AARHE: Rule files

@Imperious:

A few comments…

If your goal is to make an advanced variant of Revised, then obviously there’s not much you can do to correct the strategic historical inaccuracies Revised poses. Since that’s the case, I’ll simply appreciate AARHE for what it is, which is a very good rules set. That said, I wish there was some other rules variant out there that managed to combine game balance with an historically accurate depiction of the USSR’s and USA’s military production.

When you were a kid, did you ever see those commercials for Frosted Mini Wheats? Each mini wheat had two sides to his personality: the whole wheat, serious side; and the frosted, fun-loving side. Well, the frosted, fun-loving side of my personality likes the idea of having Italy in the game. From the point of view of game mechanics and making the game more interesting, Italy adds an extra something. But the whole wheat, serious side of me hates everything about the Italy inclusion. To lump Romania, Bulgaria, etc. in with Italy implies that those nations were more closely aligned with Italy than they were with Germany. A German promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that you’d get a solid, strong protection effort. An Italian promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that Italy would send some soldiers to your border, they’d eat your food for a while, and then they’d run away once the battle began to get intense. Eastern European nations largely understood this.

There were a number of reasons for Italy’s military failure. Mussolini probably came into power prematurely; and he lacked the popular support Hitler had in Germany. Unlike Germany, modern Italy lacked a strong military tradition. Mussolini was unable to correct the Italian military’s fundamental problems. Laziness, carelessness, and sloppiness in carrying out commands–these were the hallmarks of the Italian military. These things alone meant that the Italian navy was far less useful to the Axis than its tonnage would seem to indicate. In addition to those problems, the Italian army lacked proper equipment. In the desert war you mentioned, Italy only used “light” tanks that couldn’t damage British Matilda tanks. Italy’s infantry lacked mobility. Rommel recognized that mobility was the essence of desert warfare. A large, slow force (such as Italy’s infantry) could be easily outflanked along the south; then cut off from its supplies. It was exactly this technique which allowed Britain’s tank force and mechanized infantry to force the surrender of much larger, non-mechanized Italian infantry forces.

Italians became increasingly cynical and disillusioned about Mussolini’s plans for a new Roman Empire. His grandiose ambitions appeared to be more and more out of touch with reality. Few Italian men were willing to die for someone else’s fantasy; which is one reason why Italy’s armies typically chose to run away or surrender rather than fight.

You point out that Italy’s forces started fighting a lot better once Germans took over the leadership roles. But to me, Germans taking command of those forces at least hints at an integration of German and Italian military forces.

I’ll try not to harp on this, especially if the issue’s already been decided. I just wanted to get my two cents in.

As i said before Italy was not prepared to fight a general war in 1940. They feared that if they didn’t get into the fight he would not have any clout at the peace talks. His quote " i need 10,000 deaths to gain a seat at the peace conference…" was a premature attack on the french who he didn’t think would fall so quickly ( i wonder on the other hand why they lasted as long as they did).  Once italy was joined she could only fight short campaigns, somewhat like Hitler and the same argument you bring up could also be argued for the Germans who also weren’t prepared to fight anything other than “campaigns on the cheap”. This eventually bites them in the ass in the Soviet Union. Even Hitlers generals wanted a war latter in 1944.

A 2.1 to .09 (2 to 1) overall economic military advantage of allies over axis could not be compensated by any military means in 1941. The entry of nearly half of the allied total came from USA and that resulted in an insurmountable odds against the axis. Italy ready or not would not compensate this disadvantage. Mussolini was the chief cause of her military misfortunes but not for the reasons you mentioned. Military appointments were largely filled by Il duce himself, who gave these positions to loyal comrades. Also, Il duce wanted his own place under the sun and didn’t want the Germans to gain any credit for any Italian victory. Once it was proven by failure then the German leadership was welcome. The Italians fought well under the DAK so it proves that with some changes they could have offered some resistance. Italian defeats were only realized in the cases where they fought alone without any German input. And that does not undermine the minor axis allies which also fought with bravery and are also represented in AARHE.

Is there a plain version of the rule file, one without the background image?

That sucks up a lot of ink and time.

Potsy.

look under Tekkyys signature. he has it.

Quote
But then you must explain this in the rules ( a section regarding the map symbols along with these rules)
Symbols don’t mean anything unless you attach meaning to them.
so like this ok?
*red double line for canals and waterways
*green double line for strait interdiction
*dots are on the territories involved

Yes something like this, including map items regarding the Maginot line, Oil symbols, etc.

