OMG you finally did it. Now thats much better looking! all those stupid spaces gone…why was this not done earlier?
Lets see the 2 columns version?
This makes sence, except i don’t like the idea of other ships doing ASW search, we still need the search rolls and only allow DD,CA, and bombers or transport planes to search, but w/o tech only the DD and CA can actually hit, they they need to roll separately in combat.
Also, remove shielding rules for first strike capabilities, and after that round once the sub is found, then the defender can allocate his own hits or retreat, otherwise all sub hits on non located subs are always allocated by the attacking subs.the only thing ASW search does was to determine if a Submarine gets first strike
since we are letting Submarines have first strike in first cycle
there is no longer a need to perform ASW search
you only have to say submarines fire selectively in opening-fire in first cycle of combat
This is too close to OOB rules… it needs to preserve the idea that you need to buy ASW ships to have a chance to protect the fleet, the current AARHE sub search rules need to stay in place, they need to be treated seperatly in combat
OMG you finally did it. Now thats much better looking! all those stupid spaces gone…why was this not done earlier?
Lets see the 2 columns version?
I don’t know about better looking
different people have different ideas on how a document should look, doesn’t matter
other space saving measures were used, such as changing VC table into list
1 column 6 pages
2 column 4 pages
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080403_AARHE_Lite_1col.pdf
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080403_AARHE_Lite_2col.pdf
This is too close to OOB rules… it needs to preserve the idea that you need to buy ASW ships to have a chance to protect the fleet, the current AARHE sub search rules need to stay in place, they need to be treated seperatly in combat
in full AARHE ASW search is only for first cycle
submarines are automatically detected from 2nd cycle onwards
the only change I made here is that during 1st cycle, submarines are always undetected
or how about make it each destroyer detects 1 submarine?
(and with ASW tech, each fighter also detect 1 submarines)
that pretty much emulates full AARHE while keeping it short
regardless its not like OOB at all
submarine never get selective fire in OOB
2 columns seems rather nifty! Its takes all the blck space away, but in this version i think the bottom margin should not have text that far near the bottom, about a 3/4 inch on top and bottom, and room for page numbers. Otherwise very nice. Also would like some colors added because it looks rather plain. Perhaps the watermark returns?
This is too close to OOB rules… it needs to preserve the idea that you need to buy ASW ships to have a chance to protect the fleet, the current AARHE sub search rules need to stay in place, they need to be treated seperatly in combat
in full AARHE ASW search is only for first cycle
submarines are automatically detected from 2nd cycle onwards
the only change I made here is that during 1st cycle, submarines are always undetectedor how about make it each destroyer detects 1 submarine?
(and with ASW tech, each fighter also detect 1 submarines)that pretty much emulates full AARHE while keeping it short
regardless its not like OOB at all
submarine never get selective fire in OOB
Yes i think that could work. Each ASW unit Cruiser or destroyer can detect one sub, so both players are trying to out build each other. Good solution. But remember this should be recalculated each round, so if the subs get lucky on hits it can go the other way. So each round you do this. Tekkyy: pat yourself on the back, thats a winner move!
Lets leave the other issue aside for now and get Lite done.
Also, id like to add the optional units back in, but only bring into the game: Fighter-bomber, transport plane, mech infantry, airborne infantry, cruisers, and perhaps another… NO SPA, or heavy tanks, but germany should have its elite panzers ( SS) as per the NA
the watermark version is nice. But a little more window dressing is required… Perhaps a better script for AARHE with some art
I can make a “logo” with the national icons under the heading… just to give it something decent.
Also, if you add the few optional units to the same chart as the regular units with a line saying “optional” it would take minimal space…?
actually I’ll grab the normal AARHE logo then
actually optional units will add back quite some length
because I’ve removed a lot of references to optional units to get to this length
but it would be really nice to have at least 3 of them:
Fighters-bombers
Cruisers
Mechanized infantry
thats it. see how much it adds. ASW cant just be destroyers and we cant just have 2 types of planes, while the game needs a faster moving land unit to pair up with tanks ( 2 moving at 1 2 moving at 2)
well, you can’t have everything
think of what to give up if you think the optional units are that important
the most gameplay-significant optional unit is probably none of those but naval fighter anyway
its 4 pages and very tight on space
don’t think its worth push it over 4 pages
this is going to be critical for attractiveness of our house rule
I feel the better thing is for players to refer to AARHE and decide for themselves, if they feel like it
this is Lite, quick read is important
we can squeeze in a line is though (eg. "For optional units, consider picking from the full AARHE ruleset.)
ok fine.
changed incorrect infantry cost “2-4” to “3”, at units table at the end
added AARHE logo
added note about optional units
uploaded
lets roll (play via forum)
hows your schedule?
I might wait til I finish the 2 FFA games first
where is the link?
