AARHE 1939 map and rule files

Tekkyy will provide these . WE are doing a final comb thru. I have played the game twice and its awesome. Now its grammar to finish up.

Map still has things. I will redo South America and make it look better.

Also TekkyY:

where is following:

Oil rules
Rules for Maginot/Siegfried line

I have new pictures showing progression of game. It plays VERY historical almost scary. WE got to spring 1942 and the map looked nearly exactly like AA Revised OOB set up ( no kidding) it was weird.

The set up needs another 1-2 UK infantry in Africa. UK needs perhaps one less destroyer ( not clear) USA needs one more ship ( destroyer or sub) to block southern or central approach to its Carrier. everything else is perfect 100% .

My god we really did this very much on target and not much work needs to be done. Of course a 1942/43 set up for 1939 map is forthcoming.

The naval combat is very fair. in two games only lost one plane to AA rolls ( ID) thats accurate.

Also, need one thing not sure where to add. You are not allowed to take off the free hits off your two hit wonders beyond the first time you do that.

Example: you got 2 BB and 1 DD, you allocate 2 hits, but instead of two free BB hits, you allowed one free BB hit and the other must either be that SAME BB or the DD. you cant do that cheap trick 2 BB hits retreat and immediately repair.

Also, where is the rule about the Italian navy not leaving the Medd unless they take Gibraltar and where is the rule that the allies cant enter the Baltic unless they own Norway and Germany?

I will respond to your comments on your post tomorrow. need sleep.

People like you are why we are doing this service for others. This game must live on for many years because its meat and potatoes to counterweight the Euro/Fantasy/RPG trash out now.

control of passable is completely in territory Germany (ie. Denmark)

This sentence make no sence to me. What are you saying? The rule should say not passable unless control of Germany by Allies. Denmark was the straight that blocked things.

Also the 1939 file needs to be issued as Appendix in back of our rules.

Also, the page numbers are moving around. They need to be in one place preferably in bottom right hand corner.

Quote
The NA’s need separate bold heading for names.
ok
and I just noticed we have Superfortress immune to Anti-Air

Ahh only jet planes (or bombers immune to AA. Also make the German NA for Long range bomber immune to this)

Quote
page 10 IPC not spent nor saved is forfeited… what does this mean?
it is lost and removed from the game

So that means you cant save money? thats not correct. You can save.

Quote
Page 14 naval transport. So does this allow friendly naval transport during NCM?
yes, that is not changed

It should mention that so to avoid confusion.

Quote
Page 15 what does relocate 50% of land units mean?
recall you did not like all land units in a territory to be able to reinforce an adjacent friendly territory
hence we limit it to 50%
I should use the word move instead since its used throughout the paragraph

Ok where did this 50% thing come from? I don’t remember anything on this. So its saying you cannot bring in more than 1/2 of the currently attacked pieces to reinforce for combat?

Quote
page 17–- excess air units fight with normal combat values -2 . explain?
you wanted to remove air-only attack against land units
I wanted to keep it as I thought its too arbitrary to remove it

so to model it better we let air only attack against land units but they would be as effective (hiding in bunkers etc)

OK but the rule as its written should be a complete sentence. “Excess air units than land units used in combat allocations receive a modifier of -2.”

I think this rule itself as a remedy is worse than the problem its supposed to cure. Its even more arbitrary. Whats basically going on is the front line units cant possibly be supported by more support units.

Perhaps lets do this. When the attacker brings in more air units than he is attacking on land, the defender has the opportunity to retreat BEFORE the start of combat. This would be that hes not really being engaged by anything but a token force, so he can shrug it off and not commit himself to combat. That allows the opportunity for each side to take it or leave it.

Quote
anti-air  ID rolls need to be placed with ID section. Its like reading chapter 1 now and chapter 2 latter
what do you mean by ID section? like units?
this happens in Conduct Combat phase so I put it in Conduct Combat phase

Yes but its like getting parts of the same rule piecemeal. it should be together explained one time so its easy to locate for clarification.

Quote
Page 18  the attacker can retreat even if the defender was destroyed? thats not correct.
hm, we had this for a long time
the realism is simple straight forward

I think the rule was If those units have movement points left over ( say armor moved only one) then it can move back. Otherwise their is not any risk ever, anybody can play keep away. The real war was never fought where you attack something and destroy the enemy and not even bother to seize the field of battle. Its too skiddish.

you don’t suddenly lose the ability to retreat just because you destroyed the enemy
if you can retreat when the enemy is harassing you
you can retreat when th enemy is not

The idea of retreat is only when you suffer loses too great to continue. When you kill the enemy your fighting in the territory. Retreat after victory makes no historical value in this.

