Map
Have you figured out the difference between flag icons and IPC icons?
(which I am guessing is why flag icons get exported but IPC icons don’t…solving this can be useful as we could be able to release the map as PDF or 300dpi high-res via photoshop)
Africa
I am thinking it wouldn’t look incorrect. Each territory is a region not a country anyway.
See what we can do on this.
Victory City
A lot VC locations are geographically inexact.
If you are lazy you can browse locations form this, where I made best of the map according to certain recgonisable references to real map.
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png
Alternatively, you can continue your quest of making things look better. lines. Last thing was Africa. Central Asia next hehe. Capsian sea and stuff hehe.
AARHE 1.3
You haven’t show me the stuff that was making us stuck with naming it “1.3”.
What are they?
National player aids?
In the future probably best not to have version number on artwork.
Operations manual
Are you putting the front page back in?
Index
Regarding a new index we discussed earlier. Just something simple like…
Game Sequence…2
Phase 1: Collect Income…4
Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments…5
Phase 3: Combat Move…6
Phase 4: Conduct Combat…9
Phase 5: Non-combat Move…17
Phase 6: Mobilize New Units…18
Phase 7: Develop Weapons…19
Phase 8: Diplomacy…21
Appendix: 1939 map…22
Appendix: Units… 26
Appendix: New Units…27
Appendix: National Advantages… 28
Appendix: Historical Victory Conditions…43
Honolulu
Look, we used VC to model population centres.
With it you can raise INF and build cheaper IC.
I think we’ve only broken the rule once, for Cairo.
Haiwaii is already important in AARHE, Pacific war modelled correctly via rules such as
*no stacking in tiny islands
*realistic 50-50 air movement
If you want Honolulu VC for naval repair. Then give it a value of 0.
I mean, do you really want INF popping out of it? To me Haiwaii is nothing more than an outpost.
Alternatively, redefinite the system and decouple popluation with straetegic victory.
Then break “victory city” game mode into city victory" and “strategic victory”.
built in ID rolls:
IC’s implicitly included ID has been reduced before because at 3 it makes it too cheap. (Each ID costs 5 IPC usually.)
IC costs 5, 10 or 15 IPC. Usually 10 or 15 IPC.
Before it was reduced to 2.
With 1 ID implicit for VC.
Also I wonder if we should make ID cost 3 IPC.
Bomber
Air units in land combat
do you want this?
air superiority AIR units roll at normal combat value, fire selectively and in opening-fire
without air superiority AIR units roll at dogfighting value, fire non-selectively and in main round, excess hits allocated on land units
Land Combat: Hit Allocation
update “start of the first combat round” to “start of combat cycle”
Capturign defender retreat infantry
I notice its now “hitting on 1-2”. 33% chance. Not too high is it?
naval combat
so you made changes
but you might not have checked for its rule preciseness and how it is in practise if you don’t write a combat sequence
without it I don’t know exactly what you mean
I can’t visual what you are modelling as a typical naval engagement
destroyer negate submarine opening-fire
undetected submarines should always pre-empt its target
if detected the target manuevors evades to last til main round
friendly BB negate enemy BB opening-fire
thats like saying BB do have make use of its range when ENEMY has BB
more logically would be BB fires first and if hits are taken by destroyer it doesn’t get to fire
proposed naval combat sequence
Pre-combat
1. DD choose screen OR ASW
2. AIR choose target OR CAP
Opening-fire
1. DD (ASW) and AIR (CAP) perform ASW search
2. undetected SS fires
3. DD (screen) and BB fires AA at those targetting it or its screen
4. remove casualties
Mid-combat
1. AIR (CAP) choose AIR (ASW attack) OR AIR (dogfight)
2. BB fires, remove casualties
Main-round
1. DD (ASW) and AIR (ASW attack) perform ASW attack on any SS
2. detected SS fires
3. DD (normal) fires
4. AIR (normal) fires, at dogfight values if enemy has AIR (dogfight)
5. AIR (dogfight) fires, at dogfight values
6. remove casualties
Retreat decision
note planes never preempt ships in this case
oh boy lots of work…. :cry: :cry: :cry:
Map
Have you figured out the difference between flag icons and IPC icons?
(which I am guessing is why flag icons get exported but IPC icons don’t…solving this can be useful as we could be able to release the map as PDF or 300dpi high-res via photoshop)
the pdf destroys the oil icons as well for no apparent reason. this cant be fixed… so forget the bastard pdf. that program is a joke anyway.
Africa
I am thinking it wouldn’t look incorrect. Each territory is a region not a country anyway.
See what we can do on this.
whats wrong with just not allowing these territories to ‘count’– you cant enter them…
Victory City
A lot VC locations are geographically inexact.
If you are lazy you can browse locations form this, where I made best of the map according to certain recgonisable references to real map.
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png
Alternatively, you can continue your quest of making things look better. lines. Last thing was Africa. Central Asia next hehe. Capsian sea and stuff hehe.
On this i am afraid not much can be done. Most of these issues have to do with the ability to space away the different information and spread out this information into the space so its readable and easy when playing. If their are some huge gaffs then perhaps i can change them. looking at central Asia, but trying to avoid it actually. Caspian sea is fine!
