@Imperious:
+++++OK I will index it like an old SPI game (example Movement 1.0, 1.1,1.2,1.3 etc)
The 1.1 1.2 might make it seem long.
What I mean is I want them to know its just 20 pages from the index…that is reader knows in the first few pages.
++++ thats not much of an issue anybody can just place that page on the front. It does not even have a page number.
Doesn’t hurt to move it to the front right? Looks better.
++++++ It may be more accurate to address it as 1.3 like LHTR 1.1,1.2 and 1.3. The previous counts were not correct and its better to restart on the right foot then to repeat past mistakes.
You saying we shouldn’t jump the number too quickly?
Or you mean to call 1.3 just because its LHTR 1.3.
That we can’t do cos how are we going to do versioning?
Page 2. Before I made it that victory conditions were vaccessed in real-time so Allies can’t win with a suicide attack.
+++++++Please explain this more.
Because Allies goes after Axis. Axis don’t have chance to respond to unreasonable/un-hold-able suicide attack by Allies.
If its accessed in real-time you can put a different argument and make both teams defend against such method to victory.
Page 4. Mechansim to save money is removed. Its important in some situations.
+++++ its too complicated and leads to some tedious situations playability is issue
But its useful for naval construction. Whats the playability issues? Even SBR rule catered for it.
+++++ not anymore. This gives the cruiser more vitality especially for Germany/Italy who are usually stuck with some kind of fleet crisis due to the allies.
OK.
++++++ that system is really tedious. Its too difficult to even grasp from the viewpoint of any newcomer to this variant any idea what that was. I must have read that thing 20 times and nothing got any clearer
its not adding anything fun to the game at all.
I hope you were NOT reading the version that requires writing things down. The latest version requires no writing down.
Lets work something out. Anything but forcing a particular route of convoy. Its important for AARHE as we don’t just build at ICs.
+++++++++ ok that is fine. no delay. actually i will reword it so its impossible for these units to have a chance to enter desert unless you already have the money
Yeah I guess particularly important for amphibious assault.
Page 7. You want canal treatment for Baltic Sea? Remember to update the map.
+++++ no it clearly says something about no entrance unless the allies control western germany
I am fine not able to go into Baltic without contorl of Denmark. I just don’t see the difference between that and canal treatment.
Page 7. I don’t see why strategic movement should be unaffected by special passage.
+++++++++please explain “special passage”
Actually its ok now. Strategic movement is a new term and I got confused.
Page 7. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact is an obvious addition. But we didn’t have it before and there was probaly a good reason?
+++++ not thinking outside the box was the reason
I wouldn’t call not copying over the common non-agression pact as “not thinking outside the box”. You know how I feel. I don’t like forcing history but realistic modelling. Anyway its not bad a deal since we don’t allow non-Allies Soviet. Though it might make a difference for “historical victory” game mode.
Page 7. I don’t agree with the new Conquest rule. You lose your capital you lose that bit of income. There need not be further penalty. It could be part of a planned retreat anyway.
++++++ conquest takes place when you lose ALL your factories. if you lose your capital you must lost something more than ‘another city ho hum’ you lose the centralized structure of government and the disarray is equal to a lost production above and beyond the territory value.
I think you should fight on without IC. You could have a sizeable force (without may include plenty of armor) and maybe the enemy made a suicide attack. We have various game modes let them do their job.
And fine we’ll go with 50% for now.
++++++ ok well get this structure fixed. the W@W stuff is very minimal and its very hard to recreate 1939 history because a small idea in this section can have huge effects on the final outcome. The goal was to get the axis at least to a similar point to where they would be in a 1942 scenario
Yeah better structure would be good.
Again make the Axis likely to be in similar situation in 1942 but don’t force it to happen or else whats the point of 1939 scenario.
++++++ yes that thing is totally junk. Jets used their speed to the bombers, while they still needed to deal with interceptors they were excellent at killing bombers… like subs.
OK.
Page 11. “If at any time one side has only air units remaining in battle they must be retreated to
a friendly territory within ½ flight range.” I think attacking air units retreat with normal range. Defending air units retreat within 1 space previously. Define “1/2 flight range”.
+++++++ this creates a problem borne out in play testing for other games. The range is too great allowing for “always on” DAS. The idea would be to be able to create holes in the fighter screen so a player has to choose where he picks his battles and cant defend everywhere at the same time. Otherwise the DAS effect is too great.
This is how it was.
Attacking air units retreat normally. ie. 1/2 of movement points so 2 for normal fighter. Hence don’t change that sentence. Talk about it in DAS or defender retreat.
Now what you care about is DAS. DAS still doesn’t let you fight in more than one space.
Defending air units (which includes DAS) don’t retreat base on their flight range. They can only retreat 1 space away.
The only thing is that DAS can reach 2 space away.
Page 11. Anti air is EVERY cycle. Don’t think we should give all territories 1 ID.
++++ sorry but thats not accurate. AA flak batteries were positioned in zones/belts where the bombers came in close. If i attack with fighters these cannot be shot down in great quantity because they are moving really fast, while bombers performing a SBR need to move really slow to have an accurate drop of bombs. AA guns must be only one round or the whole idea of flak makes no sence. Only 10% of total air loses were due to flak artillery. “Always ON” AA would totally disrupt that.
Bombers moving slowly and fighters moving fast is not addressed by old rules nor your new rules. You can do something if you want. (eg. Make it AA don’t need to perform search roll for SBR)
AA in non-combat move. You want to get rid of it then thats fine. LHTR does it that way too.