Quote
page 21 naval combat–- if only one side has naval units the other side must retreat? what is this?
yes actually it can removed
it has no effect
we already stated about carrier capacity

It does not need to be said if you dead you have nothing to retreat. If it only applies to planes in sea zones, then just say that because people read this and ask what is he saying?

“Remaining carrier based planes left after their carrier is sunk must use their last remaining movement points to find another landing spot.”

Quote
attacker retreat–- this is allowed even if defender has no units left?
yes same reason as land combat

People are scratching their head on this. Leave this out. If you dead you cant retreat you are dead. Retreat only means 'IF YOU HAVE SHIPS LEFT TO RETREAT"  Again if your tasking about planes just say the answer for the item above.

I reword to this
Defender retreat via break-off and submerged submarines do not prevent the land combat portion of an amphibious assault. However attacker retreat via break-off aborts the amphibious assault.

ok this is good.

Quote
air missions–- each air unit can perform only one mission as the active player and one as the passive player ( DAS)
planes doing DAS can also perform other missions and thats not clear.
which version is that?
my file words it as
Each air unit can only perform one air mission per turn. It may not perform normal combat in the same turn. Air missions are declared with normal combat moves. Air missions are resolved before normal combats and before Defensive Air Support air units arrive.
we refrain from letting units fight in more than one space or doing thing to cause a complex timeline to resolve
but anything is open to discussion
in the end we reduced the bomber cost to 14 IPC instead

It must be clear that people dont think they cant use DAS as the passive player and on their own turn also perform air missions. These are more than one mission on a turn : one as defender one as attacker.

The bomber thing was to make them more attractive.

so reword like this…

Economic attacks (SBR and rocket strikes) reduce a territory’s income at its next “Collect Income” phase and not reducing below zero. Excess hits are applied to saved IPC in that territory. SBR attacks are allowed on territories without an Industrial Complex. The maximum reduction to its next “Collect Income” phase is half of territory’s income value rounded down.

Its needs to say what is the effect of SBR in BOTH cases with IC and w/o IC that is not clear. Your only taking about w/o an IC currently.

Quote
page 28 deployment–- airborne units are mobilized at capital victory city…do we need the 2 VCP part?
its to make it harder to raise then normal infantry

It needs to say at 2 VCP or higher. Otherwise people think you can only build them at 2 VCP. It has to make sense to everybody not just us.

Quote
self propelled–-- i think we had some other value for this… for 5 ipc who would buy one? I thought we gave them a if they roll a one they select the unit they kill?
what we did give it was ability to participate one territory away
but that was found unrealistic

it still has its value

INF 3 IPC
ART 4 IPC
ARM 5 IPC
SPA 5 IPC

Why would anybody but it. its a 3/2 unit for 5 IPC and a Tank is 3/3 for 5 IPC. What the heck?

These are both heavy artillery and mobile artillery ( katyuskas, tank destroyers)  Thats why perhaps the thing should be able to kill target of choice on roll of one.

INF + SPA = 8 IPC for 5 punch, 3 punch after 1 hit
INF + ARM = 8 IPC for 4 punch, 3 punch after 1 hit

Please explain this? SPA defends at 2 Tanks defend at 3 thats the only difference in stats.

Quote
page 37  check the neutrals for inconsistencies from the new set up sheets
I believe there are consistent with the map
there are no setup sheets for standard map
the 1939 setup is not included

Its almost ready we need to add it to the file. then prepare a 42 setup.

Ok good for now. till 24 hours and you know what happens then…

I would go for making the city orange square larger and place the number inside it.

Each player must have at least one flag for the home nations. Its a tradition that must remain.

Also, Add the following regarding retreats…… (this will solve a problem you brought up)

“The defender is the first player to declare retreats, the attacker then declares his own retreats either in part of whole”.

Now the attacker is not stuck in the territory because the defender will leave a few pieces to force a token force of attackers the opportunity to take it but not get the entire attacking force stuck. otherwise what happens is this:

The attacker brings in alot of stuff and the defender retreats all his forces after the first round, then attacks on his own turn and the new defender has no planes to defend until he allocates DAS on the second round. This protects both sides equally.