Quote
OH that rule is no good at all. too much to account for and adding absolutely nothing to the game at all. Allow any saved income to be saved as reserves. Under this you would have to account for yet another thing that does not add anything to the game.
I was thinking you shouldn’t be able to leave income just anywhere
hence you have to save at a VC, which is a lot more relaxed then OOB…where you can only save money at the capital
what do you think?

Yes saved at capital. You lose it only when you lose capital. good.
Quote
The attacker is the active army. The defender is committed to fight or flee under the stress of battle. If you look at it it makes more sence, because the trick is the defender retreats and the attackers efforts are rewarded by the capture of the territory, but in game terms this will ‘trap’ good units for counterattack that would be unrealistic
Ok fine as long as its justified we have change it to defender retreat first.
And yes like what you said, trapping units is unrealistic.

ok fine.

Quote
OK under what you already wrote the attacker has the choice to not even move into the new territory.
No they were fighting in the territory. And now they retreated.
Just the normal model of attacker retreat.

Quote
No victory at all. The attacker can choke on his first rolls and the defender retreats and nothing is gained except a new empty space, with the defender able to still get the IPC.
The defender had tactical victory in holding the territory. The attacker had strategic victory in killing the defending forces.

The attacker enters a territory of some 500 sq miles to attack the defending enemy, and the defenders retreat after one battle, while the attackers now see that the defenders are retreating… what do they do? They also retreat! what kind of thing is this?  Thats totally ridiculous. its like two scared animals running away from shadows.

Again it is up to the commanders. I probably wouldn’t retreat entirely. I’ll a bit behind to capture the new territory to stop the defender from getting the income as well as slow enemy advance.

The player that entered a territory must at least leave one unit behind. And the rule forcing defender to declare retreat first makes this possible and also protects the attacker. we want to encourage attacks and not defense. Dynamic vs. Static.

Quote
IN my view the combat is occurring already inside the defending territory., so the idea that the defender retreats and the attacker is basically also retreating from the territory… like they are scared chickens. not good.
That could be an undecisive battle.
But in the end if attacker retreat is allowed, then it is allowed.

If the defender retreats for any reason : its not indecisive. If the Germans take Paris after the defender retreats thats decisive.

Quote
Quote
A bunch of infantry skirmishes with air suport and retreats. It killed the enemy but it can afford to remain behind and get surrounded by tanks, blocking retreat (AARHE capture roll).
Its already in the territory by moving into it. That amounts to a free move for infantry to be able to jump out. It already went against tanks and ‘won’ and now they  “just run away to avoid capture” by these same tanks? This is not good modeling of warfare.

That was a typo. It is meant to be “can’t afford to remain behind”.
And its not the same tanks.

Like this…

Russia attacks Germany with infantry and artillery at the front line, kills most or all of the German forces and then retreats or partially retreats. Why?
Because many Germany tanks are coming in. If Russian forces remained behind they’ll be attacked by the reinforcement and blocked from retreat (AARHE capture roll).

The rule must force the attacker to leave at least one unit in, or this falls into the category of tricks. These rules are meant to remove all tricks as a result of abstractions we create. So we model realistic warfare and remove the opportunity for tricks by both sides. If the attacker makes bogus attacks with no intention of actually capturing territory in an attempt to protect his forces, then we are not doing our jobs. Attack must include the risk of counterattack. What you propose is to protect and create a static battlefield condition.

Attack is Risk, defense is avoidance of risk. If you attack you should be sure you can withstand the counterattack. The "Everybody can leave the attacked territory " thing only makes sence under naval warfare or air warfare.

Oh one thing forgot:

dont forget to add that rule regarding the effects on builds for Factories that suffered SBR runs. This is effected by the IPC

so if the territory has a value of 3 and the total value in builds is x4= 12 IPC, and you bomb this factory for say 4, then you can now only build 8 IPC worth of units in that factory.

Yes something like this, including map items regarding the Maginot line, Oil symbols, etc.
yeah those 1939 specific items are going in the 1939 rules file

But please make them an appendix to the rules so its all in one place. not separate files.

Quote
Yes saved at capital. You lose it only when you lose capital. good.
no I am saying thats what OOB does and is too restrictive
recall we have convoy rules

this is why you save at VCs, or if you want save at any territory
these are the options

Its too micromanagement. it need to be simple. who is gonna deal with placing chips at VC’s to keep track of what they saved?

Quote
what do they do? They also retreat! what kind of thing is this?  Thats totally ridiculous. its like two scared animals running away from shadows.
well you just have to think about why it doesn’t happen in reality and try to model it here

Lets go back to co-existing rules to solve this. only units moving 2 spaces can move out. Infantry is considered engaged and stuck, unless one side totally moves out and defender chooses first.

