AARHE 1939 map and rule files

I can change the original 47 pages, but the 10 or so pages of setups will have 1.3 on it.

You have to upload those PDFs cos I don’t know what you mean.
I think they are some sort of player aids?

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…

ah yeah I guess honolulu and tobruk can be added to map1/OOB
map2/italy would be nice if work was done on it, it was all a bit of a joke to just lump 10 IPC onto Germany territory to have a 6th player

======= 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.

Yeah so we should remove the "Defensive Air Support (DAS) against overflown enemy air units " bit.
Overflown enemy air units are always unharmed.

“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

Lend-lease rules for for italy map shall be in Italy map section.
Lend-lease rules for 1939 map shall be in 1939 map section.

Now, lend-lease rules for OOB map is in main section. But if its changed from OOB/LHTR there doesn’t even need to be a lend-lease heading in the main rules.

Are we using OOB lend-lease rules? Like US can teleport IPC to Russia?

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???

Well in the past people buy AA gun and move it in position to fire rockets at enemy IC.
I would make the ID piece purchaseble again at 3 IPC.

======== 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…

Actually we renamed “anti-aircraft” to “infrastructure defence” for this reason. It is not supposed to be just an AA gun. I think you’ve just forgotten.

ID gets to fire at enemy ships in amphibious assault.
Otherwise we have yet to give it effect on land combat.

========== 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.

Ok so you pick no.1 . Naval reinforcements do not fight this round.
So if nothing else wrong move reinforcements to my sugguested new location.

land reinforcement to “phase 3: combat move”
naval reinforcement to “phase 5: non-combat move”

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.

I think it’ll be probably be shorter than that. Just a few outlines. Basically a bullet list of heading names in each game phase towards the front of the rules.

@Imperious:

====Thats what i mean… they have 1.3. Find the file or a way where you can take off the 1.3. Otherwise forget it.

yeah so upload those files/pdfs when you get around to it
otherwise its not really part of the project hehe

========= how should it read???
Well in the past people buy AA gun and move it in position to fire rockets at enemy IC.
I would make the ID piece purchaseble again at 3 IPC.
+++++++Ok just write the rules so its easy.

Phase 7: technology

(With AARHE turn sequence and economic attack capped per turn…it is no longer needed to artificially enforce the 1 rocket per “bah” from LHTR.
There should be no reference to SBR as its not. It might confuse. You can’t intercept.
As before, implicity infrastructure defence do not fire rockets.)

Rockets: Each infrastructure defence in a territory may perform rocket strike. However, implicit infrastructure defence pieces from industrial complex or victory city may not perform this. An industrial complex may be targetted multiple times. Damage per rocket is as follows: 1-2= 1 IPC lost, 3-4= 2 IPC lost, 5-6= 3 IPC lost.

Phase 4: Conduct Combat

(I don’t agree that all territories should get ID or even just flak for that matter.
And easier without “cumulative” explanation by simply having 2 and 1 IDs respectively.)

Some territories has the following built-in IDs:
Industrial complex implicitly includes 2 IDs built-in.
Victory city implicitly includes 1 IDs built-in.
Note: Air units flying over enemy territories are not affected by IDs.

Actually we renamed “anti-aircraft” to “infrastructure defence” for this reason. It is not supposed to be just an AA gun. I think you’ve just forgotten.
ID gets to fire at enemy ships in amphibious assault.
Otherwise we have yet to give it effect on land combat.
+++++++++ ok fine we will add it.

The bit about amphibious assault (ID gets to shoot at ships) is from before, and is already in the file.
It states that you perform the same procedure as anti-air (ie. search first) but against ships involved inthe amphibious assault.

As for fortifications, we can let each ID give infantry +1 defense on first cycle. Pretty much like LHTR Altantic Wall NA. But, on a 1-to-1 basis.

Phase 3: Conduct Combat

Land Combat: Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment
Attacking Battleship, Cruiser, and Destroyer may choose to perform shore bombardment. Shore bombardment is limited to one roll for every four attacking infantry or airborne. Ships performing shore bombardment increases infantry’s attack increases by 1 on a 1-to-1 basis on first cycle of combat. Defending infrastructure defence performs the same procedure against hostile air units but instead against ships performing shore bombardment or enemy transport. Cargo on transports are destroyed when the transport is sunk. Infrastructure defence increases infantry’s defence by 1 on a 1-to-1 basis.

land reinforcement to “phase 3: combat move”
naval reinforcement to “phase 5: non-combat move”
+++++please script the naval reinforcements for NCM

No combat involved so its quite short.

