AARHE: Rule files

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

*all logistic costs paid in advance, refund possible…or even get rid of it
Logistical costs related to attacks only paid in advance— Invasions and Airborne because these are related to attacks.
Movement into Sahara only and no combat can be paid for latter

*no more convoy dice, each unit kills 1 IPC 100% of time…or even disallow money to transverse enemy sea zones the way you are speaking
ships still roll out and still take  1 IPC if they hit. Its very simple. The income lost is subtracted on the players following turn.

*Production Interruption simplified to 1 IPC per cycle…or even get rid of it
Per cycle?  Its easy each ship rolls out whatever the rule says and if it suceeds, then 1 ipc lost by owning player. Thats it.

None of this has any relevance to the saving of income issue. I am not sure why your bringing THESE rules up.

I played it this way and its fine. Their is nothing more to consider. Please make an example of how this income saving issue  at each independent locale ( say territory not land connected to home territory) totally destroys a nation.

You bring up UK and Japan. None of them are effected in any way by isolation rules except if they occupy small islands and these sea zones where the island is is occupied by enemy ships, then they are denied IPC from that source.

The ONLY other thing that effects them is each German ship in the open atlantic or indian ocean ( not in neutral port) takes one potential IPC from Uk or USA these may include subs.

Likewise, USA and UK subs only in Pacific can also harm Japan potentially with a die roll causing 1 IPC damage.

The only difference in the reciprocity of these two items is the allied player can only do this with subs, while the German player can do this with any ship.  Also, if Italy takes the proper measures to get out of Medd. They can also do this.

All these rules used to be in the files but i dont bother to mention them until, now.

For some reason it came up that everybody has some equal opportunity to harm each nation and thats not what historically happened.  To be historical it should reflect the actual abilities of these nations.

Italy is kinda iffy, because Duce didnt have any fuel to sail outside the medd. But Italy is weak anyway and we need to give Germany some effective start for a submarine campaign which is lacking in revised.

logistical costs
I was thinking simpler if all paid in advance
for Sahara, both paid in advance or paid afterwards is reasonable or arguably realistic anyway

ok fine make it so…

you mentioned “movement into Sahara and no combat”
what do you mean? does it make a difference? are you saying you want “no combat” to be paid after, and “yes combat” to be paid in advance?

It does not matter now because we now have it all paid for in advance. never mind

convoy
if not exactly unrealistic, then lets make it hit all the time and save the rolling
like OOB and AARe

yes please simplify and consolidate these rules into a easy to use package.

you mention “subtract following turn”, doesn’t make sense, maybe you misunderstood the rules
they are destroyed and you lost the money this turn, less money to spend

in enemy turn they move into position and then in your turn you are affected, not later

your correct meant this turn.

production interruption
you misunderstood
I am referring to the rule named “production interruption”
(after 3 cycles of land combat, territory income reduced, table lookup for damage)

Yes thats correct, thats another rule that we keep yes.

I am saying we could simplify it to in each cycle of land combat cause damage, effectively a 1 IPC SBR

well it it removes yet another thing to look up and index then it would be better. I IPC i could go for. sounds like a winner Tekkyy. do it.

Quote
You bring up UK and Japan. None of them are effected in any way by isolation rules except if they occupy small islands and these sea zones where the island is is occupied by enemy ships, then they are denied IPC from that source.

The ONLY other thing that effects them is each German ship in the open atlantic or indian ocean ( not in neutral port) takes one potential IPC from Uk or USA these may include subs.

Likewise, USA and UK subs only in Pacific can also harm Japan potentially with a die roll causing 1 IPC damage.
here you seems to be talking in a blend of rules
by “isolation rules” are you referring to your

This was a good rule and it should not have been thrown away. Also, as i remember the German subs and ships dont actually cause USA damage, only the aid of lend lease that flows to either UK or USSR is damaged… the American economy was not dependent on its few colonies

Quote
f you don’t control as path of sea zones from islands to your capital you don’t gain income from these places
?
it in conflict with “causing 1 IPC damage” which is under “convoy sea zone” heading in current rules

They can both work. The fact that German ships are in these sea zones reduces income, the fact that American or British or even Japanese ships control the sea zone that surrounds the small island also denys income to that owning player. This is historical modeling.

anyway I am saying since UK and Japan is scattered
they are affected the most if saving has to be done at Capital
saved IPC would be raided twice, strangely

How are they effected? they ONLY lose the saved income if the home territory is captured. That would be the end of the game for each of them in practical terms. They are also protected by the fact that they are islands and cant be assaulted by connected land territories. They have a great advantage. Their is nothing strange about it.

YOU ONLY LOSE SAVED INCOME IF YOU HOME CAPITAL FALLS. NOTHING CAN BE RAIDED UNLESS YOU LOSE YOUR CAPITAL WHICH IS BASICALLY LOSING THE GAME.

or are you saying saving mechanism can skip the convoy sea zone rule?

