AARHE: Rule files

This is my first time posting here. I can see that a lot of thought and creativity has gone into this effort. This team has done an excellent job of making the game more realistic in a tactical sense.

That said, very little has been done to correct the strategic historical inaccuracies of Axis and Allies Revised. Which is fine, but if you’re calling this rules set “historical” it may as well live up to the name.

During World War II, the Allies produced over four times as many tanks as the Axis, over twice as many military aircraft, five times as many artillery, over three times as many mortars, over four times as many machine guns, and over six times as many military trucks. In the pivotal battle of Kursk (1943), Germany had 900,000 men, 10,000 cannons, 2,000 aircraft, and 2,000 tanks. They’d denuded their forces elsewhere along the Soviet front to achieve this concentration. The Soviets had 1.9 million men, 20,800 cannons, 2,000 aircraft, and 5,100 tanks. They achieved this without accepting weakness elsewhere. The Axis and Allies Revised map dramatically understates the scale of Soviet and American military production. This inaccuracy is not corrected in the AARHE rules set.

An additional problem the Axis faced is this: in the real war, Japan’s army was engaged in an unwinnable land war in China. Japan simply didn’t have the available men to launch yet another land war against the Soviet Union, or to take India. In A&A Revised (and AARHE), Japan can mop China up quickly and relatively painlessly; and India typically gets abandoned.

Finally, making Italy a separate power is a bit of a stretch. The Italian military lacked proper equipment, training, motivation, leadership, and morale. When Italy declared war on France, a large Italian force was defeated by a French force only a fraction of its own size. The same thing happened again when Italy attempted to invade Greece. In North Africa, massive Italian forces surrendered to much smaller British groups. The Italians lacked the proper equipment to fight a desert war. Italy’s obsolete tanks couldn’t even damage British tanks! By 1943, the Italians had lost whatever willingness to fight they might once have had; and eagerly surrendered to any available Allied force. Including Italy as a separate power implies that Italy was more useful to the Axis than were nations like Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, or Hungary. This simply wasn’t the case.

I realize the changes I’m suggesting create game balance issues. If you bog Japan down in a painful and largely unwinnable land war in China, and if you accurately portray Soviet/American military production, the Allies should always win. But I’m sure that this team is clever enough to find some advantage to bestow on the Axis that will balance out what you’ll be giving to the Allies. Just about anything will be more historically accurate than sweeping the Allies’ industrial advantages or the China war under the rug.

A few comments…

An additional problem the Axis faced is this: in the real war, Japan’s army was engaged in an unwinnable land war in China. Japan simply didn’t have the available men to launch yet another land war against the Soviet Union, or to take India. In A&A Revised (and AARHE), Japan can mop China up quickly and relatively painlessly; and India typically gets abandoned.

IN AARHE we changed the very victory conditions so you don’t have to rely on your partner, much the same way as in the war. We cannot make wholescale changes in the map or it wont be a varient of revised… it will be too far removed from the game. WE added specific historical based cities which require fighting in new areas rather than the same old trouble spots.

Finally, making Italy a separate power is a bit of a stretch. The Italian military lacked proper equipment, training, motivation, leadership, and morale. When Italy declared war on France, a large Italian force was defeated by a French force only a fraction of its own size. The same thing happened again when Italy attempted to invade Greece. In North Africa, massive Italian forces surrendered to much smaller British groups. The Italians lacked the proper equipment to fight a desert war. Italy’s obsolete tanks couldn’t even damage British tanks! By 1943, the Italians had lost whatever willingness to fight they might once have had; and eagerly surrendered to any available Allied force. Including Italy as a separate power implies that Italy was more useful to the Axis than were nations like Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, or Hungary. This simply wasn’t the case.

Its not just Italy the 3rd axis player includes the economy of Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Italy. In 1942 These economies actually were stronger combined than Japan was in this same period.

GDP 1942 ( source: Harrison -figures in billions)

Italy 145
Lybia 2.6
Hungary 24.3
Romania 19.4
Bulgaria 10.5
Yugoslavia 21.9

total: 223.7

vs. Japan at 197

BTW Germany is at 417 this same period ( it does not include Finland with is another 12.7)

If we conclude the economics purely as you put it on True Historical data… then we are left with a busted game because Japan will be too weak to defend herself against Allied counters.