AARHE 1.3
You haven’t show me the stuff that was making us stuck with naming it “1.3”.
What are they?
National player aids?
In the future probably best not to have version number on artwork.
No file to edit. i can write over junk but its looks lame.
Operations manual
Are you putting the front page back in?
yes forgot.
Index
Regarding a new index we discussed earlier. Just something simple like…Game Sequence…2
Phase 1: Collect Income…4
Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments…5
Phase 3: Combat Move…6
Phase 4: Conduct Combat…9
Phase 5: Non-combat Move…17
Phase 6: Mobilize New Units…18
Phase 7: Develop Weapons…19
Phase 8: Diplomacy…21
Appendix: 1939 map…22
Appendix: Units… 26
Appendix: New Units…27
Appendix: National Advantages… 28
Appendix: Historical Victory Conditions…43
will be added…
Honolulu
Look, we used VC to model population centres.
With it you can raise INF and build cheaper IC.I think we’ve only broken the rule once, for Cairo.
Haiwaii is already important in AARHE, Pacific war modelled correctly via rules such as
*no stacking in tiny islands
*realistic 50-50 air movementIf you want Honolulu VC for naval repair. Then give it a value of 0.
I mean, do you really want INF popping out of it? To me Haiwaii is nothing more than an outpost.
value of zero? hmmm novel idea… can we add Tunis then? Tobruck?
Alternatively, redefinite the system and decouple popluation with straetegic victory.
Then break “victory city” game mode into city victory" and “strategic victory”.
please explain this or post exactly how it should read. I have no clue whats being said here.
built in ID rolls:
IC’s implicitly included ID has been reduced before because at 3 it makes it too cheap. (Each ID costs 5 IPC usually.)
IC costs 5, 10 or 15 IPC. Usually 10 or 15 IPC.Before it was reduced to 2.
With 1 ID implicit for VC.Also I wonder if we should make ID cost 3 IPC.
ID rolls are free… the IPC you have will not go into wasting it on silly flak battery’s. This didn’t represent any substantial investment compared to raising an armor division or even infantry division. IPC goes to war making junk. Flak AA is a secondary associated military expenditure. Its one of the gaffs about AAR that we get rid of. Armor, Infantry, Artillery and flak batteries the last does not belong as an item in that list. You might as well add a category for ‘chow line’ with armor division.
Bomber
Air units in land combat
do you want this?air superiority AIR units roll at normal combat value, fire selectively and in opening-fire
without air superiority AIR units roll at dogfighting value, fire non-selectively and in main round, excess hits allocated on land units
No. for Air superiority they fight at dogfighting values, against land when Air Sup. is achieved they fire at normal values… that is correct.
Land Combat: Hit Allocation
update “start of the first combat round” to “start of combat cycle”
But the previous method was more exact meaning don’t you think? I can change it but the meaning is basically the same except in the first case a player will know exactly what is meant.
Capturign defender retreat infantry
I notice its now “hitting on 1-2”. 33% chance. Not too high is it?
not at all. not having armor is a huge disadvantage to infantry. its easy to get trapped by tanks in open country.
naval combat
so you made changes
but you might not have checked for its rule preciseness and how it is in practise if you don’t write a combat sequence
without it I don’t know exactly what you mean
I can’t visual what you are modeling as a typical naval engagementdestroyer negate submarine opening-fire
undetected submarines should always pre-emptive its target
if detected the target maneuvers evades to last till main roundfriendly BB negate enemy BB opening-fire
thats like saying BB do have make use of its range when ENEMY has BB
more logically would be BB fires first and if hits are taken by destroyer it doesn’t get to fireproposed naval combat sequence
Pre-combat
1. DD choose screen OR ASW
2. AIR choose target OR CAP
Opening-fire
1. DD (ASW) and AIR (CAP) perform ASW search
2. undetected SS fires
3. DD (screen) and BB fires AA at those targetting it or its screen
4. remove casualties
Mid-combat
1. AIR (CAP) choose AIR (ASW attack) OR AIR (dogfight)
2. BB fires, remove casualties
Main-round
1. DD (ASW) and AIR (ASW attack) perform ASW attack on any SS
2. detected SS fires
3. DD (normal) fires
4. AIR (normal) fires, at dogfight values if enemy has AIR (dogfight)
5. AIR (dogfight) fires, at dogfight values
6. remove casualties
Retreat decisionnote planes never preempt ships in this case
this is good stuff. I will add it. Planes don’t preempt ships because ships fire at longer ranges than the planes themselves, but a relative reduced capacity, not having air power to support ( CAP) is a huge disparagement but accurate and reduces ships to sitting ducks. This is historical based modeling. lots of carriers will be purchased and naval fighters will find their way on islands for cap defense for the player who cannot afford a carrier.
made rule changes with minor modifications
working on SE Asia and split for Canada
Africa small nations are white for now ( impassible)
@Imperious:
oh boy lots of work…. :cry: :cry: :cry:
Yes we are far from completion. As mentioned earlier I had to store aside items/ideas on to-do list on my computer.
