True, but it also represents the other German cruisers on the loose in the Pacific, South Atlantic & and Indian Oceans that cannot be represented. These were a serious concern for the Allies until eliminated.
AARHE: Rule files
-
on a path*
- what does “on a path mean”
ok instead of “on a path*” I should say “part of a path*”
come on
you saw the *
it is explained at the *, no ?*A path is a chain of territories your units may go through. It may also consist of sea zones…
Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC.
2) so everybody who has a naval unit can kill one ipc from the enemy. This means that Soviet ship that survives can take one ipc from Germany every turn costing about 13 IPC per game. Thats not historical.you asked already and I answered already
it doesn’t happenI self quote
soviets hitting Germany? that would be very late game…Germany is just like US and USSR…the start up situation is one lump of land…hardly any shipping (besides US lend-lease)
maybe you don’t understand this
the rule don’t let you park your naval units at home (eg. Baltic) and start destroying enemy IPCs
you have to be located where you can hit shipping (eg. Altantic) and even then you can’t hit non-existent shippingDamage is applied to IPC going through the convoy sea zone
- damage? going thru what now? What does going thru mean?
damage is referring to the last setence (the 1 IPC)
instead of “damage is applied” I’ll say “this this applied”
“going thru the convoy sea zone”…I’ll word it differently…“going via the path”
read the * if you haven’t already- OMG what is he getting out now? he just said it destroys one ipc, and the next sentence he says it destroys 4 ipc. Which is it?
maybe you didn’t see it but it says Exception applies if its an island sea zone
so its normally 1 IPC
but for islands, isolating them is easier, so its 4 IPCanyway I’ll make word it as “4 IPC instead”
This is a true attempt to obfuscate the reader and please some idea about ‘rule Lawyers’
This is for normal people, not those types.its not like that
LHTR increased the level of satisfaction for both normal people and rule lawyersif rule lawyers find something wrong, it is only a few more games before normal player would complain too
but it seems you dont yet understand the functionalities aspect
after you misunderstand the rule, you’ll be able to sugguest how to change the wording_Spending or Saving IPC
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 [] and enemy controlled straits []. Stalinist Xenophobia [] and Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation [] applies.Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone part of a path* [see Spend or Save] is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC. This is applied to IPC going via the path. Exception applies if it is an island sea zone, then each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC instead._ -
A)
Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone part of a path* [see Spend or Save] is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 1 IPC. This is applied to IPC going via the path. Exception applies if it is an island sea zone, then each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC instead.Spending or Saving IPC
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 [] and enemy controlled straits []. Stalinist Xenophobia [] and Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation [] applies.B)
Convoy disruption:
German surface warships and submarines located in the Atlantic or Indian ocean can reduce 1 IPC from the British player directly, or Lend Lease aid that is sent to either Britain or the Soviet Union ( if the latter is 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.
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 by eliminating the enemy naval threat.So the question becomes which A or B makes the idea more clear on whats going on in the game?
I choose B
If i saw A: I would 1) i would either stop reading AARHE or 2)not play with that rule.
If anybody is reading this besides us please vote on which sounds easier to figure out>
-
B) is purely about naval
A) has other rules in itbut saying I choose B are you saying you want to get rid of the land restrictions?
business as usual when a territory goes under blockade? I hope notyou’ve voiced concerns about existing system being unrealistic, I’ve answered them and explained to you why what you said can’t happen…because the rule is logical and keeps it real
(eg. US is one lump of territory, so don’t worry! you can’t really hurt them in convoy raiding unless US takes more islands, even then its proportional, you can’t BANKRUPT the US by hitting one small island like Hawaii)I don’t know what you stopped the discussion
has my last post has addressed all concerns you had and you have no more concerns?lets be productive
its simple
1. decide on the functionality
2. adjust the wordingif you want
after we decide on the functionality, YOU write the wording ok?
If I saw B) I also would not play the rule
its like OOB German NA
the arbitrary nature of the rule makes this…*US controls Phillipines and has a fleet at z49, Japan does not have enough force to take it but blockades Phillipines by controling surrounding sea zones…somehow nothing happens, Phillipines IPC unrestrictively goes towards US home
*Japan takes Madagascar, far away from Japanese colonies UK has 5 submarines adjacent to it, they hit Japan for 5 IPC per turn
*5 Germany destroyers at South America (the other sideof the globe) hits UK shipping and lend-lease for 5 IPC per turn
damage should be related to shipping, you can’t just BANKRUPT a player by hitting non-existent shipping
been there, done that
this is why we created the AARHE convoy system (from 2006) in the first place, how can you forget?
it keeps convoy raiding true to actual shippingits logical+flexible rather than arbitrary+static
so not only is it more realistic, but if the game turns out different to actual WWII…the rule continues on and no funny situations -
Ok lets have you finish everything and we will have a look.