Quote
This sentence make no sence to me. What are you saying? The rule should say not passable unless control of Germany by Allies. Denmark was the straight that blocked things.

I meant “passage” instead of “passable”
control of passage is completely determined by friendly control of territory Germany
because its exactly the same as OOB canal rule and I didn’t bother making yet naother rule
just draw in the red control symbol like OOB

People who learn this for the first time need to be explained this in the rules. Everything must be explained fully at least once. Straight and Canal must have a section and be explained.

Quote
Ahh only jet planes (or bombers immune to AA. Also make the German NA for Long range bomber immune to this)
ok no immunity for Superfortress
immunity for Jet fighter and bombers
Amerika Bomber NA is already immune to AA

ok great…

Quote
So that means you cant save money? thats not correct. You can save.
you can save
it says IPC not spent nor saved is forfeited

Explain when somebody is gonna have money that they don’t save? What benefit would it have for them to lose it?

Why say things like this? just leave it out. People think they cant save at all. I got 2 people who see it that way. Rules lawyers read it literally.  NONEY THAT YOU DIDNT SPEND YOUR IPC ON OR SAVE IS LOST. Its assumed that all money that you don’t save is lost, SO you don’t need to have this.

Quote
It should mention that so to avoid confusion.
I didn’t feel it would lead to confusion
I felt this is “Combat Move” so you shouldn’t talk about “Non-combat Move”

Then you reference it to page number ( e.g. “for additional information see page x”)

how about I change it to
Units loaded in Combat Move must be offloaded in Combat Move same turn. Besides an amphibious assault you may also offload into friendly territories.

This is the way to do it. Add it.

Quote
Ok where did this 50% thing come from? I don’t remember anything on this. So its saying you cannot bring in more than 1/2 of the currently attacked pieces to reinforce for combat?
at one stage you were against reinforces and I proposed 50%
before the colour version we didn’t have the limit

the 50% rule is independent of whether you are being attacked
this about not all forces are deployed as rapid response force

but we can remove that if you want

OK 50% rule is fine make it rounded down: 5 defending can bring in 2 reinforcements.

Quote

Its even more arbitrary.
why is it arbitrary?
so you attack with 2 tanks + 3 fighters
1 fighter would fight at -2 modifier
I think it good in that it considers the proportions (1-to-1)
not allowing air only attack on land units would be arbitrary

or if you want then forget 1-to-1 make it only apply only when have no land units

The rule should be this: if the attacker brings in more air units than he has land units, all excess air units attack at 1.
forget the -2 thing. thats just another thing people have to commit to memory, its easier to blanket them to only 1.

Quote
When the attacker brings in more air units than he is attacking on land, the defender has the opportunity to retreat BEFORE the start of combat. This would be that hes not really being engaged by anything but a token force, so he can shrug it off and not commit himself to combat. That allows the opportunity for each side to take it or leave it.
this rule would be weird
just because attacker has a lot of air force somehow its lets the defender retreat?

what you are thinking (regarding token attack force) is actually ALREADY in place

if you attack a large defending force of 10 units with a small attacking force of 5 units, much of the large defending force (10 - 5 = 5 units) can relocate via “land reinforcement” and is not committed to fight

remember the reinforcement rule is defender response and is not about reinforcing a particular battle

All these rules needs examples for clarity. check out the previous post. Defender needs to declare his retreat intentions first, followed by attacker. That way you cut all this out… as either player can retreat partially or in full.

But if either side rolls out for combat, they must enter the vacated territory unless they have the extra movement point left over (armor) this is equitable for both sides.

Quote
Yes but its like getting parts of the same rule piecemeal. it should be together explained one time so its easy to locate for clarification.

its not parts of the same rule
conduct combat aspects of the ID unit is mentioned ONLY in “Conduct Combat”

the overall system at the moment is to mention particular aspects in the relevant game phase

When you explain something that it latter referenced again in another part of the rules it must be referenced ( “for further information of ID rules see page x”)  The rule applies to ID and they must be linked. They are not separate items because both are dealing with the “ID” unit.

image applying what you said to air units in general
there’ll be lots of cross-referencing required through the book

But the rules regarding air missions and what air units can do must be in the same section. Land, Sea, Air need separate sections covering movement and combat. I don’t want to have to look for 10 different rules for air. of course the exception would be technology for air. But id expect to see:

Air movement
1. land and naval based air
2. Air transport
3. Transport planes

Air combat over land
1. DAS missions
2. CA missions
3. Airborne missions
4. Air inderdiction missions
5. Jet power
6. ID ( just quick note that they roll)

Air combat over sea
1. CAP
2. Aerial Attacks
3. ASW search and combat

Air combat over Industry ( SBR)
1. escorts
2. bombers
3. interceptors
4. ID ( just quick note that they roll)

Then have ID in its own section and write how it works against air in each event.

