, defending land units have their defence increased by 1 on the first cycle of combat.ok thats fine.
Quote
no it can only hit what lands, so 6. On round 2 you got 12 coming in.
I am having second thoughts
normandy landings (days) is a small part of the operation overlord (months)invasions need to occur less frequently and be less easy. This is an easy way to not allow a bunch of builds landing every turn just taking stuff for the hell of it.
like we already have
defending artillery/tanks preemptive fire…1st cycle only
+1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy…1st cycle onlyso should try to make
shore bombardment (SB)…to be 1st cycle only?
landing limit…to be 1st cycle only?ok first turn = IPC determines what can be landed
Quote
yes the 2 limit applies now to small islands/groups ( not Philippines, Borneo or east indies.)
yeah the old list only contains Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar
all below 10km^2Add Hawaii, Solomon, and Okinawa, and list to include 1939 added islands which are small.
-
ok first turn = IPC determines what can be landed
proposed script:
_Step 1: Place units on battle board
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports a number of land units equal to the territory’s IPC value. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In the second cycle of combat (or at the end of first cycle if combat is won by attacker) the attacker offloads remaining units.Step 1: Place units on battle board (territories marked as small)
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports two land units. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In subsequent cycles of combat the attacker may offload from Transport a number of land units to ‘‘top up’’ to two land units on the battle board._Add Hawaii, Solomon, and Okinawa, and list to include 1939 added islands which are small.
Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar are <10 km^2 and marked as small in AARHE
Hawaii, Solomon and Okinawa are large enough as staging area and hence not marked as small in AARHE
Hawaii 28,311 km^2
Solomon 28,896 km^2
Okinawa 2,271 km^2Allied forces in Battle of Okinawa is huge, 50% that of Battle of Normandy
last thing before moving to naval combat
if partial retreat is not hugely important I would prefer to get rid of it -
I got an excellent solution for Shore bombardment!!!
A player may bring any number of ships he wants, what they now do is this:
The ship rolls out its attack roll and the number of what it rolls is the defending unit that is suppressed. A suppressed unit cannot fire but cannot also be taken as a combat loss. Its basically useless and should be retreated because it wont get to fire at all. So if you got a BB and it rolls a 3, then any unit that defends at 3 wont be firing and does not defend. Its not exactly destroyed but its basically a broken unit. So a battleship can suppress all land units and air units that defend at 1-4, while a cruiser can effect only units 1-3.
Reasoning: SB had the goal of rendering the defender (which is dug in and at the advantage) basically unable to make use of his environment so he cant fire back. I would take this to mean he cant fire back from these prepared positions. The trick was to make it so that the attacker could have some choice on what unit he wanted to suppress because the attacker had vital information prepared in advance as to where the defender had his strong points, which were blasted before the landings. This in terms of gameplay allows a stronger naval unit the opportunity to effect a wider range of units.
The other idea was this:
The BB or other SB unit rolls out and any time he hits he can select the unit that now defends at 1. So if a BB rolls a one, it can assign a defending tank a new defensive value of one.
in both systems no restrictions on naval units you bring in.
Quote
ok first turn = IPC determines what can be landed
proposed script:
Step 1: Place units on battle board
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports a number of land units equal to the territory’s IPC value. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In the second cycle of combat (or at the end of first cycle if combat is won by attacker) the attacker offloads remaining units.this is good.
Step 1: Place units on battle board (territories marked as small)
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports two land units. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In subsequent cycles of combat the attacker may offload from Transport a number of land units to ‘‘top up’’ to two land units on the battle board.Quote
Add Hawaii, Solomon, and Okinawa, and list to include 1939 added islands which are small.
Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar are <10 km^2 and marked as small in AARHEHawaii, Solomon and Okinawa are large enough as staging area and hence not marked as small in AARHE
Hawaii 28,311 km^2
Solomon 28,896 km^2
Okinawa 2,271 km^2Allied forces in Battle of Okinawa is huge, 50% that of Battle of Normandy
ok thats fine your list is what will be used.
last thing before moving to naval combat
if partial retreat is not hugely important I would prefer to get rid of itpartial for attacker or defender?