Make sure to add the 1939 set up and include one extra UK infantry in India and Transjordan
Also give the US player one destroyer to the south west of Hawaii to block Japanese from going from the south to attack the American carrier group. ( its a block)
Give France 2 extra Infantry in france.
Thats the balanced fix on the setup.
-
Ok lets have you finish everything and we will have a look.
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080303_AARHE.pdf
Still open to idea on simplifications. But prefer rules that remains realistic even if players fought differently to history.
For AARHE for dummies, methodology is important.
At this stage my take is that dummies should be both for simpler gameplay as well as potential stepping stone to full AARHE.
That means it should be a subset rather than a modification.First we decide which phase and victory condition to disable.
Then inside the phases that remains we decide which heading/paragraph to disable.Make sure to add the 1939 set up
last time we discussed packaging files together we’ve only agreed on
*player aids in 1 file
*all of a particular variant in 1 fileI did not come to agreement with
*putting 1939, 1941, 1942 Italy, and future maps info in the main rules filethe reasoning was…
Earlier I spend some time to achieve your other request of shrinking the document and its now just 30 pages.
(20 pages excluding NA and NVC)
Lets continue to have the 1939 variant rules (and 1942 Italy…and other future maps…) separate from main rules file to not ruin that.Adding 1939 setups (and 1941 and 1942 Italy and other future maps…) to the main rules file is going to make the document long again.
Also its better to have the 1939 setups next to the 1939 rules isn’t there anyway. So I feel they should be inside the variant’s rules file.
Thats the balanced fix on the setup.
AARHE 1939 discussion back to AARHE 1939 thread.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10338.msg284049#msg284049 -
ok thats fine.
-
I’ve placed the player aids in one folder.
Its listed in the 1st post.
-
OK then its looks great BTW.
Now we work on AARHE: Light
Objective is rules in under 10 pages ( not including NA’s)
what ideas should be included:
I think the new pieces included
historical diplomacy ( neutrals become allies on set turn)
Historical tech ( same thing as above)
Defender retreat
simplify ASW rules
victory cities used ( no historical Victory conditions)
Some air missions dumped / modified
In combat normal allocations
Keep dogfights separate until sky is cleared
Naval combat having some simplifications
ON builds no variable costs except each player can build a set number of infantry at 2 ipc
Keep Strategic Redeployment -
we should keep the discussion simple and work purely in "heading"s
avoiding modifications, cos that’ll make transition to full AARHE confusing
(also we want to avoid arguing over rules, I mean we are not making to a new rule set…we are making AARHE Lite)actually its “Lite” not “Light” right?
10 pages is still discouraging to new players
how about 5 pages?
(National Advantages and Strategic Redployment are optional anyway, so I think they shouldn’t be included)we start with BLANK and here we go…
stage 1 - game sequence - I believe we are in agreement, if nothing this stage is complete
*VCs, win via VCs
*all axis followed by all allies, and special Russia openingstage 2 - turn sequence
I am thinking same as AARHE except no diplomacy phase
neutrals joining at set turn can quite funny, so migh as well leave them outstage 3 - individual game phases
we must not spoil ourselves and add everything
must be distinctly simpler from full AARHE
I am thinking we’ll take turns to nominate 1 or 2 headings at a time
each turn you really have to ask yourself what do you think is the most important…and then nominate it -
how about 5 pages?
That would be like a holy grail. Lets aim for like 5-8 pages.
Ill compile some things and post. Lets leave out the neutrals unless its the 1939 version which should be historically scripted dip. and tech.
It can be Lite or Light. In fact your in charge of what its called.
The idea is to taste a weak version of many of the ideas written in 6th grade English so anybody can understand it. No explanations or references, each idea is self contained so you don’t need to cross reference. Lets keep the headlined concepts in and leave out chrome.
It should be able to be read in 20 minutes.