Also, military leadership cannot be factored into a game of this type. The Russians lost many more soldiers than Italy ever did in 4 years of fighting during the first 5 months of Barbarossa. Stalin was the worst general than any Italian could ever hope to be. Eventually, he began to listen to his generals. IN Italy’s case when the Germans assumed command of Italian forces they fought much better. Besides Il Duce was not ready for war until 1944, but could conceivably struggle for a few short years and still remain effective. In Oct 1940 the Italians had 300,000 against 30,000 Brits, but stopped to make fortifications at the Lybian/ Egypt border. This is a choice that was made. If they pressed on their is little doubt that they would have taken the Suez… now the game gives them the new choice to become more effective. Italy had a modern Navy and air force and they were a complete military power.

@Imperious:

A few comments…

If your goal is to make an advanced variant of Revised, then obviously there’s not much you can do to correct the strategic historical inaccuracies Revised poses. Since that’s the case, I’ll simply appreciate AARHE for what it is, which is a very good rules set. That said, I wish there was some other rules variant out there that managed to combine game balance with an historically accurate depiction of the USSR’s and USA’s military production.

When you were a kid, did you ever see those commercials for Frosted Mini Wheats? Each mini wheat had two sides to his personality: the whole wheat, serious side; and the frosted, fun-loving side. Well, the frosted, fun-loving side of my personality likes the idea of having Italy in the game. From the point of view of game mechanics and making the game more interesting, Italy adds an extra something. But the whole wheat, serious side of me hates everything about the Italy inclusion. To lump Romania, Bulgaria, etc. in with Italy implies that those nations were more closely aligned with Italy than they were with Germany. A German promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that you’d get a solid, strong protection effort. An Italian promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that Italy would send some soldiers to your border, they’d eat your food for a while, and then they’d run away once the battle began to get intense. Eastern European nations largely understood this.

There were a number of reasons for Italy’s military failure. Mussolini probably came into power prematurely; and he lacked the popular support Hitler had in Germany. Unlike Germany, modern Italy lacked a strong military tradition. Mussolini was unable to correct the Italian military’s fundamental problems. Laziness, carelessness, and sloppiness in carrying out commands–these were the hallmarks of the Italian military. These things alone meant that the Italian navy was far less useful to the Axis than its tonnage would seem to indicate. In addition to those problems, the Italian army lacked proper equipment. In the desert war you mentioned, Italy only used “light” tanks that couldn’t damage British Matilda tanks. Italy’s infantry lacked mobility. Rommel recognized that mobility was the essence of desert warfare. A large, slow force (such as Italy’s infantry) could be easily outflanked along the south; then cut off from its supplies. It was exactly this technique which allowed Britain’s tank force and mechanized infantry to force the surrender of much larger, non-mechanized Italian infantry forces.

Italians became increasingly cynical and disillusioned about Mussolini’s plans for a new Roman Empire. His grandiose ambitions appeared to be more and more out of touch with reality. Few Italian men were willing to die for someone else’s fantasy; which is one reason why Italy’s armies typically chose to run away or surrender rather than fight.

You point out that Italy’s forces started fighting a lot better once Germans took over the leadership roles. But to me, Germans taking command of those forces at least hints at an integration of German and Italian military forces.

I’ll try not to harp on this, especially if the issue’s already been decided. I just wanted to get my two cents in.

As i said before Italy was not prepared to fight a general war in 1940. They feared that if they didn’t get into the fight he would not have any clout at the peace talks. His quote " i need 10,000 deaths to gain a seat at the peace conference…" was a premature attack on the french who he didn’t think would fall so quickly ( i wonder on the other hand why they lasted as long as they did).  Once italy was joined she could only fight short campaigns, somewhat like Hitler and the same argument you bring up could also be argued for the Germans who also weren’t prepared to fight anything other than “campaigns on the cheap”. This eventually bites them in the ass in the Soviet Union. Even Hitlers generals wanted a war latter in 1944.