Quote
The player that entered a territory must at least leave one unit behind. And the rule forcing defender to declare retreat first makes this possible and also protects the attacker. we want to encourage attacks and not defense. Dynamic vs. Static.
yeah thats one solution
at least the unrealistic trapping is limited to one unit
if we can’t think of better we’ll just use this

lets not settle on something this important. come up with a solution as well. I will do the same.

note regarding dynamic vs. static
OOB doesn’t actually encourage attacks because of dangers of trapped units and exposure to counterattack
what happens in OOB is simply “trading” until one side can’t afford to
by not trapping units and allowing defender retreat AARHE is indeed dynamic

yes true, but the defender retreats and the attacker also retreats leaving an empty warzone when 1/2 a million men just fought is totally reckless modeling. Its not realistic at all. The territory the size of Poland is fought over and both side just vanish after combat looks strange.

Quote
The rule must force the attacker to leave at least one unit in, or this falls into the category of tricks. These rules are meant to remove all tricks as a result of abstractions we create.
yeah we’ll use this rule
it strikes a balance between what you and I are trying to have

though this is what player would do anyway, use a token force to capture the territory and stop enemy from getting the income and slow enemy advance

Yes possibly but can another option be better? more thought required on this problem.

But please make them an appendix to the rules so its all in one place. not separate files.
we separated projects from the main rules file
why do you want it together again?
the Appendix is very long already

Yes but its easier to have the files together including the player aids attached to the PDF ( thats 3 battleboards, Victory city, Diplomatic, Technology, 1939 specific rules,1939 set ups, and the general cards. That makes it one large file for print out so people dont have to click on 50 different files to get all sorts of things. Lets make it easy for everybody.

Also the maps all in one large file 3 maps and the 1939 set up map

we don’t have to make the whole AARHE thing centred around the 1939 map

no of course not it. goes on the end. its not the centerpiece.

Quote
Its too micromanagement. it need to be simple. who is gonna deal with placing chips at VC’s to keep track of what they saved?
its really just UK thats has the complexity, the other nations don’t normally have to do it

if you are only allowed to save at London, once it is under blockade the spending at the colonies will be very restrictive
plus it would be like shipping from colonies to London to save and then bring it back to the colonies to spend…

Thats even more of a reason to dump it. It only applies to one case, one nation. whats wrong with “you lose your capital you lose saved IPC?”

Quote
lets not settle on something this important. come up with a solution as well. I will do the same.
its not that bad
as I said leaving one unit is probably what people would do in the restricted case that I like
but yes we can keep thinking about other options

co-occupation can be some work, you have to sit down and really think about it and define all the cases
it is not a one liner
(the way I see it you seem to regularly forget about AARHE rules, probably due to number of parellel projects, so this might not be something you can the time afford to do)

the movement point thing would always force infantry to be stuck
that is going to hurt the dynamic aspect and bring us back to OOB land trading

heres the co-occupation rules again from that ww1 game:

Co-Existing:

1. At land:
When withdrawing from combat, the attacker has the option of remaining in the territory and contesting it instead of withdrawing back to their territory. When contested, forts do not fix, and the value of the territory is halved (rounded up) for both economic worth and production.  Only the original owner gets the income and can produce there at his new reduced value.

While a territory is contested, each side may bring in reinforcements from the outside.  Units are not allowed to move out of the territory to another enemy or contested area without first moving back through a friendly territory (thus units with a movement of two can use one movement point to move to a rear “friendly” space and then move into another combat situation with the second movement point). Railroads do not function in a contested area.

Either side may initiate a battle at any time later by simply declaring an attack.  In this way there may be several battles over a territory, with both sides attacking and falling back.

2. At Sea:
Fleets may coexist in a sea.  However, when a fleet attempts to move, the opposing side may make one attempt to intercept.  If the roll is a 1-2 on a D6 then the fleet will have to fight the enemy ships, forfeiting all movement. Subs do not follow this and may move freely out of the space.

Battleships cannot repair in a contested sea zone.

remember this is verbatim and particular to that game. It needs to be tailored, but it has been extensively play tested and it works

Yes but its easier to have the files together including the player aids attached to the PDF ( thats 3 battleboards, Victory city, Diplomatic, Technology, 1939 specific rules,1939 set ups, and the general cards. That makes it one large file for print out so people dont have to click on 50 different files to get all sorts of things. Lets make it easy for everybody.