-
Ill compile some things and post.
wait
don’t you want to do it like how I proposed it?it’ll be selection simple and robust
to let “Lite” be a stepping stone to AARHE
we need an easy transition to full AARHE
that means modifications only when its really neccessaryminimal changes, merely select rules to have
I’ve copied the index to an excel file
fill it in and we then compare our ranks -
I had more playtesting recently. Hosted two sessions at home. These players were new to Axis and Allies.
Now I am yet more feelings.Logistic costs are quite expensive. Maybe 1 IPC per land unit in amphibious assault is too much.
How about 1 IPC per transport instead?I noticed Capture of defender’s retreating army to not affect gameplay much. You roll for each tank in excess of defender at 1…just doesn’t do much. Could consider removing it.
Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement has complex restrictions, and we are talking about a passive turn decision. Currently there is one cycle delay and if defender does not survive first cycle then its too late combat is over and the reinforcement have to go back where they came from. Now then you have to remember those units as they can’t do non-combat reinforcement.
We have defender retreat already, so its not too bad to not allow land units ability to reinforce.
I recall you didn’t like it much anyway.Air reinforcement (DAS) remains. But I am thinking to remove the delay (there is delay only when relocating from 2 spaces away). Or, only allow DAS a range of 1 (instead of the current 2).
Counter Air (CA) mission was actually used by people. Recall CA stops the defending air units from relocating to a different territory.
Was it the intention that those defending air units can defending in the current territory?eg. UK performs CA mission at SEU so German air units at SEU can’t relocate to defend WEU. Now, if UK also invades SEU should the German air units at SEU be occupied by UK’s CA mission or should they be able to defend SEU?
Ground Interdiction (GI) mission was almost not touched. It can be removed if we go ahead and remove the land units combat reinforcement.
The simplified Naval Combat Sequence (from discussion season end of last year resulting in removal of screening and other bits) was under test. People still had a hard time getting the naval combat seqeuence.
This one will require a discussion season of its own when we do nothing else about AARHE but this.I also wonder if In Amphibious Assault can be a bit simply. Its not thre sequence here. Its how only infantry fight in first cycle. Attacker needs to surive first cycle to offload tanks and artillery for second cycle. Its realistic to say they must secure the beach before offloading tanks but then again you wonder if its too tactical / below level of abstract.
Arillery firing in opening-fire and infrastructure defence raising infantry defence by 1 is already giving defender nice bonus. -
Logistic costs are quite expensive. Maybe 1 IPC per land unit in amphibious assault is too much.
How about 1 IPC per transport instead?==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?
I noticed Capture of defender’s retreating army to not affect gameplay much. You roll for each tank in excess of defender at 1…just doesn’t do much. Could consider removing it.
============= im working on something and i also have this opinion. Lets get rid of it, but i propose this to replace it:
If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.
Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement has complex restrictions, and we are talking about a passive turn decision. Currently there is one cycle delay and if defender does not survive first cycle then its too late combat is over and the reinforcement have to go back where they came from. Now then you have to remember those units as they can’t do non-combat reinforcement.
We have defender retreat already, so its not too bad to not allow land units ability to reinforce.
I recall you didn’t like it much anyway.============== thank god almighty you finally see my point!. Get rid of this idea ASAP. God i really hated it, but allowed it to remain because im a team player. I am sending you the Iron Cross with oak leaves direct from Berlin HQ
Air reinforcement (DAS) remains. But I am thinking to remove the delay (there is delay only when relocating from 2 spaces away). Or, only allow DAS a range of 1 (instead of the current 2).
=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.
Counter Air (CA) mission was actually used by people. Recall CA stops the defending air units from relocating to a different territory.
Was it the intention that those defending air units can defending in the current territory?================ Yes they can also perform defense. But only one offensive air mission and CA is one such operation. Im glad they see the value in this form of combat. Remember they fight at Air dogfight values.
eg. UK performs CA mission at SEU so German air units at SEU can’t relocate to defend WEU. Now, if UK also invades SEU should the German air units at SEU be occupied by UK’s CA mission or should they be able to defend SEU?
==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.
Ground Interdiction (GI) mission was almost not touched. It can be removed if we go ahead and remove the land units combat reinforcement.
================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.
The simplified Naval Combat Sequence (from discussion season end of last year resulting in removal of screening and other bits) was under test. People still had a hard time getting the naval combat seqeuence.
This one will require a discussion season of its own when we do nothing else about AARHE but this.===== ok lets start one. Post how you like it revised and we will trim it.
