AARHE Problematic Rules

• Subs are too powerful:  The tactic now for Germany, Japan, UK and US is to build only subs (as they are much cheaper).  The nations can’t keep up with ASW ships due to cost.  In our current game, the US has a pack of 10 subs Annihilating any Japan surface ship.  Japan can’t keep up with ASW destroyers/cruisers and fight two or three fronts.

I have been following the sub comments for AA50 regarding realistic sub warfare attacking only transports and damaged surface ships.  We are going to use this rule.  Any comments or intent to change AARHE sub rules?

I prefer to use these rules as well because its easy to say the least. I think the wolfpack thing needs modification to this:

any 3 subs attacking together and outnumbering possible ASW get to keep their first strike shot. Its not negated by ASW. Also consider lowering the ASW tech box by one box.

• Naval Air:  The rules (Naval Combat: Sequence page 11 - Rules 20080503) don’t specify that for a surface naval attack where both sides have naval air, that air combat (dogfight) must be resolved first before the rest of the sequence is followed - unlike Land Air Combat Sequence.

These are resolved concurrently with the naval battle: one round of dogfight, followed by one round of naval and repeat until either side retreats naval. Its not that you fight all the air battles first then the naval, you do it 1 and 1.

Naval Combat: Air units (Page 10)
      When both sides have air units present air units fight with dog fighting values. Aerial combat occurs and air units do not attack naval units."

This doesn’t state that air combat must be resolved BEFORE the rest of the sequence is followed.

It does not but as i said you fight dogfight 1 round, then 1 round naval battle and keep repeating till one side retreats, which is declared before the start of a new round of dogfight and ends both forms of combat.

Our “Historian” argues that naval air combat occurred both in range and out of range (if detected and intercepted early) of surface ships.  If in range, then surface ships could conduct anti-air at the same time.  If not, air combat would be resolved first.

Air combat is resolved first, but declarations of full naval retreat or elimination of naval units end further air combat.

So if the enemy went for broke and attacked with carriers and fighters… then lost his carriers…the fighters are now having no body to fight. You don’t get to dogfight if you don’t have a place to land your planes…they are lost.

subs
wait a minute, you do know wolf pack has already been removed on you guys’ request (and reasoning)
so only Germany gets it currently (its now under Germany National Advantage #1) and only if you play with National Advantage

naval air
well according to the wording of “Naval Combat Sequence”
in main round, all relevant things fires (attacker before defender) and “hits are allocated on remove casualties”

you don’t have to roll some ASW dice, assign some ASW hits, roll some air dice, assign some air hits, roll some naval dice, assign some more hits…

My group really despised subs as well.  It was the most common complaint.  Of course, I usually played Germany – and never had any issue with it ;-)

I don’t know what they were whining about?!

Unfortunately, we hardly play AARHE anymore due to the quibbling over the rules.

It’s a fantastic piece of work though, and I’d love to see some it integrated into AA50 when all the fuss dies down.

we hardly play AARHE anymore due to the quibbling over the rules.

Tekkyy: this is a function of the way the rules are written. The language is too professorial and dry.

Id like to get a copy of the rules in Microsoft office ( non PDF) I will make a new version in user friendly language and something easier.

please email

I want to make it a clear cut alternative for AAR and segway it to adaptability for AA50.

subs
if enemy masses submarines you have to get ASW tech (if sea control is important to your strategy)
Imperious Leader’s “happy time” is heavily represented here

the odds are in favour of submarines, but thats ok
submarine is supposed to be a cheap naval unit
but remember they don’t do as much as destoyers!

*can’t kill air
*can’t kill submarines
*can’t 100% block sea zones
*can’t do shore bomardardment

also remember selective-fire is both an advantage and disadvantage
it means you could waste hits depending on the numbers

subs: proposal
if submarines are unrealistically powerful we could do this
consider undetected submarines can sneak in and hence selectively-fire
but they give away position after firing

that means under Phase 4: Conduct Combat -> Naval Combat: Anti-SubmarineWarfare (ASW) ->

In the main-round these units may perform an ASW “attack” roll instead of normal combat roll. Each roll destroys one detected Submarine on its hit value.

becomes

In the main-round these units may perform an ASW “attack” roll instead of normal combat roll. Each roll destroys one enemy Submarine on its hit value.

naval air
in naval combat air units do not fire first
they always fire in main round

in fact, the listing makes the cycle seem complex
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. ASW attack.
3. Naval units fire.
4. Air units fire.
5. Remove casualties.

we could change that to
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. Air and Naval units fire.
3. Remove casualties.

@Imperious:

Tekkyy: this is a function of the way the rules are written. The language is too professorial and dry.

I want to make it a clear cut alternative for AAR and segway it to adaptability for AA50.

hehe “professional”
I am just trying to sound like the original rule

yeah I am aware you disagree with the language
but when I was writting it I didn’t see how I could use an “unprofessional” tone while being precise or concise
if you are thinking of adding lots of examples it’ll only add more pages

but please don’t make it into another language for AARHE yet
how about you do it for AA50HE and we’ll see how it goes

Id like to get a copy of the rules in Microsoft office ( non PDF) I will make a new version in user friendly language and something easier.

please email

anyway you’ve asked before and I answered already but I guess you forgot
I don’t have it in MSWORD format anymore (like ever since we start releasing it in PDF)
we can only copy and paste the lastest pdf (November) from my homepage and paste it into MSWORD

alternatively, you could learn to use Lyx
its a GUI for Latex, the professional publishing format

for Windows, MikTek is a popular Latex provider

Lyx, with GUI, is a popular WYSIWYM processor for Latex

@Bierwagen:

Unfortunately, we hardly play AARHE anymore due to the quibbling over the rules.

oh…sad to hear
is it like because its still changing
or because of my language
or the complexity of the rules?

and AARHE: lite is only 4 pages

AARHE lite is no good. Its construction is faulty and uncoordinated. For that we just took ideas as complete whole and tried to make them fit.