But relax, we’ll go through them progressively.
whats wrong with just not allowing these territories to ‘count’– you cant enter them…
Because that would be likee OOB’s arbitray impassable neutrals.
You do get what I mean right? The point about each territory is a region not a country. Many countries are not represented even in heavier gameplay areas like Europe.
It was never the point to represent each country individually right? Collectively.
On this i am afraid not much can be done. Most of these issues have to do with the ability to space away the different information and spread out this information into the space so its readable and easy when playing. If their are some huge gaffs then perhaps i can change them. looking at central Asia, but trying to avoid it actually. Caspian sea is fine!
Seriously, 9 out of 10 are off. Just compare it with
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png
Not all are use to crowded space.
Toronto, Rio de Jenerio, Cape Town, Singapore, Hong Kong…can be easily moved.
Oh and Kuching is missing!
By its ok, in the end there are small things that I can adjust before PNG export.
No file to edit. i can write over junk but its looks lame.
So your saying its just the water mark in rules file thats holding us back?
Honolulu
value of zero? hmmm novel idea… can we add Tunis then? Tobruck?
Yeah the most signficant outposts we can represent with VC of zero.
But it would be for naval repair.
Territories like Tunsia that have 0 IPC can build anything anyway.
This didn’t represent any substantial investment compared to raising an armor division or even infantry division.
Of course of course.
We got consensus on that bit long time ago.
Hence we got rid of AA gun and replaced it with infrastructure defense.
In short I am thinking ID @ 5 IPC is unrealistically expensive and maybe the cause of the discrepancy regarding IC cost.
your ID is currently: 33% to search and then 16% to hit and 33% to force retreat
at a glance, shoud be ok to cost 3 IPC
No. for Air superiority they fight at dogfighting values, against land when Air Sup. is achieved they fire at normal values… that is correct.
This is a small thing.
I wrote the land combat sequence to have air units always fire in opening fire for simplicity.
Is that your intention?
Should dogfighting be in opeing fire or main round?
But the previous method was more exact meaning don’t you think? I can change it but the meaning is basically the same except in the first case a player will know exactly what is meant.
Wait. For this colour version you initially made AA fire in 1st cycle one.
I’ve since convinced you to go back. AA fires in all cycles. So the wording is actually different.
this is good stuff. I will add it. Planes don’t preempt ships because ships fire at longer ranges than the planes themselves, but a relative reduced capacity, not having air power to support ( CAP) is a huge disparagement but accurate and reduces ships to sitting ducks. This is historical based modeling. lots of carriers will be purchased and naval fighters will find their way on islands for cap defense for the player who cannot afford a carrier.
Cool. It took me like 20 minutes to visual and write that naval combat sequence up.
Naval combat is complex with many elements. Make sure all bits are fine.
There are various adjustments to paragraphs to be made.
If you want, put it on hold…I’ll rewrite the naval combat section and post it so its precise and we’ll know whether do meet/agree.
well i already have an update for both… see what you think…
Map:
http://www.mediafire.com/?64fnd1nzdwd
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=xrqdwwmenbf
S.E> Asia fixed! Canada Fixed! African Neutrals are white ( appeasing the aesthetics and making them impassible neutrals). Also Yunnan added to China ( 1 IPC) – taken from Kwangtung province.
Japan has Siam and took one IPC from Kirin province.
Rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/?em0e3jm2ix2
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=nbqyojgbxur
I rewrote that naval combat summary its really clear now. :roll: yea right…I know
Seriously, 9 out of 10 are off. Just compare it with
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png
I will fix these…
So your saying its just the water mark in rules file thats holding us back?
its not really holding us back…. but yes we cant change it unless i we do all that work over… JUST to CHANGE THAT ONE THING.
This didn’t represent any substantial investment compared to raising an armor division or even infantry division.
Of course of course.
We got consensus on that bit long time ago.
Hence we got rid of AA gun and replaced it with infrastructure defense.In short I am thinking ID @ 5 IPC is unrealistically expensive and maybe the cause of the discrepancy regarding IC cost.
your ID is currently: 33% to search and then 16% to hit and 33% to force retreat
at a glance, should be ok to cost 3 IPC
This is all fine… but ID is not purchasable… its built into each VC and factory territory as per rules… they never were purchasable.
Cool. It took me like 20 minutes to visual and write that naval combat sequence up.
Naval combat is complex with many elements. Make sure all bits are fine.There are various adjustments to paragraphs to be made.
If you want, put it on hold…I’ll rewrite the naval combat section and post it so its precise and we’ll know whether do meet/agree.
Yea just check out what i did and copy/paste any changes here.
Map
Siam
At the moment everything is 1 IPC in region except FIC at 2 IPC.
Maybe it sould be Kirin thats 2 IPC instead.
Maybe take 1 IPC from FIC instead of Kirin?
Kirin would be a little industrialised by the Japanese?
VC
Yeah so besides fixing the geographic locations (to give AARHE more credit) remember to make Honolulu 0 VCP.
Africa
Making them impassible is arbitrary.
Being out of gameplay it also questions why we have them in the first place.
Its not the same as Himalayas.
Talking of that Flashman’s map has some impassbile thing in southern Africa. Congo Basin or something.