I also wonder if In Amphibious Assault can be a bit simply. Its not the sequence here. Its how only infantry fight in first cycle. Attacker needs to surive first cycle to offload tanks and artillery for second cycle. Its realistic to say they must secure the beach before offloading tanks but then again you wonder if its too tactical / below level of abstract.
Arillery firing in opening-fire and infrastructure defence raising infantry defence by 1 is already giving defender nice bonus.=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.
post it and we will have a look.
I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE
AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION…
Map is 85% done.
I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.
-
@Imperious:
==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?
The invasion is amphibious assault.
Doesn’t matter how many landed. The current rule is 1 IPC per land unit.You asked where was it landed.
Are you considering making it different?Could make it…
no cost for normal terrain. 1 IPC for mountainous terrain (and then get rid of mountainous offload limit).============= im working on something and i also have this opinion. Lets get rid of it, but i propose this to replace it:
ok so we remove Capture of defender’s retreating army
If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.
Well there is a problem with letting Armor attack another space. It breaks the game mechanics of each unit only fighting in one space per turn.
*if armor can attack multiple spaces per turn, then why not air units?
*it could get in the way of defender retreats, requiring more complexity to the ruleAs you see if we break that game mechanics, it could gets messy.
============== thank god almighty you finally see my point!. Get rid of this idea ASAP. God i really hated it, but allowed it to remain because im a team player. I am sending you the Iron Cross with oak leaves direct from Berlin HQ
hehe yep, Combat Reinforcement: Land Reinforcement is no more
=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.
I go for only adjacent planes can DAS
(rule is so much simpler not having to describe what happens in the different outcomes due to delay)
================ Yes they can also perform defense.
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.
ah yes
even though we are removing combat reinforcement of land units, it can still stop non-combat reinforcement===== ok lets start one. Post how you like it revised and we will trim it.
ok next thing to do
(one thing could be get rid of allocating air units to CAP/naval attack/ASW
air units in naval combat shall always dogfight if both sides has air units)=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.
post it and we will have a look.ok next thing to do
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHE
AXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION….
Map is 85% done.
I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.
Well its in Latex now. So I can give you a simple text file. A nice word file would take time me to format.
Alternative we could look into PDF editor (eg. Adobe) or Postscript editor (another output of Latex).Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord. -
Quote from: Imperious Leader on March 23, 2008, 04:22:12 pm
==== What type of invasion occured? where and how much was landed? Did the landing team get to keep its territory or was it a ‘hit and run’?
The invasion is amphibious assault.
Doesn’t matter how many landed. The current rule is 1 IPC per land unit.You asked where was it landed.
Are you considering making it different?Could make it…
no cost for normal terrain. 1 IPC for mountainous terrain (and then get rid of mountainous offload limit).I just want to know if this was a real invasion or you just landed to exchange a few pieces with the enemy and get pushed off. That type of thing is not what were after and as a tactic were trying to cut out. Invasions need to be a major undertaking where a substantial investment is offered and the goal is victory. In ww2 if Normany failed the allies would take 2-3 years to regroup and make another effort. it would have been disaster. This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.
Quote
If you capture a territory from the defender and you have armor ( units moving 2 spaces) and they only moved 1 space to enter combat, then they should be allowed to move and attack units in adjacent territory’s. This would be blitzkreig.
Well there is a problem with letting Armor attack another space. It breaks the game mechanics of each unit only fighting in one space per turn.*if armor can attack multiple spaces per turn, then why not air units?
*it could get in the way of defender retreats, requiring more complexity to the ruleAs you see if we break that game mechanics, it could gets messy.
ok nevermind. lets junk it.
Quote
=============== Lets make the range only adjacent planes can DAS. or we can say planes adjacent come on round 2, planes 2 spaces away come in round 3.
I go for only adjacent planes can DAS(rule is so much simpler not having to describe what happens in the different outcomes due to delay)
ok adjacent then.
Quote
================ Yes they can also perform defense.
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)\one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player
so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.
Quote
==== thats what CA is. CA is an attempt to crush enemy planes. surviving planes can STILL perform DAS missions.Its just a forced dogfight.
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turnThats a mistake. they should be allowed.
Quote
================= You must try it. Its very valuable to prevent the reinforcement of the counterattack, especially when you have invaded and don’t want to get pushed off the continent by an attack.
ah yes
even though we are removing combat reinforcement of land units, it can still stop non-combat reinforcementyes and you also know that would be its mission on that turn. those planes cannot perform other missions. Its fair. Its basically the rule from AA D-day, but scripted for strategic game.