-
OK perhaps this:
each SB successful changes the defensive value of the unit it rolled to one.
so if your BB rolls a 3 ONE tank or less is reduced to defending at one.
if you got 2 SB hits and roll a 4 and a 2, then ONE defending fighter or less is reduced to one value, and a unit either artillery or infantry also goes to one ( attacker choice) The new value of one will last for all combat rounds.
-
I would prefer it simple but yeah we could consider new Shore Bombardment ideas
1. to be simple, instead of reducing to 1 its ok to just make it not fire at all
2. effects has to be 1st cycle only, naval ships should never excert power inland or through out the entire campaign
3. still has to be 1-to-1 with invading land force, defender wouldn’t over expose themselves nor send excessive forces down the beach
partial for attacker or defender?
I was thinking of both
when would you want to do a partial retreat anyway? -
I would prefer it simple but yeah we could consider new Shore Bombardment ideas
1. to be simple, instead of reducing to 1 its ok to just make it not fire at all
2. effects has to be 1st cycle only, naval ships should never exert power inland or through out the entire campaign
Well in OOB the effects are permanent. The unit is destroyed. Under this it just has a reduced combat value of 1, so it can either latter retreat or get taken as combat loss, and the # rolled determines the type of unit thats effected. IN this manner the attacker is pinning down units of his choosing ( done randomly) going after the strong points.
New we add to this our previous rules that the defender fires first and the attacker is limited to the number of invading units = to IPC for the first round…. and i feel we modeled the invasion as well as possible given what we have to work with in this game.
3. still has to be 1-to-1 with invading land force, defender wouldn’t over expose themselves nor send excessive forces down the beach
ok 1:1, but it may be a two round affair, ( example: landing in Norway) and having 3 SB but only able to land 2 units on first round , with latter SB on 2nd round?
Quote
partial for attacker or defender?
I was thinking of both
when would you want to do a partial retreat anyway?yes definatly partial retreats for both sides as usual.
-
actually this supress rule may unrealistic
even all the naval support at normandy the landing wasn’t exactly easy was it? still plenty of lossesI think its because naval bombardment is during landing of friendly troops
once friendly troops start charging up the beach or hill naval bomardment STOP or else there’ll be horrible friendly fireso bombardment does not exactly “suppress” the enemy while your troops walk all over them
I think we should stay with BB supporting infantry with a +1 like an artillery
ok 1:1, but it may be a two round affair, ( example: landing in Norway) and having 3 SB but only able to land 2 units on first round , with latter SB on 2nd round?
note its actually:
mountainous = IPC limit
small = limit of 2so Norway = 3 land units first round
anyway I think there can’t be any SB effects in 2nd cycle
the beach battle is over
defender bonuses for example do not appear in 2nd cyclepartial for attacker or defender?
I was thinking of both
when would you want to do a partial retreat anyway?yes definatly partial retreats for both sides as usual.
confirming whether you understood me correctly…
I am saying lets remove partial retreat for both attacker and defender
its not obvious to me why you want to do a partial retreat
(as we no longer have any complex retreat without firing or capture-enemy-troops rules) -
lets resume
still waiting for your response to my last postsummary:
1. I feel suppression is unrealistic and prefer bombardment to be supporting infantry with +1 instead
2. bombardment effects (in fact, all amphibious bonuses) would be first cycle only for realism and easier game execution
3. not obvious to me why the player would want to perfrom partial retreat, give me an example when you would do it(refer to my previous post for my reasons)
-
actually this suppress rule may unrealistic
even all the naval support at Normandy the landing wasn’t exactly easy was it? still plenty of losses.I think its because naval bombardment is during landing of friendly troops
once friendly troops start charging up the beach or hill naval bomardment STOP or else there’ll be horrible friendly fireso bombardment does not exactly “suppress” the enemy while your troops walk all over them
I think we should stay with BB supporting infantry with a +1 like an artillery
The suppress idea applies to the first round SB only. What is going on is the defenders position is ruined and the hard points of his defense have been neutralized. The way to simulate this is to reduce his effectiveness and not add attack value to the attacker. So we reduce him to one and to overcome the fact that the defender will always choose infantry as his loss, we assign the roll of SB to determine which unit is suppressed, so now the defender has the decision if he thinks the battle will not go well be will allocate the reduced unit as a combat loss.
