AARHE: Rule files

[Imperious Leader]

ideas and discussion were repeated
most important discussion/progress was at the end of your last post:

Quote from: Imperious Leader on April 01, 2008, 05:11:33 pm
OMFG… what is this? why do you keep going back to losing one ship?
haha I answered already
this is funny, a bit your like misunderstanding at the “Lite” thread

here it is again
“don’t lose more than you ship”
ship as in the verb
my system do not destroy any ships, only IPCs

good then stop using that as a verb, just talk about losing IPC…

basically the idea is say US has Hawaii, takes New Guinea…that is 1 IPC + 1 IPC
if Japan raids convoys from those two islands going for Los Angeles…US can potentially lose 2 IPC…not 1 IPC per Japanese ship for unlimited amount

but its ok I think in the other bits of your post you agree already not to bleed a player like that

fine just make it so only Germany and Italy can affect UK/ Lend Lease/ and USA, while UK/ USA effect Japan… no other relationships

what remains in the merely last point:

Quote
remains realistic even if territory control changes
This is the radioactive part of what you are arguing for.  UK is an island economy and Germany and Italy are NOT, but YOU want them to be treated the same…. that cant be possible unless we turn Germany into an island too.
its not radioactive once you see it differently…

you mean view Germany as an Island that requires its resources to be transported by sea rather than land???  No i dont “SEE” that.

its definitely not realistic for African income to go to Berlin if Allies control Med Sea and Altantic right?

Yes by way of the medd, or thru persia land connected all the way to Berlin, The ISLAND OF ENGLAND IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT AS WELL AS THE ISLAND OF JAPAN, unlike THE TERRITORY OF GERMANY CONNECTED BY LAND TO MANY OTHER LAND TERRITORIES…

if the convoy system is nation specific, then you would need to have some sort of blockade rule about Germany Africa, (and potentially Madagascar, Brazil…and other nations depending on the map situation)

No you dont, because they ship from the medd, and italy controls the medd for the most part, plus England didn’t use submarine warfare and didnt have the last great wars experience where it was a focal point to attack Germany, rather they attacked Germany by SBR. Also, if they occupied Brazil thats not a good argument, because Germany has the ability to park subs off the island of England, while UK does not have the ability to park subs around nazi controlled Europe, Africa and asia.

Your looking at the location of where the money is coming from, Im looking at the destination of where the money is flowing.

Money flows to the island of UK, Money flows to the Continent of Europe, thats a huge difference.

Quote
fine reintroduce the rolling idea and playtest.
to clarify, we only reintroduce rolling if you wish (I am good with 1 IPC per unit)
because rolling is incompatible as earlier you got rid of ability to store war material at victory cities

ok fine no rolling just 1 ipc lost per ship

Quote
If Germany took UK the game would be OVER… thats the point the Historically based game design has victory conditions which take care of these issues, so Germany would not get in that position. The German u-boat campaign was developed exclusively by Germany during 2 wars, UK, USSR, Italy, and even USA had not real appreciation of how to successfully run a submarine campaign designed to sink commerce. Thats why only certain nations are given this ability.
no it doesn’t have to be over for Allies if Germany takes UK
it depends on the rest of the map
(and lets history replay arguments would be nice)

Look at the victory conditions of the game….they are not universal, Germany controls victory city points, taking UK will put them over the top, little chance (with all things being equal) for the allies to come back because Germany is probably owning most of Europe anyway, and with UK out the Soviets are not far behind w/o help from UK.

1939 map in particularly gives us the option to explore a heavy Battle of Britain rather than going to Operation Barbarossa
Russia given the spare time could have built up even better than they did in history

yes this is true, but the 1939 version uses HISTORICAL VICTORY CONDITIONS TO WIN, so your point is reflected in that Germany may win at that point.