A 2.1 to .09 (2 to 1) overall economic military advantage of allies over axis could not be compensated by any military means in 1941. The entry of nearly half of the allied total came from USA and that resulted in an insurmountable odds against the axis. Italy ready or not would not compensate this disadvantage. Mussolini was the chief cause of her military misfortunes but not for the reasons you mentioned. Military appointments were largely filled by Il duce himself, who gave these positions to loyal comrades. Also, Il duce wanted his own place under the sun and didn’t want the Germans to gain any credit for any Italian victory. Once it was proven by failure then the German leadership was welcome. The Italians fought well under the DAK so it proves that with some changes they could have offered some resistance. Italian defeats were only realized in the cases where they fought alone without any German input. And that does not undermine the minor axis allies which also fought with bravery and are also represented in AARHE.

Is there a plain version of the rule file, one without the background image?

That sucks up a lot of ink and time.

Potsy.

look under Tekkyys signature. he has it.

Quote
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.
so like this ok?
*red double line for canals and waterways
*green double line for strait interdiction
*dots are on the territories involved

Yes something like this, including map items regarding the Maginot line, Oil symbols, etc.

Quote
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.
I was thinking you shouldn’t be able to leave income just anywhere
hence you have to save at a VC, which is a lot more relaxed then OOB…where you can only save money at the capital
what do you think?

Yes saved at capital. You lose it only when you lose capital. good.
Quote
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
Ok fine as long as its justified we have change it to defender retreat first.
And yes like what you said, trapping units is unrealistic.

ok fine.

Quote
OK under what you already wrote the attacker has the choice to not even move into the new territory.
No they were fighting in the territory. And now they retreated.
Just the normal model of attacker retreat.

Quote
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.
The defender had tactical victory in holding the territory. The attacker had strategic victory in killing the defending forces.

The attacker enters a territory of some 500 sq miles to attack the defending enemy, and the defenders retreat after one battle, while the attackers now see that the defenders are retreating… what do they do? They also retreat! what kind of thing is this?  Thats totally ridiculous. its like two scared animals running away from shadows.

Again it is up to the commanders. I probably wouldn’t retreat entirely. I’ll a bit behind to capture the new territory to stop the defender from getting the income as well as slow enemy advance.

The player that entered a territory must at least leave one unit behind. And the rule forcing defender to declare retreat first makes this possible and also protects the attacker. we want to encourage attacks and not defense. Dynamic vs. Static.

Quote
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.
That could be an undecisive battle.
But in the end if attacker retreat is allowed, then it is allowed.

If the defender retreats for any reason : its not indecisive. If the Germans take Paris after the defender retreats thats decisive.

Quote
Quote
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.

That was a typo. It is meant to be “can’t afford to remain behind”.
And its not the same tanks.

Like this…

Russia attacks Germany with infantry and artillery at the front line, kills most or all of the German forces and then retreats or partially retreats. Why?
Because many Germany tanks are coming in. If Russian forces remained behind they’ll be attacked by the reinforcement and blocked from retreat (AARHE capture roll).

The rule must force the attacker to leave at least one unit in, or this falls into the category of tricks. These rules are meant to remove all tricks as a result of abstractions we create. So we model realistic warfare and remove the opportunity for tricks by both sides. If the attacker makes bogus attacks with no intention of actually capturing territory in an attempt to protect his forces, then we are not doing our jobs. Attack must include the risk of counterattack. What you propose is to protect and create a static battlefield condition.

Attack is Risk, defense is avoidance of risk. If you attack you should be sure you can withstand the counterattack. The "Everybody can leave the attacked territory " thing only makes sence under naval warfare or air warfare.

Oh one thing forgot:

dont forget to add that rule regarding the effects on builds for Factories that suffered SBR runs. This is effected by the IPC

so if the territory has a value of 3 and the total value in builds is x4= 12 IPC, and you bomb this factory for say 4, then you can now only build 8 IPC worth of units in that factory.

Yes something like this, including map items regarding the Maginot line, Oil symbols, etc.
yeah those 1939 specific items are going in the 1939 rules file

But please make them an appendix to the rules so its all in one place. not separate files.

Quote
Yes saved at capital. You lose it only when you lose capital. good.
no I am saying thats what OOB does and is too restrictive
recall we have convoy rules

this is why you save at VCs, or if you want save at any territory
these are the options

Its too micromanagement. it need to be simple. who is gonna deal with placing chips at VC’s to keep track of what they saved?