I don’t know if thats going to “make it easy for everybody”
attaching player aids will make a huge file and print quality wouldnt be good

one mega file? if the project is done, fixed, all over…then maybe

I have a feeling such a large file won’t be friendly to new players
its like a photo album  sad

I am fine with all player aids in one file though yes lets do that. At least it will be in one file. people can pick and choose what they need.

Quote
Also the maps all in one large file 3 maps and the 1939 set up map
thats bunching the projects together
each project updates at their own rate

Well then put them in one folder with different files ( only the latest files)

Quote
Thats even more of a reason to dump it. It only applies to one case, one nation. whats wrong with “you lose your capital you lose saved IPC?”
its simply a realistic outcome of the model

if Allies control Altantic, UK won’t have to deal with it
if Allies control Pacific, Japan will be in trouble

are you even reading this? you seems to be so hurried

nothing wrong with you lose your capital you lose saved IPC there

How are you accounting for all the saved income at various cities? any method proves cumbersome. If the Allies control the pacific Japan wont be getting income from islands anyway because of the rule ( that should still be in the text) regarding that if you don’t control as path of sea zones from islands to your capital you don’t gain income from these places. Other than that the income is immediately in your treasury  as saved income and only lost if you lose your capital. Once its in your capital as saved income you cant lose it unless you lose the capital.

Quote
Co-Existing
yeah sounds familar
it was bought up some time ago
we’ll try to give it time and work

we’ve been changing a few core things this months
I am a feeling there is much changing and little testing

On this i have tested it, in fact the rules are quite similar in terms of retreats etc. no problems.

If the Allies control the pacific Japan wont be getting income from islands anyway because of the rule ( that should still be in the text) regarding that if you don’t control as path of sea zones from islands to your capital you don’t gain income from these places.
actually its not “to your capital”
its from the income generating territory to where you are spending it
being connected to UK doesn’t mean you can spend it at India for example.

it does not matter how and why the income is exchanged two and from. Only one thing: you don’t collect for income on small islands if the enemy occupies the sea zones around those islands. The islands don’t include Japan, UK, and Australia.

The second idea is saved income is lost if you capital is lost. nothing more needs to be said.

Quote
Other than that the income is immediately in your treasury as saved income and only lost if you lose your capital. Once its in your capital as saved income you cant lose it unless you lose the capital.
you keep repeating the “lose saved income only if you lose the capital” aspect of your rule

I keep repeating this because its the only type of rule that fits what were trying to do. Anything else is too much for people to deal with. I personally would never play it. Its unneeded fluff and adds nothing.

but what do you think of the problem I mentioned?
ie. these income transverse the Altantic twice even though the money is generated and spent at the colonies

that’s not necessarily true. And secondly, its something thats really beyond what were trying to do. This cant turn into something overly complicated where you have to account for where the money came from and where its going to to determine whether specific saved income is lost if you lose a colony. Its simply fixed with the ‘isolation of income’ rule pertaining to islands, so those small islands ( not japan or england, austrialia) don’t give the parent nation income if the sea zones they reside in is occupied by enemy ships. THATS IT. no other rules regarding how income ‘travels’ or how income is saved goes beyond the point of this: you lose the capital you lose saved money. Thats it nothing more.

Its hard enough for people to even get the idea/ concept of paying different amounts for infantry and placement outside of factories. Your arguing for rules that take people away from AARHE. It cant be overly complicated. Just fix MOST of the stupid realism issues that make it too abstracted.

IN fact the light version ( AKA AARHE: for Dummies) which your working on will be a stripped version and under 8 pages of pure text.

Germany blockades UK home island
UK chooses to minimise losses by spending money at the other threatres of war
and then your rule comes in and…

Quote
On this i have tested it, in fact the rules are quite similar in terms of retreats etc. no problems.
I will study the details later
so far I can see it’ll allow stalling
which might leads to more complex rules (for anti-stall)

tune it and post exact rule soon so we can discuss

*all logistic costs paid in advance, refund possible…or even get rid of it
Logistical costs related to attacks only paid in advance— Invasions and Airborne because these are related to attacks.
Movement into Sahara only and no combat can be paid for latter

*no more convoy dice, each unit kills 1 IPC 100% of time…or even disallow money to transverse enemy sea zones the way you are speaking
ships still roll out and still take  1 IPC if they hit. Its very simple. The income lost is subtracted on the players following turn.

*Production Interruption simplified to 1 IPC per cycle…or even get rid of it
Per cycle?  Its easy each ship rolls out whatever the rule says and if it suceeds, then 1 ipc lost by owning player. Thats it.

None of this has any relevance to the saving of income issue. I am not sure why your bringing THESE rules up.