I don’t understand why you want to explicitly represent those small nations/regions. All other continents has nations not explicitly represented.
I am not going to be pushy about Africa. Just surprised and want to know what you are thinking.
This compares your last revision:
Africa at 28.
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6076/africa28ui3.png
Africa at 18(20).
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2463/africa20zx3.png
Hainan
Again this bit looks weird.
Due to FIC/China being too east Hainan enters up in FIC sea zone.
This is the real map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Locationfrenchindochina.PNG
Maybe FIC/China border can be slightly moved west so Hainan island is in Kwangtung sea zone.
Maybe take 1 IPC from FIC instead of Kirin?
make Honolulu 0 VCP
yes right.
Due to FIC/China being too east Hainan enters up in FIC sea zone.
All other continents has nations not explicitly represented.
You see i see the same issues with this place as you do with Africa. Both should go and they will.
moved west so Hainan island is in Kwangtung sea zone.
this is what should happen
Rules
ts not really holding us back…. but yes we cant change it unless i we do all that work over… JUST to CHANGE THAT ONE THING.
No worries. MSWORD stores the image. Full quality PNG at 1.73MB with version number.
http://www.mediafire.com/?1ndm2hd9r1x
Page 0. Add front page.
Page 4. VC list has 1939 data even though it says 1942. Go back to 1942 data (like London back to 5 VCP instead of 4.) And then have a 1939 table in 1939 map rules.
Page 9. Minor Axis Allies shall be moved to 1939 map rules.
Page 9. Lend-lease is free only for phase 3 map (a hack for 20 IPC Germany). Its not free under phase 2 (OOB) map.
This is all fine… but ID is not purchasable… its built into each VC and factory territory as per rules… they never were purchasable
Actually they are purchasable prior to this color version.
You wanted to make it non-purchasable before but we need it for rockets.
Also the option for people to beef up defence.
So its its fine we’ll change it to 3 IPC. * for attack and defense values.
Naval combat sequence
Ok I see you want
*undetected submarines to remain undetected and not attackable
*anti-air at fleet level
Both fine.
I don’t agree with
*defending dogfighting planes pre-empting naval attack planes
CAP planes get to do more than attack planes atm. Should be ok. Lets say CAP planes carry ammo+buoy. Attack planes carry ammo+torpedo.
Pre-Combat
1. Destroyer/Cruiser choose screening or ASW.
2. Air units choose naval attack or CAP.
Opening-fire
1. ASW naval units and CAP air units perform ASW search.
2. Undetected submarines fire.
3. Other naval units perform AA against naval attack air units.
4. Remove casualties.
Mid-combat
1. CAP air units choose dogfight or ASW.
2. Battleships fire.
3. Remove casualties.
Main-round
1. ASW naval and ASW air units peform ASW attack.
2. Detected submarines fire.
3. Other naval units fire.
4. Naval attack air units fire, at dogfighting values if enemy dogfight air units present.
5. Dogfight air units fire at dogfighting values.
6. Remove casualties.
Retreat decision
@Imperious:
You see i see the same issues with this place as you do with Africa. Both should go and they will.
You don’t have explicitly remove Hainan.
Remove the name, fix the FIC/China border (or drag it into Kwangtung sea zone if you can’t bothered) and it’ll become part of Kwangtung, like Falkans (Argentina) and Sri Lanka (India).
Pre-Combat
1. Cruiser/ Destroyer choose to screen hits from naval combat or
Perform ASW search
2. Air units are allocated to naval attacks, ASW search, or CAP
Opening-fire
1. Naval units and allocated air units roll for ASW search
2. If Submarines are not found they now fire pre-emptively
3. All surface naval units perform Anti-Air rolls against attacking
Enemy air units performing naval attack
4. Remove casualties
Mid-combat
1. Defending CAP engages enemy air units at dogfight values
2. Battleship fires pre-emptively, remove casualties
Main-round
1. ASW Naval units and Air units attack detected subs
2. Detected Submarines fire (not pre-emtively)
3. All surface warships fire
4. CAP engages enemy air units for each side at dogfight values
5. If no enemy CAP your planes roll against targeted enemy warships
6. Remove casualties
Retreat decision
whats wrong with this? I think its more clear and exact.
defending dogfighting planes pre-empting naval attack planes
where is this? its not part of the sequence…
And we have the latest Military Intelligence report:
Map:
http://www.mediafire.com/?3m32qpjn1dx
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=mjm0jvwawwd
Cities rearranged, removed offending african nations, fixed Hawaii VC, fixed Kirin/ Manchukuo IPC, adjusted Japan to 14 IPC in 1939
Rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8me0qgy5zku
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=j0by1iawwnx
added 1939 VC cities list ( france also has Dakar)
BTW your spelling of Chinese Urumchi from Urumqi was the proper spelling for published western maps in this period. It may have to do with pre-communist china . Note: i didn’t spell it correctly in this post. I think the QI as opposed to Chi was some ethnic change
to be honest I thought my one was more exact
Pre-Combat
1. Cruiser/ Destroyer choose to screen hits from naval combat or
Perform ASW search
2. Air units are allocated to naval attacks, ASW search, or CAP ASW search happens in a different time slot then naval attack and CAP
Opening-fire
1. Naval units and allocated air units roll for ASW search
2. If Submarines are not found they now fire pre-emptively words like pre-emptive might add to confusion instead, you remove casualties when it says so that should be simple
3. All surface naval units perform Anti-Air rolls against attacking enemy air units performing naval attack is that “all” or naval units not doing ASW?
