AARHE 1939 map and rule files

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

The line is clearly in the middle. It applied to both cases already. So any movement from france to Spain is limited to 2 land units