Phase 5: Non-combat move

Naval Reinforcement
During your enemies’ turn your naval units may relocate to adjacent friendly sea zones. Reinforcements are declared after all non-combat moves are declared. Naval units that conducted combat may not relocate.

for naval combat sequence
I’ve already posted a sequence
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10338.msg243198#msg243198

you also posted a sequence and I commented it here
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10338.msg243283#msg243283

in summary:
should be short, minimal and in outline
words like pre-emptive only raises further questions, players follow the simple outline (rather than full sentences) and remove casulties only when it says so…just like in OOB
stick to game terms
be consistent with wording and sentence style
care in what call units as you do allocations at pre-combat and mid-combat

OK I’ll take over the editing from here. Thanks

ASW
Currently
Destroyer: 2 or less to search, 2 or less to hit (11%)
Submarine: 2 or less to hit (33%)

Did you intend submarines to be this powerful?
Remember UK on average gets ASW tech on turn 6. (1free+1buy tech roll, 1of3 boxes in 1942)

Propose
Destroyer: 3 or less to search, 3 or less to hit (25%)
Submarine: 2 or less to hit (33%)

Submarine advantage remains. Slight edge, opening-fire bonus, and slightly cheaper.

Super submarine tech
Currently, submarine tech negate ASW tech search/attack bonus.
But should it make it harder to detect whether or not enemy has ASW tech?

And I see super submarines is stealthier, and has bigger fire power. But should they actually have better armour?

I would also like you to upload the player aids / setups you were talking about.

I’ve started editing the file.
I’ll post changelog later. One game phase at a time.

@Imperious:

++++++++= yes at start its two. Remember EACH ASW unit gets the roll. After the first round they can retreat anyway.

Wonder if we have misunderstanding.
Naval combat is complex and discussion has been blurry.
So we switched to naval combat sequence discussion to be precise.
My intention was that naval combat rules are replaced by the new model as detailed by the naval combat sequence.

That is, these rules are removed/replaced (reasoning for them presented and you’ve not argued against)
*destroyer negating submarine’s opening-fire on 1-to-1 basis
*battleship opening-fire negated by another battleship

If we have misunderstanding, we’ll look at the naval combat sequence again.

If not, you should realise that due to undetected submarine firing in opening-fire…victims of undetected submarines do not get to fire back. So the currently 33% vs. 11% is deadly.

============ super subs cannot be attacked by ASW… perhaps only a 1.  These ships traveled faster than the destroyers. thats their defence from ASW.

Then super submarine tech shall be changed to gives -1 modifier to ASW search and ASW attack.
That’ll give the ASW search and attack at 1. (if we remain at ASW search @ 2, ASW attack @ 2)

http://www.mediafire.com/?bhftyzcn13x

I’ll post a detailed changelog later. (will go through the document side by side on my computer)
Most changes are in phase 4: conduct combat.
And of course lots of formatting consistency changes.

I thought it was weird for destroyer to negate submarine opening-fire on basis 1-to-1 100% of the time.
Thats I propsed the detected/undetected opening-fire/main-round model in the first place.
The two systems together would need additional wording.

What are you modelling with the 1-to-1 rule anyway?
If its fleet protection thats what screening is.

We need to picture what units are doing in opening-fire and main-round fire. Make sure units don’t end up being in two places at the same time in the virtual world / gameplay.

Other concerns…

Regarding sheer number of rolls, it seems you want ASW search rolls to be NOT targeted in “combat-move”. (It is targetted in “conduct combat”.) Is that what you want?

Regarding auto detected in 2nd cycle of combat. AARe also use such a rule.
While that is good for hunting, does it go well with fleet submarines? Thought I have bad knowledge.

Targeted attacks by planes and submarines are time consuming. Though it is realistic as planes and submarines can bypass your formations. But it can also be unrealistic in that hits can be wasted. I wonder if planes and submarines should go back to unselective fire or what can we do.

@Imperious:

any more issues with the map? or is my work on that finished?

When you created 1 IPC Siam (from FIC) you dropped Kirin from 2 IPC to 1 IPC.
Then I said Kirin is probably the industrised one.
Then you raised Kirin back to 2 IPC but you haven’t reduced FIC to 1 IPC.

France is at 11 IPC right now but the chart says 13.