Quote
I think the rule was If those units have movement points left over ( say armor moved only one) then it can move back.
well attacker retreat is allowed
it doesn’t question whether you have movement points left over
and rolling over unused “Combat Move” movement points into “Non-Combat Move” is exactly what we don’t allow
like our air movement system

This is now solved under defender then attacker retreat declarations.

but the OOB model is not nice
it doesn’t make sense that you suddenly lose the ability to retreat because the enemy was killed

for a tactical level game with very short turns (like one combat cycle or one movement point but not both) than maybe
it has value

if you think its a problem with not being historical, think why and fix it at the relevant place
this model is correct
so don’t destroy it just because the end result isn’t right

the relevant place is probably to do with how many units are needed to capture a territory
it was mentioned in the past but wasn’t implemented

its solved with defender then attacker retreat declarations

Quote
It needs to say at 2 VCP or higher. Otherwise people think you can only build them at 2 VCP. It has to make sense to everybody not just us.
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 2 VCP or higher
we are not talking about location, for location you can ONLY build Airborne at your capital
its 2 VCP each

I’ll reword to
Infantry units are mobilised at victory cities. Airborne Infantry units are mobilised at your capital victory city. The number of units deployable is determined by its VCP value. Infantry requires 1 VCP each and Airborne Infantry requires 2 VCP each.

ok this is better

Quote
Please explain this? SPA defends at 2 Tanks defend at 3 thats the only difference in stats.
you are forgetting that it supports infantry like a normal artillery does
so its a better buy for attacking punch

as for selecting casualty on a 1…

how about make it like Tanks hits allocation
ie. make SPA hits are allocated on Infantry and Airborne Infantry last

recall we tried to streamline gameplay and one thing was air units hit going for armored units first and infantry and airborne infantry last, removing air units selecitvely attack even in air superiority

OK so it adds at +1 for infantry attacks… thats a decent deal now. please add that and make it clear.

Ok a few things after 2 play tests…

Mech infantry should allow the movement boost for infantry at 1/1 basis, otherwise they are not so good as buys.

The british player needs 2 more infantry, 1 in india, 1 in trans-jordan

The Soviet Siberian deployment needs to have 1 mech infantry and 2 infantry.

The Soviets can attack Finland for one round only.( the first round)

The rules regarding first turn attack only against Baltic and Poland are perfect.

The Polish need one more infantry

The Americans need one extra destroyer south east of Hawaii. Also, the US carrier fleet should be hidden into one of three territories northeast of Hawaii, so the Japanese don’t know where it may appear. Of course they may attempt to attack the 3 sea zones north east of hawaii, but they need to have some uncertainty that was historical.

All USA forces are frozen until activation.

Japanese special attack:
The Japanese should have a two round attack on Hawaii at +1 for two rounds, while all American ships should defend with 1  AA roll each ( total of 5 hits to sink it).  Thus you have 5 Japanese fighters attacking at 4 for two rounds against 5 AA rolls.  If the Japanese decide to attack a third round, the Americans should be allowed to allocate the Carrier fleets air units and the Hawaii fighter for immediate attacks on the Japanese fleet. This would represent the historical fear of Nagumo and his wish to avoid possible air attacks.

The games i played really had nice historical progression.

Poland, Norway and Benelux fell to Germany on turn 1
Germany used its 8 SR points to redeploy its Polish army against the frogs and took out Paris on turn 2

Italy tried to attack Yugoslavia and got beaten back. It was a miserable failure.
On the second turn they failed again but made some progress.
On turn 3 they finished the job. They redeployed the forces to Libya and UK was not happy.

ON turn three Germany thought about a Jutland battle with UK navy or even a sea lion, but decided to shift her forces to the eastern front. All minor axis nations got activated on turn 3.

The Soviets were trying to protect the border getting ready for Barbarossa
On the first turn they tried hard to take Finland but failed. Snow is good for Finland.
Soviets took eastern Poland and Baltic and considered Mongolia for extra cash.

On turn two UK tried to shuck stuff from India to protect Egypt but had to attack Persia and Iraq to open the land line for SR movement. The Soviets were to help them, but the Xenophobia rules would not allow a SR to go thru because anything the Soviets attack they keep.