Quote
But Germany can lose income if they lose Madagascar, or take India, or Norway, of if the Soviet sub is placed in the baltic, or this or that….
you don’t lose more then you ship (verb) in my system
so Madagascar nor India are not going to be become a negative income contribution

naval units don’t hit convoys in a different part of the world in my system
so Soviet sub in Baltic is only going to hit shipping in that particular sea zone

OK cut out part of the map and make a clear example with MS paint of how the system works that you propose. To me it looks now like its going to be a freeking chain of supply thing where you lose income if you cant trace a path of clear sea zones back to UK.  That system is silly and tedious

Quote
But a Historical version must not have this because the Soviet player had no idea how to conduct these types of raids. Even if just 1 IPC was potentially at risk it would be a bad rule. This is a historical version and not a universal version. Revised is a universal version and the reason why we are doing a historical version.
this is not a question of how well one nation can raid, that can be dealt with by a Germany NA that increases German raiding efficiency
if Soviet has submarines in Baltic and Germany dont kill them, those submarines are not going to stand there and watch hostile convoy shipping going by

No instead they crash in the anti submarine nets that the Germans had layed down before the war. The Soviets were locked into the Baltic, they cant escape, thanks to Germany. And Germany mined the straights too. Soviet subs were only for coastal defense anyway.

In fact Germany and latter USA and the Japanese 400 series of larger subs were the only subs made for anything approaching long patrol range submarines. Everybody else could only come up with coastal submarines to protect coastlines, from invasion etc…

Quote
We don’t allow IF’s of that type, It simply was not capable for some nations to pursue specific strategies. Its like saying both the Americans and Italians should basically have the same access to technology and diplomacy or the same IPC. Why the heck do we then just give Italy 50 IPC’s a turn?///??? Thats would be a universal idea as well….
please, you are comparing grossly different probabilities

Germany damaged Allied shipping more than US damaged Japanese shipping
but Germany put most naval resources into submarines

WOW your starting to see my point…. now we just need to model only this aspect of what was possible and your universal idea is trash can fodder.

Quote
OK ill make a new map here are the new ipcs…

USSR 50 IPC
UK  50 IPC
USA 50 IPC
Germany 50 IPC
Japan 50 ipc
Italy  50 IPC

there… now its universal rules. great… Now everybody starts out with 40 inf, 10 tanks, and 5 artillery…now just have the same 10 NA’s for everybody… and we just keep doing this until we have… checkers
A system takes into factors as input and gives an outcome.

My system is simple and universal. It is based on actual shipping. It generates different vulerabilities for each nation.

your system totally ignores the very real capabilities of the historical participants of the simulation we are modeling and since its a historical edition , i suggest you forget universal ideas…

The system is realistic. No arbitration in the outcome needed.

Their is no arbitration either is saying “every German/italian naval ship in atlantic and indian ocean costs the western allies 1 IPC”

Quote
To model this we allow only specific nations and specific locations of enemy ships that can even engage of these attacks.
That is no modelling. That is arbitration in outcome.
I repeat, your method will only be realistic for a small subset of game outcomes. Players are not going to perform the same as WWII. Its a game, a simulation.

Its a simulation of history, thus the nations who dont have certain capabilities are not going to be allowed to have them. They have to play only the cards they are dealt with, but they can play those cards how they want. Thats AARHE.

I’ve already mentioned specific examples (territory control and which unit in which sea zone) why your system is unrealistic.
You’ve engaged in a lot of historic replay kind of talk, if you can be more concrete in your argument and give specific examples (territory cotnrol and which unit in which sea zone) why my system is unrealistic it’ll be more helpful.

Ok fine, UK controls Canada, Canada ships resources to England which is fighting Germany, England is an Island economy and needs to import nearly everything to win the war, Germany has subs, they are long range and feel that these subs can starve England because England is an ISLAND, and also tried to do this for 4 years in world war one.

UK only has coastal submarines to protect her coastline, Germany controls most of Europe and her income comes by way of train, thus England using the same technique as Germany will invariable fail.

NOW IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH???

Quote
Ok if the USA player has subs in the New Guinea sea zone for 2 turns, then Japan faces economic isolation and thats just fine.
that get rid of the problem of US ships at New Guinea hitting convoys from Phillipines to Toyko
this is your isolation rule, which is realistic for islands without VC/IC and low income islands

then you’ve got to create an exception for high income islands like Borneo, East Indies and Phillipines

Thats fine then we go with the 2 turns of isolation rule, Japan has a full reaction turn to stop the income from being cut off

potential players of AARHE are still interested in what-if
they just want the what-if to be more meaningful
or they just want the new dimensions added to the game such as land units can’t hit air units

No they want all the silly tricks of AAR to go away, They want some of the stupid ideas removed because they are not realistic, and view AA as a kids game with lots of dice rolling. They want the defender to retreat, they want real air missions, and airborne infantry and victory conditions that are realistic, They want submarine warfare and try to starve England to submission like Hitler tried.