Also, we install the limit of landing units on the first round to the IPC value and give the defender the opportunity to fire his artillery and non-infantry after SB to simulate the advantage of the attackers resolve. Now both seem like a smooth system to balance out all the invasions each turn.
Id also add a new idea: For invasions we could bring back the old “co-exist rule” Which in this case simulates a bridgehead for the invasion. In doing this the attacker does not keep any IPC and is merely holding a small portion of the territory. the defender may have the opportunity to counter attack on his turn.
Example: US and UK land in france and establish a bridgehead with say 12 units. When they landed they could have decided to keep attacking until the defender was eliminated, but the odds were not in favor of success, so they decide to rest on what they have, which gives the German the opportunity for counter attack, except now the allies are defending ( which is some cases is a good thing).
If the Germans don’t push them off, the Allies can stay put or bring more forces to france and attack with a larger force. Note: that once they have a bridgehead they no longer get more SB.
Play this out and note how it looks more like D-Day and how that went.
Quote
ok 1:1, but it may be a two round affair, ( example: landing in Norway) and having 3 SB but only able to land 2 units on first round , with latter SB on 2nd round?
note its actually:
mountainous = IPC limit
small = limit of 2so Norway = 3 land units first round
ok this is fine
anyway I think there can’t be any SB effects in 2nd cycle
the beach battle is over
defender bonuses for example do not appear in 2nd cycleright
Quote
Quote
Quote
partial for attacker or defender?
I was thinking of both
when would you want to do a partial retreat anyway?
yes definatly partial retreats for both sides as usual.confirming whether you understood me correctly…
I am saying lets remove partial retreat for both attacker and defender
its not obvious to me why you want to do a partial retreat
(as we no longer have any complex retreat without firing or capture-enemy-troops rules)ok well how bout the Jeff rule from his world war two game?
Partial retreat allowed, if attacker rolls up and the remaining defenders are not sufficient, then additional hit allocations go against retreated units…
-
The suppress idea applies to the first round SB only. What is going on is the defenders position is ruined and the hard points of his defense have been neutralized. The way to simulate this is to reduce his effectiveness and not add attack value to the attacker.
but in the end both landartillery and naval artillery (shore bombardment) does the same thing
neutralise the hard points, soften the targetprovided its supporting an advance, the attacker has a easier time
the basic axis and allies artillery +1 philosphySo we reduce him to one and to overcome the fact that the defender will always choose infantry as his loss, we assign the roll of SB to determine which unit is suppressed, so now the defender has the decision if he thinks the battle will not go well be will allocate the reduced unit as a combat loss.
why would defender allocate the reduced unit (instead of infantry) as combat loss?
unless the suppressed unit is suppressed for 2nd, 3rd, 4th…eyclesin the end I feel the suppression rule is a little complex and not entirely realistic
Id also add a new idea: For invasions we could bring back the old “co-exist rule” Which in this case simulates a bridgehead for the invasion.
…
Play this out and note how it looks more like D-Day and how that went.probably more suited to a different level of abstraction
like, would it make sense for the timeline of 6 months per turn?note, the current plan isn’t to add further complexity to AARHE
we’ve been through adding and removing complexity previously
I kind of would only consider new rules if its a simpler way to do things (replaces a string of other rules)ok well how bout the Jeff rule from his world war two game?
Partial retreat allowed, if attacker rolls up and the remaining defenders are not sufficient, then additional hit allocations go against retreated units…I wasn’t talking about adding penalty to defender retreat
my question is the worthiness of a partial retreat ruleis there a need for it?
what situation would you want to perform a partial retreat?
Suggested Topics