The 1939 scenario map is more divided and I wonder how thats go with the 4X IPC factory limit.

Maybe the income revision from OOB is only half done. (I guess it was also done at a very early stage of the map.)
I could see…

Could consider reducing:
Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Borneo

Could consider increasing:
Australia, Canada

I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.

Need Sahara rules.

@Imperious:

+++++++++++ Frogs needs to stay at 13 for balance reasons ( already calculated based on historical numbers and its accurate)
as i said ill add the 2 ipc to FIC and or africa or possibly france itself.

I guess prefer adding it to West Africa or something. Until 2 IPC FIC is historical.

++++++ Try to find the loophole and post.

This is due to IC has a limit of 4X territory income per turn.
Nothing wrong sucha rule of IC limit. Just make sure map is consistent.

For example, Australia won’t be able to produce much now. Due to territories being 1 IPC. In fact, it can only produce artillery. Wonder if its more realistic to put all IPC into New South Wales.

Oh yeah with Germany…all 18 IPC is with eastern Germany portion is it?

+++++++++++ these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this.

What did happen historically then?
Maybe Japan needs some war industrial mobilisation rule like the US?

Could consider increasing:
Australia, Canada
++++++++ then UK is too strong

Yeah actually the distribution among commonwealth is probably good eough already.
UK 8
Canada 4
Australia 3
South Africa 2

I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?

I mean should they even be represented?
Were they as big a UK output as say Egypt?
Are you gonna put troops there for the 1939 setup?

Need Sahara rules.
+++++ why ? they are allready covered under desert up keep rules.

The desert upkeep just makes you pay 1 IPC per unit occupying desert territory.

1939 map Sahara is different. Its not a territory.

How is 1939 map Sahara handled?

Oh and you haven’t replied to naval combat discussion. Re-posted here.

And I would like to see the pdfs that you can’t edit…if you still intend to use them.

@tekkyy:

I thought it was weird for destroyer to negate submarine opening-fire on basis 1-to-1 100% of the time.
Thats I propsed the detected/undetected opening-fire/main-round model in the first place.
The two systems together would need additional wording.

What are you modelling with the 1-to-1 rule anyway?
If its fleet protection thats what screening is.

We need to picture what units are doing in opening-fire and main-round fire. Make sure units don’t end up being in two places at the same time in the virtual world / gameplay.

Other concerns…

Regarding sheer number of rolls, it seems you want ASW search rolls to be NOT targeted in “combat-move”. (It is targetted in “conduct combat”.) Is that what you want?

Regarding auto detected in 2nd cycle of combat. AARe also use such a rule.
While that is good for hunting, does it go well with fleet submarines? Thought I have bad knowledge.

Targeted attacks by planes and submarines are time consuming. Though it is realistic as planes and submarines can bypass your formations. But it can also be unrealistic in that hits can be wasted. I wonder if planes and submarines should go back to unselective fire or what can we do.

++++++++++++++++ ASW detection/search rolls are made against all subs as a group. One detection means detection for all subs… they are all screwed.

Oh…had no idea thats what you meant.

I feel “detected” should not represent just a warning to your fleet that there are “some” enemy  submarines “somewhere”. (hence I don’t think its should be 100% detected or 100% undetected)
Rather it should represent detected and tracked hence the submarine loses its sneak attack.

How about one successful ASW search roll means one detected submarine.
Then no need to separately say 1-to-1.

Both ASW search and attack rolls would now be unselective.

++++++++++ its basically the sub owner says " i hit your Battleship" the defending player says ‘i allocate this destroyer to take the hit’

The wording of the screening rule does not allow you to decide after knowing the number of hits.
You don’t get to know that its one hit so you allocate it on BB to save the DD.

if 1 DD screens 1 BB

1 sub/air hit -> DD dies
2 sub/air hits -> DD dies, BB damaged

Perhaps we can get rid of "targeted attacks and screening and allow the owner to decide, but he will take subs instead of air hits, or air units instead of battleships.

Well our very basic hit allocate restrictions remains.

Subs hits + gun battle hits –-> can only go on non-sub naval units
Anti-air hits —> can only go on attacking planes

I can’t see a way to simplify air units yet.
But I think we can simplify to unselective fire for detected submarines. That should be realistic if along my above thoughts of detected and tracked.

Important question: Historically did fleet submarines work together with friendly gunships? I have no idea and I was guessing no due to danger of torpedo friendly fire. This is why in the pre-colour system I had submarines fire preemptively.