OMG. lets get past this. Its a non-issue. Its not even related to that.

path
finally I remind what we have a path system
because convoy raid not related to production, or not related to actual shipping, is silly

This makes no sence to me what your saying.

forget path system unless it relates to “isolation of small islands” because those German ships/ subs and UK/ USA pacific subs only take income from the enemy if these ships make their saving roll as per our rules.

also please post a non-PDF version ( Microsoft word)

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20080226_AARHE.pdf
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20080226_AARHE_clear.pdf

page 38 is not working.

also i know you strive for perfection, but too much space is wasted on these sheets. Its not a crime to use the space more efficiently and bring together parts on the same page. The document was way under 50 pages, but its back up to 57 from like 42 pages. smaller the better, but not squashed up

Quote
This was a good rule and it should not have been thrown away. Also, as i remember the German subs and ships dont actually cause USA damage, only the aid of lend lease that flows to either UK or USSR is damaged… the American economy was not dependent on its few colonies

America is not scattered
under the system Axis can’t really hardly hit them via convoy.

I know they hit the lend lease payments and uk Income…just like the war

Quote
How are they effected? they ONLY lose the saved income if the home territory is captured.
Quote
OMG. lets get past this. Its a non-issue. Its not even related to that.
you misunderstood what I meant

IPC is in the bank can’t be convoy raided
convoy raid happens in the sea

the double dip happens because you are forcing them to save at the Capital
turn 1, UK collects money and saves them at London…it makes a run through Altantic and gets hit once
turn 2, UK builds a ship with the money at Australia…it makes a run through Altantic again and gets hit second time

anyway, if you are fine with the inconvenience that we’ll let saving at Capital only

But in any event they lose income on their next turn. The income is reduced from the collect income phase.

Quote
They can both work. The fact that German ships are in these sea zones reduces income, the fact that American or British or even Japanese ships control the sea zone that surrounds the small island also denys income to that owning player. This is historical modeling.

Just that if one rule could do it already, then its simpler.
“convoy sea zone” is more generic and in a sense covers it all.

In the actual war the Soviets had no shipping they depended on other than lend lease, USA didnt depend on shipping for its economy, but UK and Japan specifically required most of its resources to be imported. They can then be interdicted on the high seas, and we simply model this with the roll out and losing 1 ipc for each ship in open shipping lanes. Thats simple enough.

Its just 1 unit destroys 1 IPC. (getting rid of the roll like OOB and AARe as I think you agreed earlier in the same post)

Quote
This makes no sence to me what your saying
sorry typo, instead of “what we have a path system” meant to be “why we have a path system”
Quote
forget path system unless it relates to “isolation of small islands”
hm, actually path system is basic, generic, and naturally applies to other areas

in the land, was the pioneer of the whole thing
mid 2006, at the beginning of the project it was called “blockade”

Code:

Blockade
During collect income phase if a territory is completely surrounded by hostile/neutral territories and/or hostile sea zones, the territory is under blockade.
The blockaded territory’s income can only be spent in its own VC or IC. Income from other territories may not be spent in the blockaded territory’s VC or IC.
Regions under blockade only receives, at best, maintenance supplies via air.

That has been changed from before. It excluded large islands and it also didn’t have that last sentence with makes no sence at all. Also, it did not apply to land locked territories. Thats like saying Finland and norway dont give money to Germany if the soviets occupy Karelia.

This rule of blockade was only pertaining to small islands, to encourage island hopping campaign against japan.

Quote
also please post a non-PDF version ( Microsoft word)
I’ll see what I can do
I presume no need to remind you why I moved away from msword

Yes i know thanks!

Quote
also i know you strive for perfection, but too much space is wasted on these sheets. Its not a crime to use the space more efficiently and bring together parts on the same page.
yeah Latex stops sections from breaking and causing space
I’ll try to tweak

ok good.

Let me say that at times i am not too kind in my own way of posting, but i assure you that you hold my utmost respect and admiration for doing this most crucial work. You are a true comrade indeed.

But in any event they lose income on their next turn. The income is reduced from the collect income phase.
I suppose, like last time, you meant “this turn”

so I’ve already say ok to save at capital only
one last thing though, it means at game start money in China can’t be saved at all

Oh yes exception. Starting income is issued before the game starts, so players have at least the starting money.

and since it was repeated a few times
currently, there is actually one more way to losing saved IPC besides losing capital
it is SBR/rocket (no negative income but excess is applied to saved IPC)

right thats good.