Quote
This rule does not do that. Its only going by the printed values,not some inflated 8 IPC thing
oh you have new ideas for IC output limit?
anyway, remember its not a "some inflated 8 IPC thing)
the output limit is proportional to territory value, Australia is 2 IPC, her IC can build 8 IPC worth of units

No NO NO… You can still build the 4x rule in those places, thats not effected. Only the total income for purchases, not placement.

Quote
….but is your universal world you allow anybody to do anything. Uk can start making SS units, France can have the worlds largest navy and the Soviets can sink all the non-land locked ipcs coming into Germany from the Baltic. All these ideas are equal with the USA player turning fascist in a universal world.
my system do not allow ships in the Baltic to hit convoys in other parts of the world
so no Soviet ships in the Baltic can’t “sink all non-land locked ipcs coming into Germany”
I wonder if you still have wrong interpretation of the rules

The only thing i have interpreted is what you wrote where its universal, when historically its not universal.

Germany is likely to have submarine campaign while UK is unlikely simply because at game setup, UK territories are spread while Germany are packed together
but anything goes once the game starts

Yes everything goes? you mean England is not not an Island?

Quote
Go look at the map and tell me which are the 2 island nations> UK and Japan, the whole convoy system thing is for nations that are islands and USA is sort of in this block. By extrapolation we conclude based on the war, that UK was nearly starved and Japan was nearly starved. Also, we conclude that USA lost alot of Liberty ships and the Murmansk convoys got attacked as they sent trade to USSR. In the latter war period American subs sunk a huge % of total foodstuffs going to japan because they were feeding off of Japan like vultures.

WE DO NOT conclude Germany lost income or Italy lost income, nor do we conclude American surface ships sunk japanese merchant ships to a high degree…. the solution is we model only the participating nations that historically were effected in this manner. WE DO NOT allow Germany to lose money because they grow food and build supplies from central Europe, while UK / USA must ship stuff to other places and also receive stuff via the SEA because they control many places that are outside in different part of the world or support these localities.
you’re bringing up history replay type of arguments again

Yes i like to stuck with the facts to support ideas in a historical version of an abstract game… yes admittedly.

anyway at game setup this is the likely outcome (that Germany can’t be raided much)
my system keeps convoy raiding on actual shipping, if you play the game like historic it remains realistic
on the other hand, your longer and nation specific system is do not remain realistic all the time

take out the map and just give germany 10 subs and then give the uk player 10 subs… See the potential damage each can have on the other under both systems and post.

[tekkyy]

No you dont, because they ship from the medd, and italy controls the medd for the most part, plus England didn’t use submarine warfare and didnt have the last great wars experience where it was a focal point to attack Germany, rather they attacked Germany by SBR. Also, if they occupied Brazil thats not a good argument, because Germany has the ability to park subs off the island of England, while UK does not have the ability to park subs around nazi controlled Europe, Africa and asia.

as mentioned, Germany’s submarines expertise can be model with an NA
convoy raiding rule is about naval units in general

naval blockade affects everybody
when there is an obvious naval blockade of Med Sea by Allies, its totally unrealistic for Berlin to receive Africa income via Med Sea
my convoy system deals with it all and we do not require addition naval blockade rules

but its ok, I won’t call your nation-specific-historic-replay system “trash can fodder”

Your looking at the location of where the money is coming from, Im looking at the destination of where the money is flowing.

actually my system looks at both source and destination, considers where we are building or raising infantry, this is the IPC path idea

your nation specific system only considers where the capital is and do not consider actual production, and the actual rule do not look at neither source nor destination