4. Remove casualties
Mid-combat
1. Defending CAP engages enemy air units at dogfight values this is functionally nothing. Not firing not allocation then what is it for? in my one CAP choose between dogfight or ASW attack
2. Battleship fires pre-emptively, remove casualties
Main-round
1. ASW Naval units and Air units attack detected subs
2. Detected Submarines fire (not pre-emtively)
3. All surface warships fire you mean “all other” right, and we should stick to game terms, so probably use “All other naval units”
4. CAP engages enemy air units for each side at dogfight values
5. If no enemy CAP your planes roll against targeted enemy warships “your planes” is obviously not exact, and if “yes enemy CAP” then what? is the last item suppose to cover that?
6. Remove casualties
Retreat decision
Rules
Page 0. Watermark http://www.mediafire.com/?1ndm2hd9r1x
Page 0. Front page
Page 4. VC list still has 1939 data. London is 5 not 4. Remove duplicate Singapore under UK.
Page 7. “German and Soviet Capital Infantry costs at 2 IPC are limited to 8 total infantry per turn.” unnecessary as Berlin and Moscow can only raise 6 per turn
Page 7. Air Movement. “Each defending air unit except Bombers in a territory function under Defensive Air Support (DAS) against overflown enemy air units in Combat Move, unless they are performing Reinforcement or Air Interdiction this turn.”
But we no longer allow AA fire towards hostile overflying air units.
Page 9. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact
Have you decided to apply it to all maps?
Page 9. Lend Lease
I think its time we get rid of all the “phase” names for maps. Player have no idea what they are. Even I am confused as we didn’t have a “phase 1” map and “phase 3” I thought was what we called the “italy map”.
Lets call it “standard”, “Italy as 6th player” and “1939” map. Make sure each map has a section after the main rules before the appendix.
Page 10. Land Combat: Sequence
When I wrote that section it I made it simple and all air units fire in opening-fire for simplicity. Excess dogfighting hits go onto land units.
Now, should excess dogfighting hits pre-empt land units? If not, then air units should fire in opening-fire only if there was air superority.
Or, maybe air units shouldn’t fire in opening-fire after all. Seeing fighter gives tank +1 on 1-to-1 basis if there was air superiority.
Page 13. Naval combat
I would waste effort updating and re-updating the text. Wait til we agree on naval combat (via discussion on naval combat sequence).
Page 17. Air Missions
You can no longer perform two missions.
Page 17. Reinforcements
Text not yet added. Find the latest agreement in previous post.
Page 18. Strait Interdiction
Dardanelles is now listed here. So its no longer a canal?
Denmark Strait is not listed here. So submarines passage of SZ5 still require control of Norway+Germanhy?
Page 20. Deployment
You’ve yet to add back each VC has its own capacity to deploy infantry/airborne.
Page 20. Rockets silos.
I presume you copied this from your modern edition project.
Page 28. ID
You haven’t replied yet. So we do let people build ID for rockets. Do we let people have the option to beef up defense again SBR and air.
2007-11-07 PNG version
http://www.mediafire.com/?7s1fg9azhgg
Page 0. Watermark http://www.mediafire.com/?1ndm2hd9r1x
++++++ its not gonna work. I need to be able to separate the actual setups from the ‘watermark’ which i cannot do.
Page 0. Front page
++++++++ The first page was set for page one but i guess it didn’t work.
Page 4. VC list still has 1939 data. London is 5 not 4. Remove duplicate Singapore under UK.
++++++++ ok
Page 7. “German and Soviet Capital Infantry costs at 2 IPC are limited to 8 total infantry per turn.” unnecessary as Berlin and Moscow can only raise 6 per turn
+++++++++ ok
Page 7. Air Movement. “Each defending air unit except Bombers in a territory function under Defensive Air Support (DAS) against overflown enemy air units in Combat Move, unless they are performing Reinforcement or Air Interdiction this turn.”
But we no longer allow AA fire towards hostile overflying air units.
++++++ ill check this but i dont see anything about AA fire here.
Page 9. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact
Have you decided to apply it to all maps?
+++++++++= no just 1939… have to fix that
Page 9. Lend Lease
I think its time we get rid of all the “phase” names for maps. Player have no idea what they are. Even I am confused as we didn’t have a “phase 1” map and “phase 3” I thought was what we called the “italy map”.
+++++++++++= yes right
Lets call it “standard”, “Italy as 6th player” and “1939” map. Make sure each map has a section after the main rules before the appendix.
+++++ more work :|
Page 10. Land Combat: Sequence
When I wrote that section it I made it simple and all air units fire in opening-fire for simplicity. Excess dogfighting hits go onto land units.
Now, should excess dogfighting hits pre-empt land units? If not, then air units should fire in opening-fire only if there was air superiority.
