@midnight_reaper that’s a cool idea and I might have to try it. However I don’t like the idea of getting advancements for free, which is why I like some sort of facility to buy. Since the G40 R&D board seems to have the better advances on one side I’d say you have to roll a 1-4 to get the 1 column, and 5-6 to get the second. Maybe even through in an added cost to get 1-3 & 4-6. But again with that, I think countries should have to build the facilities in their capitol instead of anywhere and starting with them.
AARHE: Rule files
-
ok then can you use the slight newer one posted here as the final copy
http://www.speedyshare.com/711572568.htmlplayer aids? nice
is that the player setup or have you been making he battleboard, tech chart, victory city board… :mrgreen: -
I’m curious how people will compare/ rank this version of A&A with the A&A enhanced version of the AH boards.
-
well
they are two very different variantsAARe is about adding game options
AARHE is about adding historical realismI shall leave it and that and not mention the philosophical arguments after arguments some of us had with some of the AARe guys :)
-
Yea… that thing … you said it.
What a way to balance a game… just keep adding to both sides of a sinking ship to balance out the list only to have the ship sink anyway due to its utter lack of History and reality.
-
Can somebody point me to the version that I should post to the website?
I’ll use PDFCreator to output the PDF file.
-
ill email the final version tonight.
-
IL, the rules file that you sent at 11:04am was a corrupted attachment, again.
If all I need to do is take the Dec. 2 RTF file and output a PDF, then I can do that.
-
wow! I guess use what you got. I sent you the rules in RTF and PDF but i guess its no good.
-
I am honored to be included in the list of those who helped to develop the AARHE rules, but feel that my own small contributions are not worthy of being listed with all of those who spent so much more time and effort developing the rules.
-
yea right buddy.
-
If all I need to do is take the Dec. 2 RTF file and output a PDF, then I can do that.
yes
except latest is Dec 6th now -
I don’t want to be updating very frequently. I’ll upload the Dec.6 version but after that, once a month, please.
Even though I’m sure Ncscswitch provided some good feedback, in a way I agree with him. There are those of you who put in many many hours and those who spent just a few (but valuable) hours. I would like to break down the contributors into “Designers” and “Contributors”? Or some other designation. Let’s make it self-deterministic. Everybody will be considered a contributor unless you speak up and say otherwise. How’s that sound?
-
At best, I think I fall in to the “initial feedback and evaluation” category.
A couple of ideas for Italy NA’s and a few other devils advocate posts do not merit my inclusion in the credits for the finished product.
-
there are many many contributors
the contributions you made, ncscswitch, made you significant already on the list of contributors :-)another way to look at it, this hopefully leads to smaller contributors giving yet more feedbacks to us
I once said to Imperious Leader that he could be the lead, producer, or whatever
but he said the project belongs to everyone 8-) -
The project is not about a specific person who created most of its elements but rather the sum of its parts working in harmony. Of course it would be easy to say that one guy was most prominant, but one of the core values was to create a team where everybody had some effect on the final ideas and to be as inclusionary as possible to others who wanted to help. To each contributed to their abilities and naturally not everything that was contributed was included but it was a trial and error approach to the application of those ideas. We specifically didn’t want the project to be a “its about me” ego driven affair, but a few of us acted as facilitators to move progress ahead.
-
I understand completely, but I was just shocked to see my name listed as a contributor when I offered so little to the project.
I am honored by the credit, I just feel that my small role does not merit it.
:-)
-
Hey this is not about you… ok? :-D
-
@Imperious:
Hey this is not about you… ok? :-D
That was my point :-P But OK, I’ll let it drop :-)
-
@ncscswitch:
I am honored by the credit, I just feel that my small role does not merit it.Â
Then help us playtest phase 2. :lol:
Our neutrals and technology rules are quite something I think. -
I will be doing some testing this weekend, The Neutrals rules are A+ I have always hate having those territories sitting there doing nothing. That was one of the things I liked most about World at War.
One question, is it your intention that if a Player invades Spain from the sea they are required to clear the Spainish fleet prior to landing? I went with that in my last game, it wasn’t dificult fo rthe US, but it was an influence to wait a turn.
The Tech is a vast improvement. I think the only way to get people to use techs is to force it on them and giving each player one or two free rolls a turn works for me. I also think the progeressive research is a great Idea.
I have a couple questions on the research.
The rule says: Roll for one technology at a time. Tick off one box for each roll hitting on a one. Each die costs 5IPC.
As Germany I have a capacity of 2+3 =5. It says roll for one tech at a time, but can I split that between tech catagories? Or is that one Tech per turn?
Also if I roll 5 dice for one tech and hit 2 ones do I get to check 2 boxes?
I look forward to play testing this.
Suggested Topics