I played it this way and its fine. Their is nothing more to consider. Please make an example of how this income saving issue  at each independent locale ( say territory not land connected to home territory) totally destroys a nation.

You bring up UK and Japan. None of them are effected in any way by isolation rules except if they occupy small islands and these sea zones where the island is is occupied by enemy ships, then they are denied IPC from that source.

The ONLY other thing that effects them is each German ship in the open atlantic or indian ocean ( not in neutral port) takes one potential IPC from Uk or USA these may include subs.

Likewise, USA and UK subs only in Pacific can also harm Japan potentially with a die roll causing 1 IPC damage.

The only difference in the reciprocity of these two items is the allied player can only do this with subs, while the German player can do this with any ship.  Also, if Italy takes the proper measures to get out of Medd. They can also do this.

All these rules used to be in the files but i dont bother to mention them until, now.

For some reason it came up that everybody has some equal opportunity to harm each nation and thats not what historically happened.  To be historical it should reflect the actual abilities of these nations.

Italy is kinda iffy, because Duce didnt have any fuel to sail outside the medd. But Italy is weak anyway and we need to give Germany some effective start for a submarine campaign which is lacking in revised.

logistical costs
I was thinking simpler if all paid in advance
for Sahara, both paid in advance or paid afterwards is reasonable or arguably realistic anyway

ok fine make it so…

you mentioned “movement into Sahara and no combat”
what do you mean? does it make a difference? are you saying you want “no combat” to be paid after, and “yes combat” to be paid in advance?

It does not matter now because we now have it all paid for in advance. never mind

convoy
if not exactly unrealistic, then lets make it hit all the time and save the rolling
like OOB and AARe

yes please simplify and consolidate these rules into a easy to use package.

you mention “subtract following turn”, doesn’t make sense, maybe you misunderstood the rules
they are destroyed and you lost the money this turn, less money to spend

in enemy turn they move into position and then in your turn you are affected, not later

your correct meant this turn.

production interruption
you misunderstood
I am referring to the rule named “production interruption”
(after 3 cycles of land combat, territory income reduced, table lookup for damage)

Yes thats correct, thats another rule that we keep yes.

I am saying we could simplify it to in each cycle of land combat cause damage, effectively a 1 IPC SBR

well it it removes yet another thing to look up and index then it would be better. I IPC i could go for. sounds like a winner Tekkyy. do it.

Quote
You bring up UK and Japan. None of them are effected in any way by isolation rules except if they occupy small islands and these sea zones where the island is is occupied by enemy ships, then they are denied IPC from that source.

The ONLY other thing that effects them is each German ship in the open atlantic or indian ocean ( not in neutral port) takes one potential IPC from Uk or USA these may include subs.

Likewise, USA and UK subs only in Pacific can also harm Japan potentially with a die roll causing 1 IPC damage.
here you seems to be talking in a blend of rules
by “isolation rules” are you referring to your

This was a good rule and it should not have been thrown away. Also, as i remember the German subs and ships dont actually cause USA damage, only the aid of lend lease that flows to either UK or USSR is damaged… the American economy was not dependent on its few colonies

Quote
f you don’t control as path of sea zones from islands to your capital you don’t gain income from these places
?
it in conflict with “causing 1 IPC damage” which is under “convoy sea zone” heading in current rules

They can both work. The fact that German ships are in these sea zones reduces income, the fact that American or British or even Japanese ships control the sea zone that surrounds the small island also denys income to that owning player. This is historical modeling.

anyway I am saying since UK and Japan is scattered
they are affected the most if saving has to be done at Capital
saved IPC would be raided twice, strangely

How are they effected? they ONLY lose the saved income if the home territory is captured. That would be the end of the game for each of them in practical terms. They are also protected by the fact that they are islands and cant be assaulted by connected land territories. They have a great advantage. Their is nothing strange about it.

YOU ONLY LOSE SAVED INCOME IF YOU HOME CAPITAL FALLS. NOTHING CAN BE RAIDED UNLESS YOU LOSE YOUR CAPITAL WHICH IS BASICALLY LOSING THE GAME.

or are you saying saving mechanism can skip the convoy sea zone rule?

OMG. lets get past this. Its a non-issue. Its not even related to that.

path
finally I remind what we have a path system
because convoy raid not related to production, or not related to actual shipping, is silly

This makes no sence to me what your saying.

forget path system unless it relates to “isolation of small islands” because those German ships/ subs and UK/ USA pacific subs only take income from the enemy if these ships make their saving roll as per our rules.

also please post a non-PDF version ( Microsoft word)