Or, maybe air units shouldn’t fire in opening-fire after all. Seeing fighter gives tank +1 on 1-to-1 basis if there was air superiority.
+++++++ no extra rolls (hits) are wasted for that round. only a full round without enemy air creates air superiority.Thats how it reads
Page 13. Naval combat
I would waste effort updating and re-updating the text. Wait til we agree on naval combat (via discussion on naval combat sequence).
++ok
Page 17. Air Missions
You can no longer perform two missions.
++++ i will fix
Page 17. Reinforcements
Text not yet added. Find the latest agreement in previous post.
+++++ i am sure i added it verbatum… i will check
Page 18. Strait Interdiction
Dardanelles is now listed here. So its no longer a canal?
Denmark Strait is not listed here. So submarines passage of SZ5 still require control of Norway+Germanhy?
+++++Dardanelles is always a straight… forgot Denmark…
Page 20. Deployment
You’ve yet to add back each VC has its own capacity to deploy infantry/airborne.
+++++++++i will fix
Page 20. Rockets silos.
I presume you copied this from your modern edition project.
++++ the other way around actually :-D
Page 28. ID
You haven’t replied yet. So we do let people build ID for rockets. Do we let people have the option to beef up defense again SBR and air.
++++++++++ it introduces an new piece. its easier to try to avoid this. Rockets are advanced technology and flak is a relatively useless gun pointed at fast moving planes and cant even hit fighters. Rockets can bomb industry and reduce a nations motivation to fight on. Flak batteries cause hemmroids for the blokes sitting in those metal chairs long hours shooting at an empty cold sky. :mrgreen:
Ok i made the changes:
now we have page 1
german and soviet builds at 2 IPC infantry at 6
under land combat sequence spillover is not to go to land units, because it violates the rule about air superiority. If the guy had one fighter as defense it should buy his task force at least one round of land combat where he does not have to deal with planes. Thats a minimum and changing it would really change strategy for the worse.
Their can be no naval reinforcements… Naval battles lasted a few days at worst. Land battles lasted weeks. Likely ships sitting around will benefit too much with the free movement and be able to jump around too much. Plus its not really realistic at Midway the entire Japanese fleet would have fitted into one of our sea zones.
Denmark straights is not a straight. it says no western allied ships can pass into the Baltic unless they control both west Germany and Norway. If they do that their is no rolling anyway. The rule takes care of THAT straight.
Deployment: its says infantry can be built at any VC and airborne at VC with value of 2+. Thats what it should read?
@Imperious:
its not gonna work. I need to be able to separate the actual setups from the ‘watermark’ which i cannot do.
I am been asking for those files and at multiple occasions you made me think they don’t exist
you have upload those files
from my perspective I still can’t see what is holding us back
++++++++ The first page was set for page one but i guess it didn’t work.
sorry I meant the “OPERATIONS MANUAL” front page
it looked great
Page 4. VC list still has 1939 data. London is 5 not 4. Remove duplicate Singapore under UK.
++++++++ ok
Oops. One more, change “Hong Kong” to “Shanghai” as thats OOB map.
Page 7. Air Movement. “Each defending air unit except Bombers in a territory function under Defensive Air Support (DAS) against overflown enemy air units in Combat Move, unless they are performing Reinforcement or Air Interdiction this turn.”
But we no longer allow AA fire towards hostile overflying air units.
++++++ ill check this but i dont see anything about AA fire here.
Yes it doesn’t say AA.
Previously AARHE fighters act as AA against hostile overflying air units. Now we don’t let AA shoot at overflying air units.
And so you changed it to “DAS” against overflown enemy air units.
That doesn’t make sense. DAS is what we call the air reinforcement.
I don’t know what you mean.
Is this some sort of one cycle combat for overflown enemy air units?
I think your intention is that overflying air units are immune from all fire.
Page 9. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact
Have you decided to apply it to all maps?
+++++++++= no just 1939… have to fix that
then it should not just be marked “optional rule”
it should be moved to 1939 map section instead of being in “phase 3: combat move”
again this is for your goal of streamlining main rules section
(which by the way looks like it can be 20 pages flat)
Page 9. Lend Lease
I think its time we get rid of all the “phase” names for maps. Player have no idea what they are. Even I am confused as we didn’t have a “phase 1” map and “phase 3” I thought was what we called the “italy map”.
+++++++++++= yes right
Its still incorrect at the moment. This is how it is…
Standard map is OOB, hence lend-lease is NOT free.
Italy map has free lend-lease, as a quick fix to 20 IPC Germany.
1939 has 1939 rules.
“Phase 3: combat move” section should only talk about standard map.
Special rules for Italy and 1939 map is displayed in the map section.
Page 17. Reinforcements
Text not yet added. Find the latest agreement in previous post.
+++++ i am sure i added it verbatum… i will check
ah yes I see it now
sorry didn’t realise its not with the other “special combat”
Page 20. Rockets silos.
I presume you copied this from your modern edition project.
++++ the other way around actually :-D
LHTR defined how you shoot rocket (from AA gun).
If we can’t build ID you have may have to redefine the details of “rocket”.
