AARHE: Rule files

@ando101

I wasn’t saying that your idea was bad.

But yes, that makes sense.

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

Thankyou Hobbes, i have edited the bombers in sea battles rules and also advanced (improved) mech infantry and aa cruisers (thanks to techroll)

@Gargantua:

advanced mech INF, similer to above everynation starts out with advanced mech infantry, except mech still cannot blitz without pairing with a tank

You mean like the tech?  Where you can pair inf/mechs?

i said advanced mech inf i had meant improved mech inf

it is exactly the tech (improved mech infantry)
though im not sure what you mean by pairing INF/mechs

@lnmajor:

how about this?
place a roundel under a sub on the board to signify its submerged. it can only move 1 space per turn submerged. you must use ASW search roll of 1-2 to detect sub from destroyer or cruiser. surfaced sub can move 2 spaces per turn. ASW roll is 1-4 when sub is surfaced. now, on second turn, if sub remains submerged put second roundel under sub. beggining of 3rd turn submerged sub must surface for 1 turn no matter where it is. even if it has to surface strait into hostile ships and be attacked.

not a bad idea. The one benefit to having them off the board is the surprise factor.

Great ideas though…

Small change to the rules.

I did my playtesting on TripleA where Afghanistan is adjacent to Chinghai.  I had the opportunity to play a live ftf game last night and noticed that on the real board the Himalayas lie between Afghanistan and Chinghai.  Therefore…Afghanistan is no longer a selectable neutral by China…they may take Mongolia only.

Lets just say the rules you posted 1,2,3 were basicially similar. AS far as the Chinese placement the idea was to prevent a wall type of atmosphere where the Chinese would stack all the pieces in choke points.

Historically they were quasi military forces which largely came from the various regions of China, and not organized in such a fashion to move around and conduct major campaigns because the logistics were primitive to say the least. Thats why China got passed over as a proper nation, because they were not modernized at all.

So to not include some notion of preventing stacking you can readily see what will happen.

The rule book on China is deliberately over explaining a simple concept. You just cant place new infantry in a territory unless it has lass than 3 infantry total.

The other rule is Chinese cant leave greater china, which includes the 2 Japan controlled territories and Kwangtung as well as original Chinese territories, and in the case of Kwangtung they don’t get money if they take it.

Thats it.  Its like 4 sentences at most the entire rules for China. If you just rewrite the rules i am sure anybody can get the page down to a few sentences.

AARHE stands for Axis and Allies Revised: Historical Edition.

A set of house rule with enhanced realism, to be used on top of LHTR 1.3.
Comes with historical justifications in italics for each rule.

The two stickied threads has the files.

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.