OK cut out part of the map and make a clear example with MS paint of how the system works that you propose. To me it looks now like its going to be a freeking chain of supply thing where you lose income if you cant trace a path of clear sea zones back to UK.  That system is silly and tedious
only destination

it sounds tedious, but if you were to consider your “where the money is coming from” and your “the destination of where the money is flowing” then only a dynamic method will do

it isn’t silly, only trying to keep it real, dynamic, relating to actual production/shipping

its not tedious anymore, because you’ve reduced the limitations of what the path can be
(you said south africa resources can travel via land to med sea then cross it, and then travel via land to Berlin)
that is, no more shortest path restriction, no more must use adjacent sea port restriction

its really just a quick glance
in the case it is indeed blocked, then you just minimize damage (picking the sea zone with the smaller naval stack)

Ok fine, UK controls Canada, Canada ships resources to England which is fighting Germany, England is an Island economy and needs to import nearly everything to win the war, Germany has subs…
NOW IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH???

I said “territory control and which unit in which sea zone” but you still remain philosophical
like give me a game example

here is one for your system

Allies control Altantic and North Sea (sz7, sz6) and Med Sea (sz 13, 14, 15)
Germany holds Africa (from Algeria to South Africa)
oh, Germany performed different to history, exposing themselves to convoy raid, what happens in the two systems?

in your system, you continue to let the Africa income (11 IPC) be used to build units at Berlin…too bad…we don’t consider players would perform different to history

in my system, its ok, we consider the current situation rather than enforcing particular scenarios, so we remain realistic…Germany will have to bite the bullet and take damage at Altantic or Med Sea, or just build at Egypt

Thats fine then we go with the 2 turns of isolation rule, Japan has a full reaction turn to stop the income from being cut off

I am saying East Indies, Borneo, Phillipines are high income islands and resources are not going to go poof! even under a naval blockade, resources can still be used at the VC/IC on the island

hence no need for isolation rule, my convoy system caters for both direction (eg. whether East Indies material is used to raise infantry at Tokyo or other Japanese material is used to raise infantry at East Indies)

[uqote]Germany damaged Allied shipping more than US damaged Japanese shipping
but Germany put most naval resources into submarines

WOW your starting to see my point…. now we just need to model only this aspect of what was possible and your universal idea is trash can fodder.
you didn’t get what I meant
as in, US can have better sucess if they put more of the naval budget in submarines like Germany did

lets say US president listened to another US general instead, and US use submarines as a delaying tactic in the Pacific or whatever

No NO NO… You can still build the 4x rule in those places, thats not effected. Only the total income for purchases, not placement.

so are you sugguesting a change to current rule of “4x”?

Yes everything goes? you mean England is not not an Island?

I only said anything goes once the game starts
as in the situation can change away from the game setup situation
its that simple, nation specific ideas won’t remain realistic in all games

Yes i like to stuck with the facts to support ideas in a historical version of an abstract game… yes admittedly.

but historic replay arguments are not going to convince me
I don’t want funny situations just because the game didn’t play out like the real WWII

if US could starve Japan and UK decides to have emphasis on Med Sea convoy raid against Germany, I think US would give a few tips to UK

again, if Germany is just so much better than others at submarine convoy raid, then just give them an NA…or even make Super Submarines twice as effective as normal Submarines in convoy raid

take out the map and just give germany 10 subs and then give the uk player 10 subs… See the potential damage each can have on the other under both systems and post.

for us cross compare, I need you to post your system in one piece (convoy raid, plus other bits like isolation rule if still you want it)

This is my one.
IPC to be spent must have a path* from the original territory to the Industrial Complex or Victory City.
IPC to be saved must have a path* from the original territory to your capital.
This also applies to lend-lease. IPC that are not spent and not saved are forfeited.
A path is chain of territories your land units may go through and/or sea zones.
Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) on a path* [see Spending or Saving IPC] destroys 1 IPC. Damage is applied to IPC of the path.