Its like a jigsaw puzzle that you took pieces from to make a smaller jigsaw puzzle. It does not work that way. AARHE lite should have been a much more simplistic approach, but complex ideas were patched together.

professorial

Is the correct word. Not professional. Professorial denotes very dry stuffy language that does not lend itself well enough for quick reads or a greater familiarity with the rules. This leads to ambiguity and debate on their meaning. You need to write in a manner that is “dummy proof”

I will get to work on 5.0  ( user friendly non-quibbling language) and AA50HE

You guys can input, but let me have a crack at it first.

AARHE language is really like an old SPI game from the 1970’s

@tekkyy:

@Bierwagen:

Unfortunately, we hardly play AARHE anymore due to the quibbling over the rules.

oh…sad to hear
is it like because its still changing
or because of my language
or the complexity of the rules?

and AARHE: lite is only 4 pages

Evening all!

Yeah, the thing that annoyed them was every month I’d come to the table with new rules.  It was driving several of them nuts.  The rest of us loved it.  We learned, regrouped, asked some questions, came up with new ideas and gave them a whirl.

But, for many in our group of 10-12 they a new to the game and wanted a stable baseline to get used to.  So, I gave in and we went for Caspian Sea trounament rules – basically OOB with 4 minor clarifications.  The goal, get everyone to be able to play a game within 4-6 hours.

Now AA50 is here and it’s the latest gizmo.  So, once we burn our fingers on that I’m sure we’ll start poking sticks at AARHE again.  There are several of us who really groove on it.

OldSalty:  Glad to see your still in the thick of it.  I hope to rejoin you soon enough.  Thanks for all the help researching pieces and rule.

IL & Tekkyy:  If you need the PDF copied into a Work document.  Send it to me.

Rules:
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

@Imperious:

AARHE lite is no good. Its construction is faulty and uncoordinated. For that we just took ideas as complete whole and tried to make them fit.

thats because it is intended to be a lite version of AARHE
not a whole new version
more like a set of simple to implement rules of AARHE

I wouldn’t recommend spreading out too thin into many versions
rather have one good version, whether it’ll be AARHE or AARHE:Lite

Its like a jigsaw puzzle that you took pieces from to make a smaller jigsaw puzzle. It does not work that way. AARHE lite should have been a much more simplistic approach, but complex ideas were patched together.

hey I wanted it to be simple
you’re the one that insisted on having complex rules like air missions in AARHE:Lite

I set a goal of 15 or so rules but we ended up having like 30 because you wouldn’t let some of them go
ended up as 4 pages after I do 2-column
I was aiming for 5 pages 1-column

if you have changed your mind since, we can revisit it

Professorial denotes very dry stuffy language that does not lend itself well enough for quick reads or a greater familiarity with the rules. This leads to ambiguity and debate on their meaning. You need to write in a manner that is “dummy proof”

I am worried “dummy proof” style is not scalable for the level of complexity in AARHE thats all

I will get to work on 5.0  ( user friendly non-quibbling language) and AA50HE
You guys can input, but let me have a crack at it first.

I repeat my position: you should do it for AA50HE as a trial run

just because we can rewrite a rule or two into informal language…it doesn’t mean the whole ruleset can fit together without using formal language

we really should discuss this before you try anything
for example, I am against not using the timeline format of phases
I am also against going on and on with examples (which if you must, can be in a separate file…“example game”)

comments requested

AARHE language is really like an old SPI game from the 1970’s

also a bit like 2004 axis & allies revised
the only time I see “dummy proof” informal language is in games like 1995 Settlers of Catan or 2000 Carcassonne
those rules are like 4 pages (+ reference in case of Settlers of Catan)

@oldsalty:

Does that include air dogfights?  If so, do the planes in the dogfight only have one dice roll each per combat cycle rather than than rolling until one side has air superiority as in land combat?

yeah air units still “dogfight”
as in, they still use “dogfight” values instead of combat values until air superiority

its just that it happens in main round

Seems strange that an air combat would be resolved in total before main round in land combat but not naval.

from rule structure perspective: because unlike in land combat, air units do not hit preemptively in naval combat

from realism perspective: the idea was that things like speed and terrain cover that give air units the advantage in land combat, does not exist in naval combat

Good stuff on the subs.  Helps alot.

hope its ok
if you guys still find it too powerful we’ll look into tuning it
such the mentioned proposal

thats right, air units only fire once per combat cycle

in both land and naval combat air units only fire once per combat cycle

the dogfighting situation is in both land and naval combat (if enemy has air units, you roll dogfight values instead of normal combat values, and that your air units’ hits has to be allocated on enemy air units)

the only difference between land and naval combat is when do air units fire
land combat: opening-fire
naval combat: main round