AARHE Problematic Rules

@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