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080407_AARHE_Lite_watermark.pdf
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080407_AARHE_Lite_clear.pdf
or just go to http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/
I’ve made it so if URL is incorrect you get thrown to AARHE root location
ok good. post on BGG, plus start a new entry on BGG for AARHE featuring only the latest files. Ill back it up with pictures from playtest games.
Use the title Axis and Allies Revised Historical edition, so it will reference properly with other games
actually in the short term I won’t have time to update the nation player aids
but otherwise latest files are in one direction already
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/player_aids/
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/nation_player_aids/
I guess I could post Lite on BGG
though I also feel like getting some feedback first
shouldn’t take long, its only 4 pages
The “Air Movement” rules in “Non-Combat Movement” didn’t make the cut for Lite? We really like the this one.
Are there no free Tech roll in Lite – it’s like AAR where you pick the tech and pay your 5 bucks per die and roll?
Since “Pre-Combat 1. ASW search (1st cycle only)” doesn’t exist in Lite the following needs to be revised:
Advanced Submarine: Submarine’s attack and defense value is increases by 1. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) search and attack rolls targeting them has hit value decreased by 1.
to
Advanced Submarine: Submarine’s attack and defense value is increases by 1. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) attack rolls has hit value decreased by 1.
The “Air Movement” rules in “Non-Combat Movement” didn’t make the cut for Lite? We really like the this one.
I like that too. But Lite was basically AARHE: for dummies, which implies its rather wordy and tedious for use as an easy rule to play. If you can make a version of the same rule but in a few words, we can possibly add it back. WE decided by committee that it was alot of stuff for any Lite version of AARHE.
Are there no free Tech roll in Lite – it’s like AAR where you pick the tech and pay your 5 bucks per die and roll?
I have to check on that actually. I thought it may still be in the document.
Since “Pre-Combat 1. ASW search (1st cycle only)” doesn’t exist in Lite the following needs to be revised:
Advanced Submarine: Submarine’s attack and defense value is increases by 1. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) search and attack rolls targeting them has hit value decreased by 1.
to
Advanced Submarine: Submarine’s attack and defense value is increases by 1. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) attack rolls has hit value decreased by 1.
Ill pass this on to Tekkyy, hes the compiler for AARHE.
The “Air Movement” rules in “Non-Combat Movement” didn’t make the cut for Lite? We really like the this one.
glad you liked it
we wanted to reduce the ridiculous strike range of air units in OOB, as well we wanted to increase the ridiculous ferry range
should be alright
you seem quite interested in the various rules
if your group can handle the complexity Lite will be just a stepping stone for your games group
otherwise, you’ll come to enjoy the 4 page length of Lite when you show it to new players
Are there no free Tech roll in Lite – it’s like AAR where you pick the tech and pay your 5 bucks per die and roll?
yep no free tech rolls in Lite
its closer to the OOB tech system then full AARHE
Since “Pre-Combat 1. ASW search (1st cycle only)” doesn’t exist in Lite the following needs to be revised:
thanks for spotting it
actually the whole of second sentence is no longer relevant
in Lite submarine warfare is simply modelled by hit allocation
(only destroyers can hit submarines, after technology fighter can also hit submarines)
There is discussion in LITE on how VC’s have inherent ID, because they roll in Air Combat Phase. The big question became, how does LITE handle Amphibious Assault. There is no language in LITE about firing ID during a landing like there is in AARHE 4.0.
From AARHE 4.0:
“Defending Infrastructure Defense performs offshore bombardment against ships rolling for offshore bombardment
or enemy Transport.”
So, we of course got confused and come for clarification. Resort to standard AAR LHTR 2.0 rules if there isn’t any discussion in LITE on a specific topic?
Diplomacy: Neutral VCPs
At what point do the neutral VCPs kick in for victory consideration? I could make a case for either +/-3 (e.g., when you start collecting it’s income) or +/-5 (e.g., when it is fully committed). The rules aren’t clear or I didn’t read them close enough.
We’re in a tight game of back and forth and Spain goes into -3 Diplomatic status. Axis wants to start claiming the +2 VPs for Madrid and Allies have no way of countering it. Should the VPs for the VCs only be counted when there troops in the country (e.g., +/-5) or is “dems da breaks!”.
Victory Conditions:
LITE doesn’t have the disclaimer from AARHE 4.0:
“Victory is achieved if victory conditions are maintained for one full game round.”
Example (note: we were using Diplomacy and LITE, but it applies to conquering as well):
Axis wanted to claim victory right after the Diplomacy roll that took Spain to -3 (n.b., assuming that you start collecting the 2 VPs for Madrid at -3 along with the income. I’m still hoping for a ruling that +/-5 is required).
Point is though, don’t the Axis have to allow the Allies the benefit of trying to take something back and hold the required VPs for a whole turn?
Maybe the LITE rules should say
“Victory is achieved if you hold the required VP points at the start of your turn. Axis required 45 points; Allies 55 points.”