Quote
=======================ok we can reduce this to one simple sequence, but let defending artillery first in each round.
post it and we will have a look.
ok next thing to do
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?
Quote
I am working on a new version using these rules for Axis and Allies Europe. Your part of this naturally. WE call it AAEHEAXIS AND ALLIES EUROPE HISTORICAL EDITION….
Map is 85% done.
I need the rules in word file sent ASAP. I will make the first effort to get things started and you will finish.
Well its in Latex now. So I can give you a simple text file. A nice word file would take time me to format.
Alternative we could look into PDF editor (eg. Adobe) or Postscript editor (another output of Latex).Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.Send me whatever you got so i can get it on my page, plus links for lyx or whatever its called.
-
@Imperious:
I just want to know if this was a real invasion or you just landed to exchange a few pieces with the enemy and get pushed off. That type of thing is not what were after and as a tactic were trying to cut out.
thats ok
in AARHE you don’t want to “get pushed off”
you pay 1 IPC for land units to end the turn on a transportThis game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player
you might be thinking of old rules
DAS is no longer an air missions but rather a simple relocation
(it is called air reinforcement to distinguish it from CA/SBR/GI air missions)this is because current DAS rule is merely a relocation of air units
hence I might as well remove the DAS word all together(in the old days DAS air units has to return to original territory
but that required a paragraph of complex rules to cater for battle outcomes and to fit into other rules like defender retreat
so now DAS simply gets to you relocate your air units)so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turnThats a mistake. they should be allowed.
I mean like this…
during active turn, air units that perform CA/SBR/GI OR normal combat (1 thing)
this is so units fight in one space per turn
also this is so we don’t end up with sort of two combat phases (to resolve air missions and then to resolve normal combat)during passive turn, air units perform normal combat only (1 thing)
unless it was targeted by CA, where it then additionally performs dogfighting against CA air units (2 things)yes and you also know that would be its mission on that turn. those planes cannot perform other missions. Its fair. Its basically the rule from AA D-day, but scripted for strategic game.
yeah idea came from D-Day
though its a bit different
you don’t kill units and you don’t have the strange leave your units in enemy territory thing(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)
Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?
or how about all attacking land units fight at 1 on first round?
and by the way we still let defending artillery fire in opening-fire on first round
Or, you can use the program I am using. Lyx. Its a GUI for Latex.
So the program looks like a word processor like MsWord.Send me whatever you got so i can get it on my page, plus links for lyx or whatever its called.
I’ll emailyou a doc file for now.
(I got a pdf2doc program and converted it.)Latex’ll require some learning. But its the ultimate document preparing system. Books are written with it.
You’ll need to install Miktek (a Tex engine for windows) and Lyx (a GUI latex editor).
Miktek http://miktex.org/Setup.aspx
Lyx http://www.lyx.org/download/ -
Quote
This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.Quote
note thats means attacking CA air units perform one thing (a cycle dogfight against the defending air units)
while those defending air units perform two things (the dogfight plus normal combat in the territory)
one mission on the active turn and one mission as the passive player====== Planes fighting dogfights and then defending or attacking is not two missions. Its part of the same mission except your clearing the sky of planes before your hits count against land targets. Thats still the same mission.
DAS is no longer an air missions but rather a simple relocation
(it is called air reinforcement to distinguish it from CA/SBR/GI air missions)this is because current DAS rule is merely a relocation of air units
hence I might as well remove the DAS word all together(in the old days DAS air units has to return to original territory
but that required a paragraph of complex rules to cater for battle outcomes and to fit into other rules like defender retreat
so now DAS simply gets to you relocate your air units)DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military
Quote
Quote
so the attacking CA air units perform less than the defending air units
is that weird?
no this is not correct. those attacking planes doing CA can also perform DAS when they are passive on the other players turn.
Quote
Quote
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn
Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.I mean like this…
during active turn, air units that perform CA/SBR/GI OR normal combat (1 thing)
this is so units fight in one space per turn
also this is so we don’t end up with sort of two combat phases (to resolve air missions and then to resolve normal combat)during passive turn, air units perform normal combat only (1 thing)
unless it was targeted by CA, where it then additionally performs dogfighting against CA air units (2 things)++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission. A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.
Quote
Quote
(probably not realistic to give defending artillery opening-fire in every turn)
Well the defender should have something to face tanks showing up right off the bat. Perhaps all its units first round fire preemtively?
or how about all attacking land units fight at 1 on first round?and by the way we still let defending artillery fire in opening-fire on first round.