Quote
what do they do? They also retreat! what kind of thing is this?  Thats totally ridiculous. its like two scared animals running away from shadows.
well you just have to think about why it doesn’t happen in reality and try to model it here

Lets go back to co-existing rules to solve this. only units moving 2 spaces can move out. Infantry is considered engaged and stuck, unless one side totally moves out and defender chooses first.

Quote
The player that entered a territory must at least leave one unit behind. And the rule forcing defender to declare retreat first makes this possible and also protects the attacker. we want to encourage attacks and not defense. Dynamic vs. Static.
yeah thats one solution
at least the unrealistic trapping is limited to one unit
if we can’t think of better we’ll just use this

lets not settle on something this important. come up with a solution as well. I will do the same.

note regarding dynamic vs. static
OOB doesn’t actually encourage attacks because of dangers of trapped units and exposure to counterattack
what happens in OOB is simply “trading” until one side can’t afford to
by not trapping units and allowing defender retreat AARHE is indeed dynamic

yes true, but the defender retreats and the attacker also retreats leaving an empty warzone when 1/2 a million men just fought is totally reckless modeling. Its not realistic at all. The territory the size of Poland is fought over and both side just vanish after combat looks strange.

Quote
The rule must force the attacker to leave at least one unit in, or this falls into the category of tricks. These rules are meant to remove all tricks as a result of abstractions we create.
yeah we’ll use this rule
it strikes a balance between what you and I are trying to have

though this is what player would do anyway, use a token force to capture the territory and stop enemy from getting the income and slow enemy advance

Yes possibly but can another option be better? more thought required on this problem.

But please make them an appendix to the rules so its all in one place. not separate files.
we separated projects from the main rules file
why do you want it together again?
the Appendix is very long already

Yes but its easier to have the files together including the player aids attached to the PDF ( thats 3 battleboards, Victory city, Diplomatic, Technology, 1939 specific rules,1939 set ups, and the general cards. That makes it one large file for print out so people dont have to click on 50 different files to get all sorts of things. Lets make it easy for everybody.

Also the maps all in one large file 3 maps and the 1939 set up map

we don’t have to make the whole AARHE thing centred around the 1939 map

no of course not it. goes on the end. its not the centerpiece.

Quote
Its too micromanagement. it need to be simple. who is gonna deal with placing chips at VC’s to keep track of what they saved?
its really just UK thats has the complexity, the other nations don’t normally have to do it

if you are only allowed to save at London, once it is under blockade the spending at the colonies will be very restrictive
plus it would be like shipping from colonies to London to save and then bring it back to the colonies to spend…

Thats even more of a reason to dump it. It only applies to one case, one nation. whats wrong with “you lose your capital you lose saved IPC?”

Quote
lets not settle on something this important. come up with a solution as well. I will do the same.
its not that bad
as I said leaving one unit is probably what people would do in the restricted case that I like
but yes we can keep thinking about other options

co-occupation can be some work, you have to sit down and really think about it and define all the cases
it is not a one liner
(the way I see it you seem to regularly forget about AARHE rules, probably due to number of parellel projects, so this might not be something you can the time afford to do)

the movement point thing would always force infantry to be stuck
that is going to hurt the dynamic aspect and bring us back to OOB land trading

heres the co-occupation rules again from that ww1 game:

Co-Existing:

1. At land:
When withdrawing from combat, the attacker has the option of remaining in the territory and contesting it instead of withdrawing back to their territory. When contested, forts do not fix, and the value of the territory is halved (rounded up) for both economic worth and production.  Only the original owner gets the income and can produce there at his new reduced value.

While a territory is contested, each side may bring in reinforcements from the outside.  Units are not allowed to move out of the territory to another enemy or contested area without first moving back through a friendly territory (thus units with a movement of two can use one movement point to move to a rear “friendly” space and then move into another combat situation with the second movement point). Railroads do not function in a contested area.

Either side may initiate a battle at any time later by simply declaring an attack.  In this way there may be several battles over a territory, with both sides attacking and falling back.

2. At Sea:
Fleets may coexist in a sea.  However, when a fleet attempts to move, the opposing side may make one attempt to intercept.  If the roll is a 1-2 on a D6 then the fleet will have to fight the enemy ships, forfeiting all movement. Subs do not follow this and may move freely out of the space.