Japan was doing not much for J1-3, except attacking one territory of China per turn. China was doing the same, but its army was drying up fast…

UK was building fleet and more infantry for India.

ON turn 4 Germany totally smashed into Russia and killed lots of Russians. The Soviets fell back and gave up territory. ON the 5th turn ( where the OOB game starts) the German player had taken all the original OOB spots with a similar force pool as in that setup. The Russians got the Siberian Army and it came it time to push the Germans back ( out of west Russia)

However, the Germans went and took Caucasus and the Soviets retook it too.

by turn 5 Italy was at 16 IPC
Germany was at 42
Japan was at 32

UK was at 31
Soviets at 22-23 (with 25 lend lease)
USA was at 50 ( spent 25 for lend lease) net 25
China was at 4-5 + Burma road income ( but infantry cost 2 ipc)

The Italians by turn 3-6 took Egypt 3 times and the UK player pushed them out 3 times. It was a total see saw.

The British player should have built a factory in Egypt earlier and finally Italy did the job.

UK retreated south and central Africa.

On turn 5 Japan took out the US fleet and the Americans had to replace it but it was not that hard with 50 IPC.

People who learn this for the first time need to be explained this in the rules. Everything must be explained fully at least once. Straight and Canal must have a section and be explained.
Canals and waterways are really just map specific features.
I didn’t add it previously cos it can be ridiculous and not make sense.

It wouldn’t be as bad if we had double-red-line and double-green-line symbols for them as a standard.

Anyway I’ll add a Canals paragraph near the Strait Interdiction paragraph.

Still you should add symbols to the map so people won’t forget.

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.

Quote
Explain when somebody is gonna have money that they don’t save? What benefit would it have for them to lose it?

remember the preceding sentence
you can only save money at victory cities
so can’t leave money laying around at just any territory

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.

Quote
Defender needs to declare his retreat intentions first, followed by attacker. That way you cut all this out… as either player can retreat partially or in full.

“Attacker followed by defender” is a pretty much everywhere in the game.
We’ll have to think twice before changing that.

Making defender decide first is probably not realistic.
They are defending, without logistic concerns. They are not forced to make decisions before the attacker.

I will finish this latter.

Quote
But if either side rolls out for combat, they must enter the vacated territory unless they have the extra movement point left over (armor) this is equitable for both sides.

Lol. I see where this is coming from.
Defender-retreat-first gives the attacker advantage and you want to minimise that.

But, again you are forcing people to stay behind. Its not realistic. This solution starts a new problem. And I don’t even agree with defender-retreat-first yet.

The way it is currently, I just don’t think its not historical.
You are not forced to remain behind by an invisible force.
Tactical victory for A, strategic victory for B.

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).

Or, identify the unrealistic rule.
I found “minimum force to capture”. A rule we didn’t implement probably for a good reason.
You can look for others.

Quote
When you explain something that it latter referenced again in another part of the rules it must be referenced ( “for further information of ID rules see page x”)  The rule applies to ID and they must be linked. They are not separate items because both are dealing with the “ID” unit.
Of course I would reference it if it was relevant.
I am adding reference to Implicit ID to
*ID section in Land Combat
*Rocket section in Technology.

Quote
But the rules regarding air missions and what air units can do must be in the same section. Land, Sea, Air need separate sections covering movement and combat. I don’t want to have to look for 10 different rules for air. of course the exception would be technology for air. But id expect to see:

Well since you need to declare Air Missions in Combat Move I’ll add reference of “Air Mission”.

Quote
Air movement
1. land and naval based air
2. Air transport
3. Transport planes

Air combat over land
1. DAS missions
2. CA missions
3. Airborne missions
4. Air inderdiction missions
5. Jet power
6. ID ( just quick note that they roll)

Air combat over sea
1. CAP
2. Aerial Attacks
3. ASW search and combat

Then have ID in its own section and write how it works against air in each event.
its mostly in this structure already
its just that its not all lumped together
movement is mentioned in Combat Move and Non-combat Move
combat is mentioned in Conduct Combat
ID information pops up only when it affects it

Quote
Air combat over Industry ( SBR)
1. escorts
2. bombers
3. interceptors
4. ID ( just quick note that they roll)
SBR is one paragraph all up.
It does contain all 4 information.

This is now solved under defender then attacker retreat declarations.

its solved with defender then attacker retreat declarations