==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.
-
This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.
so since there is a cost penalty for “being pushed off”
could cost of amphibious assault be reduced to 1 IPC each transport?==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.
so with that we get rid of art/arm offloading second cycle thing
could a similar simplification be made for amphibious assault on mountainous?
lets says all attacking land units fight at 0, on 1st cycle amphibious assault on mountainous
and then we get rid of offloading limit for amphibious assault on mountainousDAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military
A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.
yeah I undestand DAS is real military term
but thats not what the rule is about
the rule is about relocating air units in your passive turn, before conduct combatDAS refers to a more generic thing in real life
like how you said “potentially flying to another territory”DAS in current territory is simply normal combat
the rule is about DAS in adjacent territory, hence I sugguest called it just Air Reinforcement or whatever the military term is
++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission.
its not about calling it an air mission
defending air units can do what you call “basic defense” (ie. one cycle dogfight)
but that is the entire thing attacking CA air units gets to do this turn (ie. the same one cycle dogfight)after doing this “basic defense”, defending air units also gets to perform normal combat (if that territory is also attacked conventionally)
thats like letting defending air units do two things at the same time
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turnThats a mistake. they should be allowed.
so to not allow them do two things at the same time
I am think attacking CA air units should tie down defending air units
then they both only do one thing this turn -
This game should model that significance, but rather the very next turn some peeps just land again and again…every turn in the same spot…ridiculous.
so since there is a cost penalty for “being pushed off”
could cost of amphibious assault be reduced to 1 IPC each transport?+++++++++++++++++++++ok fine make it so…
Quote
==============OK all attacking units fire at 1, and artillery for defense fire first. thats it add it.
so with that we get rid of art/arm offloading second cycle thingcould a similar simplification be made for amphibious assault on mountainous?
lets says all attacking land units fight at 0, on 1st cycle amphibious assault on mountainous
and then we get rid of offloading limit for amphibious assault on mountainous
Quote+++++++++++++++ ok make it consistent for both…
DAS is the proper word for this mission. its a real military term. Air reinforcement is nothing in the lexicon of the military
Quote
A mission is any time where you move to a new location to engage the enemy. DAS is a mission because your potentially flying to another territory, while defending against the enemy in your own territory is not a unique mission. So its still one mission as active and one mission as passive.
yeah I undestand DAS is real military term
but thats not what the rule is about
the rule is about relocating air units in your passive turn, before conduct combatDAS refers to a more generic thing in real life
like how you said “potentially flying to another territory”DAS in current territory is simply normal combat
the rule is about DAS in adjacent territory, hence I suggest called it just Air Reinforcement or whatever the military term is
++++++++++++++ any time the defender send planes to assist in combat its a DAS mission. Not “combat reinforcement”
Quote
++++++++++++++++Thats correct except defending from a CA is not a mission. its basic defense. Defending against SBR is also not a mission.
its not about calling it an air mission
defending air units can do what you call “basic defense” (ie. one cycle dogfight)
but that is the entire thing attacking CA air units gets to do this turn (ie. the same one cycle dogfight)after doing this “basic defense”, defending air units also gets to perform normal combat (if that territory is also attacked conventionally)
+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.
thats like letting defending air units do two things at the same time
Quote
Quote
oh…thats not the current wording
currently defending air units targeted by CA cannot perform DAS this [passive] turn
Thats a mistake. they should be allowed.
so to not allow them do two things at the same time
I am think attacking CA air units should tie down defending air units
then they both only do one thing this turnThe attacker given equal odds in terms of material is always at a disadvantage, because the defender can recover because the fight is over his own land, so travel time is cut and ability to defend is easier for him because he has less distance, while the attacker has to fly from far away with limited fuel and ammo so he can have limited time to deal with dogfights, etc.
CA is a way to milk down the enemy airforce. Eventually you will have to attack a territory with enemy planes and land forces and finish the job. But its definatly a good tactic when you are land units poor and air force rich.
-
++++++++++++++ any time the defender send planes to assist in combat its a DAS mission. Not “combat reinforcement”
ok we keep it as DAS
+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.
hehe actually I am saying the opposite
that they shouldn’t be able to do two things at the same time
but fine that just depends on our model of timelineanyway defending air units shall not defend in two space
3 CA air units should tie down 3 defending air units, which shall not perform DAS
Suggested Topics