Quote
They can then be interdicted on the high seas, and we simply model this with the roll out and losing 1 ipc for each ship in open shipping lanes. Thats simple enough.
so to confirm, the generic convoy rule is enough right?
no need for island isolation rule
no need to specify which nation (US and USSR in practice won’t be hit)

we have both the High seas rule and the blockade rule that applies to small islands inside one sea zone. These are different ideas and are also linked as ways to attack nations by economic warfare, like SBR

lastly, also want to confirm whether you are happy with getting rid of the roll so its like OOB and AARe
simply 1 IPC per hostile naval unit (except for transport)

On this its up to you. I would prefer the roll out rather than “you just reduce no matter what”, in fact id really prefer a roll out where you can get lucky…  roll 1-2= nothing, 3-4=1 ipc lost, 5-6=2 ipc lost…something like this. perhaps just the 6 result gets you 3 ipc  roll 1-2= nothing, 3-4=1 ipc lost, 5=2 ipc lost 6=3 ipc lost

its up to you. Please post when finished. then we work on AARHE light.

Note: now the eyes will be looking at our creation more because its very similar in scope to the new Axis and Allies Anniversary edition. People like previews to movies and AARHE is the closest thing to that. Lets finish up and post ASAP>

Oh yes exception. Starting income is issued before the game starts, so players have at least the starting money.
actually due to collect income being at the start of the turn, you do not collect money during game setup anymore
of you would have 200% money to spend on 1st turn

just in case you don’t know what I mean about China
if Japan takes China, with Sinkiang left its only 2 IPC
you can’t build an infantry with 2 IPC, and it can’t be saved, so it’ll be lost ok?

Your talking about phase 1-2 maps, i’m talking about 39 map specifically, but that what happens in that version because that map has only 2 Chinese territory’s. Nothing can really help it with just one infantry anyway, because soviets cant enter China except to liberate Japanese from it. So they take one on J1 and take finish it on turn j2, Soviets then come in and retake and get the income. yes its ok.

Quote
we have both the High seas rule and the blockade rule that applies to small islands inside one sea zone. These are different ideas and are also linked as ways to attack nations by economic warfare, like SBR
an “isolated” East Indices or Borneo should still be able to spend money on itself right?
so the isolation rule shouldn’t stop the island from generating IPC but stop it from sending IPC out

hence its quite similar to convoy rule
the difference is just 1 IPC per unit rather than 1 unit stops all

yes yes.

Quote
On this its up to you. I would prefer the roll out rather than “you just reduce no matter what”, in fact id really prefer a roll out where you can get lucky…
ok then lets not roll, to be in familiar ground with OOB and AARe
(dice value divided by 2 is quite a lot really, thats average 2 IPC per unit)

ok fine

Quote
Please post when finished. then we work on AARHE light.
yeah we can finish up if we can go without the co-occupation rule

Well if we not use this then we must remove the part where neither side occupies a territory where a huge battle took place ( the retreat of both sides idea) Then ill let the Co-OP rule die.

what you think?

Quote
hence its quite similar to convoy rule
the difference is just 1 IPC per unit rather than 1 unit stops all
yes yes.

by saying its similar I am saying this is why I think we don’t need the separate isolation rule

the convoy rule applies where isolation applies anyway

1 unit to stop all might be too poweful anyway?

Okinawa, 1 IPC, 1 naval unit to stop IPC from leaving the island
Phillipine Islands, 3 IPC, need 3 naval units to stop IPC from leaving the island

Not correct. If the allies control the sea zone with just one ship ( not tranny) the ipc cannot be collected by say japan.

plus each US sub or uk sub in the pacific takes one ipc off japan. So japan needs to protect the sea zones that surround her Japanese holdings.

Quote
If the allies control the sea zone with just one ship ( not tranny) the ipc cannot be collected by say japan.
if UK controls East Indices Sea zone
the 4 IPC in East Indices can still be spent on East Indices itself right?

if yes, then its quite similar to the convoy sea zone rule and we won’t need explicitly say a isolation rule for islands

if not, then I feel its too powerful…one naval unit to stop all 4 IPC from Borneo?

Yes one ship can stop the IPC from flowing from Borneo to japan or another Japanese factory. Japan must protect her shipping lanes with a picket line of warships. Remember they don’t have to attack the Soviets in the 39 version.

In the other versions, this is what happened, and remember only UK/ USA subs in Pacific can do the 1 ipc thing.
Do you think Japanese subs should be able to take off UK income in Indian/ pacific?

Their is a reason why we never attacked Borneo, because this was heavily guarded by Japan because it was valuable. it must be this way in the game too. It will create a real American commitment to the pacific to stop the Japanese.

Quote
plus each US sub or uk sub in the pacific takes one ipc off japan. So japan needs to protect the sea zones that surround her Japanese holdings.
I guess you are referring to a specific case of convoy sea zone rule
the convoy sea zone rule is generic, logical, and not arbitrary

This convoy sea rule is the thing we were talking about regarding the german subs and ships in atlantic reducing 1 ipc from uk or lend lease aid, and UK/ USA subs in pacific reducing Japan by 1 ipc, then yes its the same rule.