[Imperious Leader]

Quote
No you dont, because they ship from the medd, and italy controls the medd for the most part, plus England didn’t use submarine warfare and didnt have the last great wars experience where it was a focal point to attack Germany, rather they attacked Germany by SBR. Also, if they occupied Brazil thats not a good argument, because Germany has the ability to park subs off the island of England, while UK does not have the ability to park subs around nazi controlled Europe, Africa and asia.
as mentioned, Germany’s submarines expertise can be model with an NA
convoy raiding rule is about naval units in general

NA’s are assigned randomly, so if Germany does not get it, then its a huge deal because submarine warfare was Germany’s primary way to strike against UK. If Italy uses the rule where they capture Gibrater/ Malta and gains the ability to leave the medd, then they should have a chance as well.

The historical accuracy of a strong German submarine campaign MUST be in every version of AARHE, because its a palpable aspect of the war that we need to model.

naval blockade affects everybody
when there is an obvious naval blockade of Med Sea by Allies, its totally unrealistic for Berlin to receive Africa income via Med Sea
my convoy system deals with it all and we do not require addition naval blockade rules

Naval blockade did not effect Germany. It did in ww1, but not in ww2. Naval blockade did not effect Italy inspite of her colonies. In both cases it could not be effective because they are not ISLANDS, and as usual your not looking at the DESTINATION of the raw war making materials.  Please consider this.

Quote
Your looking at the location of where the money is coming from, Im looking at the destination of where the money is flowing.
actually my system looks at both source and destination, considers where we are building or raising infantry, this is the IPC path idea

your nation specific system only considers where the capital is and do not consider actual production, and the actual rule do not look at neither source nor destination

The reality is the production in large part centered in the HOST country, then shipped back to the colony for deployment.

Exceptions: Canada, Australia…. In India infantry were trained by British and equipment sent from england and the boat loads of men were shipped to england and Egypt to fight Germany. Thats how it works.

Quote
Ok fine, UK controls Canada, Canada ships resources to England which is fighting Germany, England is an Island economy and needs to import nearly everything to win the war, Germany has subs…
NOW IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH???
I said “territory control and which unit in which sea zone” but you still remain philosophical
like give me a game example

here is one for your system

Allies control Altantic and North Sea (sz7, sz6) and Med Sea (sz 13, 14, 15)
Germany holds Africa (from Algeria to South Africa)
oh, Germany performed different to history, exposing themselves to convoy raid, what happens in the two systems?

in your system, you continue to let the Africa income (11 IPC) be used to build units at Berlin…too bad…we don’t consider players would perform different to history

Ok fine, now heres what would happen: Uk has not long range submarines nor would develop this technology for a few years, nor had any experience conducting a major submarine campaign, If they have all sorts of money to waste on submarines , while Germany controls the entire continent of Africa, then UK is being run into the ground by poor leadership. They need to make transports and land men to counter this. So the short of it is UK wont be fighting Germany like this if what Germany did and secondly, they dint have the capability historically.

In real games the only thing we are modeling is the fact that Germany and possibly italy got a few ships to escape in the Atlantic or subs are running loose to interfere with British shipping…. this is to offset the Lend Lease that is beefing up the Soviets by way of sea, and the fact that the ISLAND economy of UK needs to ship goods to survive. So to model these we give Germany and possibly latter Italy the ability to interdict the shipping…  What your doing is not historical, but application of a universal rule to equally apply. The problem with this is that that did not happen historically.

Instead of sea path which has to be traced, consider each ocean separately…

1)Atlantic, 2)Meddeterean, 3)Indian Oceans 4) Pacific Ocean…

Each German sub or naval unit in 1-3 costs either UK or lend lease ( German player choice) 1 IPC
Each Italian sub in 2 costs UK 1 IPC, if Italy takes Gibrater, then its subs and ships can now take from 1-2 from UK
Each Uk sub in 2 costs Italy 1 IPC
Each American sub in 4 takes 1 IPC from Japan but must be adjacent to the Island where the IPC is coming from not in excess of the printed IPC value, ( so you cant just park 10 subs off of Japanese controlled New guinea and take 10 IPC)
Each Japanese sub in 4 will also have the same capabilities to USA.

Now heres a questionable idea: allow UK “surface warships only” perform this only against enemy controlled Islands in 1-4. An island is not africa, but can be German occupied South America, North America, or Japanese controlled Australia.

