AARHE 1939 map and rule files

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

ok its finished… new map posted.

Oh god it never ends… ill get to it.

Heres the post i didn’t finish the other day:

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.

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. Under this you would have to account for yet another thing that does not add anything to the game.

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.

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. For example: you attack with tanks and infantry and capture after defender retreats. The defender on his turn attacks likely from a weaken position bringing in only infantry against tanks and some planes, using the infantry as soaks to just kill off the ‘goodies’ with no intention of actually doing anything. IN the real war the only way to fight tanks is with tanks/ artillery. Infantry melted in battle against armor divisions, because its like muskets against machine guns.

Here’s a new idea: in attacks where you go after armor and you don’t have armor/artillery you should get a negative modifier for each number of tanks that outnumber your army. Example: if you attack 3 tanks with 2 infantry and 1 artillery, then say two of those rolls should have some penalty. just an idea.

Any way it fixes alot is issues to just have attacker decide what he does after the defender first declares his intentions.
Thats exactly what created the combat opportunity in the first place. It would be consistent.

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 minimize that.

OK under what you already wrote the attacker has the choice to not even move into the new territory. Thats an immense advantage far beyond what i propose. Under what you wrote the defender can totally retreat, and the attacker can just leave the territory empty and allow his planes to defend from his original territory. this is static warfare and will not be fun.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree. Co-existing rules are fine. Would that solve the problem of retreats? I hate the “empty zone of 500 sq miles battle result” where a huge battle took place and both sides vanish after combat. That looks terrible. Lets use that co-exist rule from earlier.

OK we just need to doc. file for the main rules including the NA’s.

It means nothing in terms of the German player. IN the case of both Germany and or Poland these territories allow co-existing enemies ( in Poland the Soviets occupy east Poland and the Germans occupy west. In this case the territory is two spaces until one player captures both sides.

IN Germany case its the same thing the Soviets may need this for historical victory conditions, and this allows the Germans to retreat to west Germany and still have some production. If any player owns both sides of Germany then they are not separate territories.

These are the only cases where this exists. Note it allows for quick mobilization across Germany to either front.

I reduced the opacity of the Victory cities to 40% because IMO they were too loud to the surrounding colors.

I will update file on page 1.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yc0yxc4bntp