Phase 1: Collect Income

Income
Add up values of territories and subtract loses due to economic attacks in enemy’s last turn. No territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Production Interruption
A territory’s income is reduced if it was attacked last turn. For every cycle of combat the income is reduced by 1 IPC.

Logistics
Pay 1 IPC for every unit to be offloaded in amphibious assault or airborne drop []. Pay 1 IPC for every land unit to enter desert terrain or remain on a transport at end of the turn. The amount is refunded if these actions do not happen.

Spend or Save
IPC to be spent must have a path from the original territory to the destination territory. IPC to be saved must have a path from the original territory to your capital. IPC that are not spent and not saved is forfeited. This also applies to lend-lease.

Lend-Lease
US player may send up to 12 IPC Allies between Soviet Union and or UK.

IPC Path
A path can consist of territories which your land units may go through as well as any sea zones. It can enter the sea from the original or adjacent territory, then uses the shortest path via sea to the destination territory or your capital. A closed canal [] and Strait Interdiction [] prevents the IPC path.

you should explain these terms at some level, rather than introducing a new idea… people don’t follow what your saying when you just drop these terms and provide no explanation whatsoever. All the rules that bring up something must either 1) tell you were to find out more info ( the page #) or 2) explain the idea in the next section

Convoy Sea Zone attacks
**German surface warships and submarines can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if they are at war).

British and American submarines only can also reduce Japans income by 1 IPC for each submarine located in the Pacific, within 1 sea zone of any Japanese controlled territory.**

I really have no idea why this cant be written. Its totally clear what the hell were talking about. What you wrote could mean anything. Anybody who read this ONE time would never forget it. The way you write its like a head scratch from reading a IRS form.

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone on a path* is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone. Exception applies if its an island sea zone,
where each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC.

No no no.

replace that with this:

German surface warships and submarines can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if they are at war).

British and American submarines only can also reduce Japans income by 1 IPC for each submarine located in the Pacific, within 1 sea zone of any Japanese controlled territory.

USSR cant build a ship and reduce German income
Italy cant reduce American income

PLEASE STOP WITH THIS THING WHERE YOU NEED TO WRITE IN SUCH A GENERIC FASHION AND NOBODY KNOWS THAT IS IS A RULE FOR SPECIAL CASES AND DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERYBODY.

Its not at all the case where anybody can attack anybody on the high seas. Its only a Germany thing against UK/lend lease and a UK/USA sub thing against Japanese holdings within a sea zone.

Its too harsh against Italy in the 1939 scanario, and its too harsh against UK if Italy can do this, and Its too harsh for the Soviet to use their fleet to attack german IPC, Its too harsh for USA and UK to build a fleet and do this against the Japanese.

Secondly, where does this 4x thing come from???

My god!

This is what you will write:

In the first case convoy disruption:

German surface warships and submarines can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if they are at war).

British and American submarines only can also reduce Japans income by 1 IPC for each submarine located in the Pacific, within 1 sea zone of any Japanese controlled territory.

In the second case naval blockade:

Any island that is inside of a sea zone can be economically isolated by direct occupation by enemy surface forces. The owning player is deprived of income until he removes this threat with air/naval combat.

thats it nothing else.

Do you think Japanese subs should be able to take off UK income in Indian/ pacific?
indeed
if Allies take Borneo, they too need to protect the Borneo sea zone

ok expand then the rule to include German ships in any ocean zone, and expand to include the Japanese can attack and be attacked in Indian ocean.

Economic Attacks
A territory’s income can be reduced due to economic attacks [ on page 14] in enemy’s last turn. No
territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Production Interruption
A territory’s income is reduced if it was attacked last turn. For every cycle of combat the income is reduced
by 1 IPC. No territory’s income can be reduced below zero.

Logistics
Pay 1 IPC for every unit to be offloaded in amphibious assaut or airborne drop [ on page 6]. Pay 1 IPC for
every land unit to enter desert terrain or remain on a transport at end of the turn. The amount is refunded if
these actions do not happen.

Spend or Save
IPC to be spent must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (Industrial Complex or
Victory City). IPC to be saved must have a path* from the original territory to the destination (your capital).
This also applies to lend-lease. IPC that are not spent and not saved for any reason is forfeited.
*A path is a chain of territories your units may go through. It may also consist of sea zones, entering the sea
from the original territory or adjacent territory and leaving the sea at the destination. It may not go through
enemy controlled canals and waterways [ on page 8] and enemy controlled straits [ on page 7]. Stalinist
Xenophobia [ on page 8] and Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation [ on page 8] applies.

Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone on a path* is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
Damage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone. Exception applies if its an island sea zone,
where each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC.

Lend-Lease
US may send IPC to Soviet Union and/or UK. A combined total of up to 12 IPC can be sent.

ok this is better.