Battleships cannot repair in a contested sea zone.

remember this is verbatim and particular to that game. It needs to be tailored, but it has been extensively play tested and it works

Yes but its easier to have the files together including the player aids attached to the PDF ( thats 3 battleboards, Victory city, Diplomatic, Technology, 1939 specific rules,1939 set ups, and the general cards. That makes it one large file for print out so people dont have to click on 50 different files to get all sorts of things. Lets make it easy for everybody.

I don’t know if thats going to “make it easy for everybody”
attaching player aids will make a huge file and print quality wouldnt be good

one mega file? if the project is done, fixed, all over…then maybe

I have a feeling such a large file won’t be friendly to new players
its like a photo album  sad

I am fine with all player aids in one file though yes lets do that. At least it will be in one file. people can pick and choose what they need.

Quote
Also the maps all in one large file 3 maps and the 1939 set up map
thats bunching the projects together
each project updates at their own rate

Well then put them in one folder with different files ( only the latest files)

Quote
Thats even more of a reason to dump it. It only applies to one case, one nation. whats wrong with “you lose your capital you lose saved IPC?”
its simply a realistic outcome of the model

if Allies control Altantic, UK won’t have to deal with it
if Allies control Pacific, Japan will be in trouble

are you even reading this? you seems to be so hurried

nothing wrong with you lose your capital you lose saved IPC there

How are you accounting for all the saved income at various cities? any method proves cumbersome. If the Allies control the pacific Japan wont be getting income from islands anyway because of the rule ( that should still be in the text) regarding that if you don’t control as path of sea zones from islands to your capital you don’t gain income from these places. Other than that the income is immediately in your treasury  as saved income and only lost if you lose your capital. Once its in your capital as saved income you cant lose it unless you lose the capital.

Quote
Co-Existing
yeah sounds familar
it was bought up some time ago
we’ll try to give it time and work

we’ve been changing a few core things this months
I am a feeling there is much changing and little testing

On this i have tested it, in fact the rules are quite similar in terms of retreats etc. no problems.

If the Allies control the pacific Japan wont be getting income from islands anyway because of the rule ( that should still be in the text) regarding that if you don’t control as path of sea zones from islands to your capital you don’t gain income from these places.
actually its not “to your capital”
its from the income generating territory to where you are spending it
being connected to UK doesn’t mean you can spend it at India for example.

it does not matter how and why the income is exchanged two and from. Only one thing: you don’t collect for income on small islands if the enemy occupies the sea zones around those islands. The islands don’t include Japan, UK, and Australia.

The second idea is saved income is lost if you capital is lost. nothing more needs to be said.

Quote
Other than that the income is immediately in your treasury as saved income and only lost if you lose your capital. Once its in your capital as saved income you cant lose it unless you lose the capital.
you keep repeating the “lose saved income only if you lose the capital” aspect of your rule

I keep repeating this because its the only type of rule that fits what were trying to do. Anything else is too much for people to deal with. I personally would never play it. Its unneeded fluff and adds nothing.

but what do you think of the problem I mentioned?
ie. these income transverse the Altantic twice even though the money is generated and spent at the colonies

that’s not necessarily true. And secondly, its something thats really beyond what were trying to do. This cant turn into something overly complicated where you have to account for where the money came from and where its going to to determine whether specific saved income is lost if you lose a colony. Its simply fixed with the ‘isolation of income’ rule pertaining to islands, so those small islands ( not japan or england, austrialia) don’t give the parent nation income if the sea zones they reside in is occupied by enemy ships. THATS IT. no other rules regarding how income ‘travels’ or how income is saved goes beyond the point of this: you lose the capital you lose saved money. Thats it nothing more.

Its hard enough for people to even get the idea/ concept of paying different amounts for infantry and placement outside of factories. Your arguing for rules that take people away from AARHE. It cant be overly complicated. Just fix MOST of the stupid realism issues that make it too abstracted.

IN fact the light version ( AKA AARHE: for Dummies) which your working on will be a stripped version and under 8 pages of pure text.

Germany blockades UK home island
UK chooses to minimise losses by spending money at the other threatres of war
and then your rule comes in and…

Quote
On this i have tested it, in fact the rules are quite similar in terms of retreats etc. no problems.
I will study the details later
so far I can see it’ll allow stalling
which might leads to more complex rules (for anti-stall)

tune it and post exact rule soon so we can discuss