You want to remove flying-over AA fire. Thats fine too. Just say they are at long distance flight height.
But don’t change AA fire back to first cycle. We’ve already tuned the numbers. Personally I didn’t see AA being powerful at all. Its 2.8% chance per ID. We can reduce the no. of implicit ID and you get rid of search roll for SBR. Then less fighter loss more bomber loss which is what you want.
Page 12. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment is limited to one hit every four attacking land units (which probably should be changed to count INF and Airborne only). Not one SB roll every four attacking land units.
++++ yes to be more accurate because only infantry types can land on the first round. I will add
Note its hits that are limited not rolls.
page 13. Destroyer negating submarine opening-fire on a 1-to-1 basis is a great rule for OOB. But it breaks the AARHE sequence.
+++++ then thats fine. I don’t see how it breaks the sequence however.
In AARHE submarines always fire in opening-fire. Destroyers takes hits for capital ships and then chases with ASW. Destroyers then fire in main round.
In OOB destroyers don’t get to fire twice. Negating the opening-fire works out similar to screening and ASW.
The idea is air and submarines attack first. Casualties don’t get to fight in main round (gun battle).
Page 14. Naval anti-air is very different to land combat. Naval anti-air is more powerful due to no terrain over and no emergency landing. Naval anti-air is not pre-emptive because the target IS the anti-air. No flak guns shots popping up at the unexpected places.
+++++ how it works is if the enemy has no CAP or air units then the enemy air has a distinct advantage, Naval AA rolls are very weak and the ONLY thing to fight planes… which is what it should be… if on sea you have no fighters you are sitting ducks… The only compensation is to allow the ships to gain preemptive hits and CA/ DD screens of targeted attacks IMO
You are confusing me. The rule and justification is sort of based on what you said back then.
Anyway. Start again. Is naval AA is weak or strong compared to ground AA?
If weak then we bring back the search roll and done. Then we don’t have to use preemptive as compensation.
Page 14. ASW was last at 3 to search and 3 to hit. (25%) vs. Submarine’s 2 to hit (33%).
++++ It was lowered by one to give the sub owners a “happy time” until technology can help bring up ASW
Actually I think its still quite “happy” at 25% vs. 33%.
And how long you want this happy time? UK starts with 1 of 3 progress boxes. (1942). UK can put 2 develop weapons rolls on ASW per turn. (1 free + 1 purchasable.) Thats 6 turns on average.
Page 15. “Naval units hits in main-round must be allocated on naval units first before air units can be allocated.” They already performed anti air earlier. I don’t think main rounds hits should be able to hit air units.
++++++ looking at this. your mostly correct.yep
Page 16. Naval Combat: Amphibious Assault. All hostile naval units that submerged or break-off do not prevent the land combat portion.
++++ yes and thats what it says. they have no further effect on the invasion.
OK.
Page 16. Defensive Air Support Mission. If combat is over before they arrive WHICH territory can then relocate to?
++++++ these DAS missions are performed in that same first turn. Thus combat would not be over. After they fly back to where they came from.
No worries. Technically return flight is in non-combat in LHTR.
Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
+++++ actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.
Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
Air units might dogfight first.
So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
Page 16. Escorts. Lots more work defining it.
++++ ok how should it read? we can get the same words out of AA Europe because its the same exact idea
OK get and we’ll go from there.
Page 16. Ground Interdiction. What happens if enemy has air units remaining in the territory? What happens when the bomber is attacked in enemy’s turn? Ground interdiction was the way it was for various reasons. I wanted to expand air missions before but there is much work involving air units.
++++++it says they fly back home they cannot attack without land units in support.
The thing is interdiction used to be during YOUR turn. Now its during ENEMY’s turn? Yet normal movement isn’t affected.
I think it should be during YOUR turn. Fly back home this same turn.
Page 17. Strait Interdiction. No longer need value column in the table. 2 dice if you hold both territories right? ++++ not really. Gibraltar does not require both sides. Why don’t we need ‘value’ column?
Cos its always “1” now. Previously we had Denmark which was “2”. Now its just “1”.
Page 17. The Strategic Redeployment might not be a good model. Maybe better to draw rail lines.
++++++ oh no. this is a really good idea to avoid marking up the map. I considered this with the map but it looked horrible. Remember bombers can reduce the SR capacity.
Yeah more map marking is not nice. But I feel just a number “8” would be weird.
Traffic in western europe shouldn’t reduce capacity in eastern europe?
Page 18. “Built naval units are placed adjacent to either an Industrial Complex or a controlled Victory City.” What do you mean Victory City?++++ yes exactly
So you can just build naval units at VC now? Repairing at VC makes sense. But building?
Page 19. Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Should list modifiers not specific numbers. All air units? All same value? +++++ please explain not clear
Modifiers like +1. Rather than redefining base value which can be confusing.
Is it your intention for all air units to perform ASW? And all at the same effectiveness?
A simple system would be only bombers can do ASW.
Page 22. Neutral Military Deployment. Would be more realistic if 1939 had 1939 values? Did Spain and Turkey have such a large force in 1939?
++++++ its best if we keep them strong, because the axis didn’t really have the capacity to take out large neutrals and its consistent for memory on the set up. A few different pieces will not ADD to the game.
Just checking like it can be funny. 1942 neutral forces copied over. And then 1939 map has more neutrals territories and more neutral units.
Page 23. Appendix. Carrier was attack 1 defence 1.
You didn’t reply to this one.
To rehash we made CV 1/1 and AP 0/0 because the argument is escort no longer need to be explicit addition of DD and CA from AA classic.