Quote
[uqote]Germany damaged Allied shipping more than US damaged Japanese shipping
but Germany put most naval resources into submarines
WOW your starting to see my point…. now we just need to model only this aspect of what was possible and your universal idea is trash can fodder.

you didn’t get what I meant
as in, US can have better sucess if they put more of the naval budget in submarines like Germany did

Yes but only against Japan which has an ISLAND ECONOMY. It wont work against Germany. They will laugh at you in the Reich Chancellery.

Quote
Yes everything goes? you mean England is not not an Island?
I only said anything goes once the game starts
as in the situation can change away from the game setup situation
its that simple, nation specific ideas won’t remain realistic in all games

They need to be in a historical game. IN a game like Attack! thats like checkers. In a game about world war two the British and Japanese were island economies and they must be treated differently with respect to how income can be destroyed on the high seas. Thats historical, but taking income off of Germany by submarine warfare makes no sence.

This is my proposal.
IPC to be spent must have a path* from the original territory to the Industrial Complex or Victory City.
IPC to be saved must have a path* from the original territory to your capital.
This also applies to lend-lease. IPC that are not spent and not saved are forfeited.
A path is chain of territories your land units may go through and/or sea zones.

Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) on a path* [see Spending or Saving IPC] destroys 1 IPC. Damage is applied to IPC of the path.

Ok heres mine:

For the Island economies of England and Japan income is considered to flow from the colonies or conquests of these nations to the host nation of  England or Japan. In either case each enemy submarine and or ship located between these points can cost the owning player 1 IPC up to the limit of the total value of each “blockaded” territory. The only way to protect this from happening is to sunk the enemy ships or prevent them from leaving home waters by naval blockade.

Example: Germany has a sub in the Atlantic so potentially income flowing from British colonies to UK can be reduced by 1 ipc, The limit would equal the total number of subs posted from these areas. however Income from british controlled territories in Asia would require a German sub in the Indian ocean.

The American player can post a sub or ship in between the Japanese controlled island of new guinea and Japan. but the total that can be lost is equal by the total value of IPC that the island is worth.

And heres another idea: Take the total number of subs “at large” (these are subs in open waters - not baltic or medd)

1. Axis European players look up a chart roll a die, and index IPC lost, the more subs you got the more potentially you kill, and the owner of the sub decides if its lend lease or income from uk or usa.

2. The American player also does this but only counts subs in the pacific

3. The Allies then takes up his ASW units (DD and CA) indexes a chart , rolls a die, and thats the number of subs that are lost that turn

[tekkyy]

Submarines can roam, stalk, and sneak up on you unexpectedly.
Combat naval units are orders of magnitude fewer than convoy ships, thus can’t protect them.
So your idea of just sectioning the oceans and counting the submarines is quite reasonable.

A more complete listing of sections:
north altantic, south altantic, med sea, indian ocean, north pacific, and south pacific.

Then, each hostile submarine destroy 1 IPC going thru the section.
Apply that to my system and we don’t have to trace a path of sea zones anymore.
This solves the “tedious routing” aspect that you didn’t like.

You sugguested different strength convoy raiding. I feel thats below the level of abstraction. We could let super submarines hit for 2 IPC though.

I still don’t buy the idea of specific nations raiding convoys of specific nations in specific regions of the world. Rather than a predefined/static system, the map situation should dictate that bit.

[Imperious Leader]

ok find something that is somewhere in between our two systems.

possibly your rule but only effecting UK and Japan. Ill leave it up to you, but be fair to both sides.

[tekkyy]

yeah hybrid is cool and thats what the last step did
sectioning the ocean rather than tracing explicit path of seas, is a point between our systems

to be honest I never really understood your worry about my rule
you says historically Germany, Russia (excluding lend-lease) and US were not really exposed to convoy raiding…so then you want a hard overwrite to 100% disallow convoy raiding against them no matter what

dont have to do that
I still see that it works like history in my system if players follow history
the 3 players have few to zero convoys, they can’t be hit much unless they chooses to expose themselves such as taking overseas territories without securing the relevant sea areas

even then, if the sea is not safe, Germany/US for example could try to spend the money from Africa/Pacific on a local IC/VC
you are not forced to suicide

[Imperious Leader]

ok fine…… i don’t wish to go over it again.

carry on soldier!