Because effectively you can only shoot from VC and IC.
Now you can’t build VC but you can build IC.
Germany would have to build IC in Western Europe just to shoot all 3 of London,Moscow,Stralingrad.
Which is a bit funny. Having to expose itself to more rocket fire in attempt to perform more rocket fire on others.
Just subtle things.
Page 28. ID
You haven’t replied yet. So we do let people build ID for rockets. Do we let people have the option to beef up defense again SBR and air.
++++++++++ it introduces an new piece. its easier to try to avoid this. Rockets are advanced technology and flak is a relatively useless gun pointed at fast moving planes and cant even hit fighters. Rockets can bomb industry and reduce a nations motivation to fight on. Flak batteries cause hemmroids for the blokes sitting in those metal chairs long hours shooting at an empty cold sky. :mrgreen:
yeah hence AA needs to roll search die first for fighters but not for bombers
anyway as above I’ll have to see how you define rockets first before I settle on getting rid of ID purchase
note, another thing is that ID can represent construction of altantic wall (ID has role in amphibious assault)
Their can be no naval reinforcements
yeah naval engagements are quick!
though we can’t totally eliminate it cos it doesn’t make sense naval units under attack can relocate (defender retreat) yet naval units not under attack can’t relocate
(it also then makes you wonder whether you should attack, as you can give defender free movement if you can’t kill defender in first cycle lol)
just on top of my head I can see two options:
1. Naval reinforcements don’t fight
(in this case, move “land reinforcement” to “phase 3: combat move” and put “naval reinforcement” in “phase 5: non-combat move”…which is about write since both of these are simply declarations straight after attack declared combat moves)
2. Naval reinforcement fight from 3rd cycle
(n this case, move “reinforcement” to “phase 3: combat move”…as these are simply declarations after attack declared his/her combat moves)
german and soviet builds at 2 IPC infantry at 6
that won’t be needed after you write in deployment as below
Deployment: its says infantry can be built at any VC and airborne at VC with value of 2+. Thats what it should read?
No instead of
Infantry are mobilised at victory cities. Airborne units are mobilised at Capital Victory City and require a value of 2 VCP or greater.
it should read…
Infantry are mobilised at victory cities. The number of units deployable per turn being the VCP value. Airborne units are mobilised at your capital victory city and requires 2 VCP each.
its not gonna work. I need to be able to separate the actual setups from the ‘watermark’ which i cannot do.
I am been asking for those files and at multiple occasions you made me think they don’t exist
you have upload those files
from my perspective I still can’t see what is holding us back
=======i need the original files that contain the CS2 files for the set ups. I can change the original 47 pages, but the 10 or so pages of setups will have 1.3 on it. These files are PDF and cannot be broken down for editing. I tried. It took me 2 days to make those setups and i don’t want to trade that work for another 2 days just to remove some silly 1.3 when this rule set basically replaces and includes previous versions.
Quote
++++++++ The first page was set for page one but i guess it didn’t work.
sorry I meant the “OPERATIONS MANUAL” front page
it looked great
============ ok will fix it.
Quote
Page 4. VC list still has 1939 data. London is 5 not 4. Remove duplicate Singapore under UK.
++++++++ ok
Oops. One more, change “Hong Kong” to “Shanghai” as thats OOB map.
====== no its better to change the map, because then I have to make one list for maps 1-2 and another for 3. I try not to take our improvements and leave them to rot when it comes to maps 1-2. I plan on improving those 2 maps soon…
Quote
Page 7. Air Movement. “Each defending air unit except Bombers in a territory function under Defensive Air Support (DAS) against overflown enemy air units in Combat Move, unless they are performing Reinforcement or Air Interdiction this turn.”
But we no longer allow AA fire towards hostile overflying air units.
++++++ ill check this but i dont see anything about AA fire here.
Yes it doesn’t say AA.
Previously AARHE fighters act as AA against hostile overflying air units. Now we don’t let AA shoot at overflying air units.
And so you changed it to “DAS” against overflown enemy air units.
That doesn’t make sense. DAS is what we call the air reinforcement.
I don’t know what you mean.
Is this some sort of one cycle combat for overflown enemy air units?
I think your intention is that overflying air units are immune from all fire.
======= On the way to the target territory they are not subject to issues. They are flying much higher and flak cannot reach them. When they come into battle they drop their altitude to conduct attacks. This allows flak battery to engage and DAS intercepts, Also on round 2 ( if this is land combat) DAS from other territories can assist.
DAS ( defensive air support) is the proper name for these missions. When planes are done with battles they fly back and are unharmed. This is reasonable. DAS did not chase planes back home, and flak didn’t attack planes all the way back home, because they increased altitude for safety.
Reinforcement only pertains to model the ability to send in reserves in land battles. Their is not one name that can describe both. They are separate.
Quote
Page 9. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact
Have you decided to apply it to all maps?
+++++++++= no just 1939… have to fix that
then it should not just be marked “optional rule”
it should be moved to 1939 map section instead of being in “phase 3: combat move”
again this is for your goal of streamlining main rules section
(which by the way looks like it can be 20 pages flat)
============= i moved it to 1939. that was done.