[tekkyy]

ok I apply the changes and we’ll leave it at that until new ideas pop up

[Imperious Leader]

yes right!

[Bierwagen]

Greetings from San Antonio!

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF):

• What version of AARHE should I consider as playtested and stable?

I’m really intrigued by AARHE, you all have done a fantastic job of breathing some realism into this game.  So, I printed off some maps and rules and committed myself to working through it.  However, I ran into some burps today and I’m a bit confused by all the revisions I’ve found:  two dated drafts from vers 4.0, and an older 1.3.

I’m using the following source as my touchstone:
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

I worked through the AARHE DEMO (e.g., turn 1 through G1 & J1), but it doesn’t cover all the angles required to understand the nuances of combat.  Are there other DEMO’s and examples that I’ve missed in the forums that can walk me through some of this?

Thanks in advance,

Enjoy the day!

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

Yes sir!

I will get the latest files so your not printing all the wrong stuff.

Id favor the 1939 version using the generals, but you can also go with AARHE: Lite and play on your normal map.

here are some files you need.

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/–-which is where you are. The watermark and clear just means if you want the pretty pictures then DL watermark… otherwise a plain copy is also offered.

but it doesn’t cover all the angles required to understand the nuances of combat.  Are there other DEMO’s and examples that I’ve missed in the forums that can walk me through some of this?

note that all the player aids should be downloaded and printed out so your not forgetting some of the rules. These are intuitive in that you get a strong impression of what is going on even if you don’t read the rules.

So i suggest you read AARHE lite and use the formal ruleset to solve any clarifications that arise.

I also suggest you don’t play with the extra units until you have played at least 2 games fully. Probably don’t use the Generals either till then.

You may present your questions here and we will answer them. The demo was just to get the basic idea of the game.

[Bierwagen]

Moin!

O.k. I finally followed this discussion on AARHE: Lite from the beginning, and think I caught a clue.

AARHE: Lite was source of my confusion because I thought it was a short-cut sheet for AARHE.  But it appears to be a stand alone upgrade played on the old AAR map vs. AARHE 1.3 or 4.0 which is suppose to be played on the updated maps.

Things that really confused us were Naval Combat, declaring DAS, neutrals, and a Combat Reinforcements (n.b., which seems to have disappeared in the AAHRE 4.0, 10 Apr 08 version).

I’ll keep working my way through the messages in hopes of getting more insights.

I think the main thing that would help those of us trying to integrate this into our gaming groups would be more examples (e.g., particularly with air and naval combat).

Another suggestion would be for version control to be embedded in the headers.  While we were playing and I went and printed off another copy so we didn’t have to share – only to get in a good argument over “what in the hell are you smoking!, right here on page, xx…”.

Thanks again,

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

Yes LITE is a stand alone way of giving an “easy bake” treatment from AARHE for people who don’t like reading.

WE had originally wanted to call it: AARHE: for dummies.

I may have steered you wrong by asking you to read it and then playing with AARHE because the rules are a bit different admittedly.

AARHE: Lite is like a ice cream bar made with “half the fat and zero calories”

[Bierwagen]

Evening!

Based on past development, how long do you expect before you publish a stable version of AARHE 4.0?  Where can we follow the discussion on it’s development?

Several of us were ready to jump in and start play testing but got some push back on waiting until it was “stable”.

I noticed that “Combat Reinforcement” got taken out of the mix (e.g., ver 4.0 dated 20080209).

The Naval Combat Sequence (e.g., specifically DAS) seemed to be our biggest hurdle, but it appears to have disappeared as well.

What kind of feedback would you like from us down here in the trenches trying to learn this?  It’s a big fire hose at the moment, but looks really promising.

Enjoy the day!

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

Just play either the 1939 version as it stands right now, or use your original map for revised and use the basic rules.

Play the game with no diplomacy rules until you got every down pat.

I have like 8 games of 1939 in and it plays like a dream.

[Bierwagen]

Thanks IL!

A quick question on the Lite & 4.0 versions.

1)  Do transports still have a dog in the fight?  There seems to be a conflict with 1 defense listed on the unit tables and “When neither side has units to hit each other (both side has only Submarines or both side has only Transports) both sides must retreat or break-off.”