Quote
Page 9. Lend Lease
I think its time we get rid of all the “phase” names for maps. Player have no idea what they are. Even I am confused as we didn’t have a “phase 1” map and “phase 3” I thought was what we called the “italy map”.
+++++++++++= yes right
Its still incorrect at the moment. This is how it is…
Standard map is OOB, hence lend-lease is NOT free.
Italy map has free lend-lease, as a quick fix to 20 IPC Germany.
1939 has 1939 rules.
======= ill fix it.
“Phase 3: combat move” section should only talk about standard map.
Special rules for Italy and 1939 map is displayed in the map section.
======== not sure what you mean. cut/copy/paste exactly what you mean
Quote
Page 20. Rockets silos.
I presume you copied this from your modern edition project.
++++ the other way around actually grin
LHTR defined how you shoot rocket (from AA gun).
If we can’t build ID you have may have to redefine the details of “rocket”.
Because effectively you can only shoot from VC and IC.
Now you can’t build VC but you can build IC.
Germany would have to build IC in Western Europe just to shoot all 3 of London,Moscow,Stralingrad.
Which is a bit funny. Having to expose itself to more rocket fire in attempt to perform more rocket fire on others.
Just subtle things.
========= how should it read???
Quote
Page 28. ID
You haven’t replied yet. So we do let people build ID for rockets. Do we let people have the option to beef up defense again SBR and air.
++++++++++ it introduces an new piece. its easier to try to avoid this. Rockets are advanced technology and flak is a relatively useless gun pointed at fast moving planes and cant even hit fighters. Rockets can bomb industry and reduce a nations motivation to fight on. Flak batteries cause hemmroids for the blokes sitting in those metal chairs long hours shooting at an empty cold sky. afro
yeah hence AA needs to roll search die first for fighters but not for bombers
anyway as above I’ll have to see how you define rockets first before I settle on getting rid of ID purchase
note, another thing is that ID can represent construction of altantic wall (ID has role in amphibious assault)
======== this is interesting ( Atlantic wall)…i would like to see something to resemble fortifications using the blockhouse unit from d-day… the ID only effects air space, while the Atlantic wall was to prevent invasion by land. So you see i naturally don’t see ID and fortifications as LINKED, but something should be done to be able to construct fortified positions…
lets look into this…
from another game…
Fortress:
Fires twice at 3 on Defense and takes 4 hits. Fortresses (representing large areas of concentrated fortifications and coastal batteries) fire preemptively at the beginning of each combat round. Fortresses are built incrementally, but they may be captured if all enemy pieces have been killed and the fort takes its last hit allocation. In battle, any fort that takes its last hit is considered wrecked and may no longer participate in combat that turn. To remain functional the fort must have at least one hit left.
this may work… however each level costs 2 IPC maximum 4 levels ( 4 hits)
Quote
Their can be no naval reinforcements
yeah naval engagements are quick!
though we can’t totally eliminate it cos it doesn’t make sense naval units under attack can relocate (defender retreat) yet naval units not under attack can’t relocate
(it also then makes you wonder whether you should attack, as you can give defender free movement if you can’t kill defender in first cycle lol)
just on top of my head I can see two options:
1. Naval reinforcements don’t fight
(in this case, move “land reinforcement” to “phase 3: combat move” and put “naval reinforcement” in “phase 5: non-combat move”…which is about write since both of these are simply declarations straight after attack declared combat moves)
2. Naval reinforcement fight from 3rd cycle
(n this case, move “reinforcement” to “phase 3: combat move”…as these are simply declarations after attack declared his/her combat moves)
========== in both cases the naval battle still lasts 1-2 days at most. Ships from Japan have no time to sail to say the Marshall islands and fight…however planes can still fly over (under DAS) … this is reasonable.
Quote
german and soviet builds at 2 IPC infantry at 6
that won’t be needed after you write in deployment as below
=========== its just to remind people of this. sometimes you need to reinforce the rules in little bits every so often.
Quote
Deployment: its says infantry can be built at any VC and airborne at VC with value of 2+. Thats what it should read?
No instead of
Infantry are mobilised at victory cities. Airborne units are mobilised at Capital Victory City and require a value of 2 VCP or greater.
it should read…
Infantry are mobilised at victory cities. The number of units deployable per turn being the VCP value. Airborne units are mobilised at your capital victory city and requires 2 VCP each.
================ ok ill make the change.
a few things. I cant add a page number to the 'operations manual" its not a page its a cover sheet.
They dont have a page one on the front of a book and AARHE is a book at this point.
WE will make a quickstart: AARHE for Dummies no more than 4-5 pages. Everything is in outline mode and people can refer to the long rules for reference.
Soviet- Japanese thing fixed ( i forgot to cut it from the regular rules– it was already added to 1939)
I don’t see the problem with lend lease. USA has 12 bucks free to offset Italy on the Italy map. Germany at 20 IPC is the offset to not having the Italians 12 IPC in their totals. This presents a net 12 gain for axis and its offset by 12 IPC free money for Lend Lease.
still need to know whats going on with rockets. I think its fine.
infantry builds VC builds thing fixed.