I always thought it kind of silly that transports get an attack.  I don’t remember too many instances of “ramming speed” in WWII.  You might be able to stretch an air defense roll out of them.

[Bierwagen]

1939 scares me away – too many pieces to try and collect.  I’m limited to basic and revised edition.  Not sure how to squeeze a set of French, Chinese, and whoever else I need out of that.

[Imperious Leader]

A quick question on the Lite & 4.0 versions.

1)  Do transports still have a dog in the fight?  There seems to be a conflict with 1 defense listed on the unit tables and “When neither side has units to hit each other (both side has only Submarines or both side has only Transports) both sides must retreat or break-off.”

I always thought it kind of silly that transports get an attack.  I don’t remember too many instances of “ramming speed” in WWII.  You might be able to stretch an air defense roll out of them.

Transports defend at O, they cannot be used for fodder and are the last units allocated for combat loses. If you bring them to attack they don’t participate. However, the defender can elect to retreat in part of whole his force at any time declared before the attacker declares retreat intentions.

The one defense is in cases where they are alone defending against subs, but as i said after a round they can retreat.

Transports are to be considered like a glass window pane in a mine field

ON 1939 version use American pieces for france because france is toast within 1-3 turns. It has never lasted past 2 turns, but i think its possible mathematically to last 3 turns

For Italy you can use old Milton Bradley pieces for Germany or japan ( yellow)…for poland or neutrals you use the nations pieces that controls the neutral… so you dont need any special pieces.

I really insist you play 1939. you will be hooked big time.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

The one defense is in cases where they are alone defending against subs, but as i said after a round they can retreat.

Actually I don’t recall discussion on reinstating a 1 defense for Transports.
Tracing back the log of files I see this is a typo introduced in August 2007 when we first created the colour rulebook.

If no new arguments I’ll fix that up (back to 0) for both AARHE and AARHE:Lite.

@Bierwagen:

I’m using the following source as my touchstone:
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

Yep the latest files are kept there.

I worked through the AARHE DEMO (e.g., turn 1 through G1 & J1), but it doesn’t cover all the angles required to understand the nuances of combat.  Are there other DEMO’s and examples that I’ve missed in the forums that can walk me through some of this?

Don’t worry about the demo I took the effort to write…outdated already hehe.

@Bierwagen:

Based on past development, how long do you expect before you publish a stable version of AARHE 4.0?  Where can we follow the discussion on it’s development?
Several of us were ready to jump in and start play testing but got some push back on waiting until it was “stable”.

AARHE features like defender retreat is nice but it also means its harder to playtest online since enemy gets to do things during your turn.
We’ve stopped changing things now.
But need more feedback from players like you guys before we could say its “stable”.

Or you and your friends could play AARHE:Lite first.
Actually its probably better to play 2-3 games of Lite first anyway.

What kind of feedback would you like from us down here in the trenches trying to learn this?  It’s a big fire hose at the moment, but looks really promising.

Thanks! We think its promising too.
All kinds of feedback are welcomed.

Actually we have no feedback for the late major rule change. The convoy raid system.
Did Germany or Russia get hurt by it in your games?

[Bierwagen]

Morning!

Jumped online this morning to toss out a fist full of questions – only to find a newly published draft of AARHE 4.0 (20080503) in:

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/

I’m very excited to dive into it, but am a little frustrated with version control atm.  Any chance you can make a section of “stuff that was changed since last pub, dated yyy-mmm-dd”.  Even if it is just “format changes only”.  I see you all bantering back and forth in the forums, but it’s difficult to determine what got implemented and what was just a good idea.  Or maybe publish a small readme file in the directory that contains this information like they do with software.

Same with the Lite version.  A date stamp or version would be deeply appreciated.

We’ve got 15-18 people here in San Antonio that I’m trying to introduce this to.  I hoping we can help wring out the rules – make them Aggie proof.  However, it gets really confusing trying to keep everyone on the same sheet of music without version control.

Thanks again for the great effort.  I’m really enjoying all the new rules and tactical/strategic implications.

Enjoy the day!

• Bierwagen