well it was probably hard (confusing) to play a hybrid
if there are anything full AARHE you and your friend felt is too complex
we can work on simplifying the rule while modelling the same idea
(naval combat has been simplified…looking back older version of AARHE is a bit unplayable lol)
or tell us if you find an idea just not worth
ARRHE had rules in the past that didn’t make a difference to gameplay and we removed it (like capturing enemy soldiers)
oh no
I did very misleading typo :cry:
“after all combat moves are declared”
should read
“after all non-combat moves are declared”
only air units have the mobility to reinforced rapidly (before combat)
IL, recall land units’ ability to reinforce BEFORE combat led to legendary exploitation and complex rules after rules to fix
great to hear your friends are enjoy AARHE, Bierwagen
you would have done a great job presenting it
@Imperious:
IL: we need to add a line regarding oil rules…. in the 1939 game
as you know 1939 scenario (or 1942 Italy scenario) is low priority for me, hows your schedule now? can you maintain 1939?
@Imperious:
Also, the 1939 rules should be an appendix in the standard rulebook
I haven’t revisited this issue yet but my past view is that attaching scenarios may add confusion…its nice how we trimmed down to the um 30 pages mark
@Imperous:
IN the air rules… where does it specifically say what the defender can do?
that was under discussion…currently defending planes can defend against ALL combats against the territory (eg. normal combat + SBR)
so it fights multiple times, but still only in one space
- Might be a bit too powerful of a reinforcement move though - Japan and UK seem to be relying heavily on it.
at this stage I still think its too powerful, previously Japan can get cheap but delayed infantry from Japan home or more expensive troops closer to frontline
tekkyy: the Xenopho rule’s wording do NOT stop you from attacking a non-Xeno territory together, territories included are listed in the rule wording.
tekkyy: again Xenoph rule’s wording do not say that, I am thinking the Xeno-ness should be about Russia homeland and eastern europe, I mean historically they attacked Germany together and occupied their own areas
Japan always seems to be the King Kong.
without knowing the storyline I am guessing the reinforcement rules did something
@Imperous:
Yes we need this checklist for EVERY concept and use plain language ( no FTR…but fighter)
in terms of plain language it must not be so plain that it becomes inexact
a certain level of A&A jargon would remain
we got rid of unit abbreivations haven’t we? did I left some behind?
(n.b., our rule lawyers originally contested that if there were no enemy DD/CA’s present then 1 SS technically exceeded it by 1 and was therefore deemed a Wolf Pack)
but it says you must exceed “by more than one” not “by 1”
Must have minimum of 2 SS
this rings a bell
the short answer I gave last time should be that it says you need to exceed by “more than one”
maybe something is wrong with the rule’s sentence structure
@Imperious:
I kept harping on that rule with him for like a month
Only Germany gets this benefit
it wasn’t the intention at the beginning to be a nation specific thing
hence it wasn’t put into “National Advantage” but “Naval Combat”
I am thinking US wolf pack isn’t so bad, a nature strategy if US historically decides to focus on Pacific and forgo Europe
but if its killing the game fine we’ll change it to Germany only
now lets think of how to put it in nicely
we could put it under Germany’s standard NA, since the NA is about mass produced submarines
or we could just change the Wolf Pack woridng, but end up with a rule that is German-specific in the middle of “Naval Combat”
Any chance I could convince you to number the paragraphs for ease of referencing?
we could consider it. like a (1) (2) (3) etc as the first word of the paragraph? any elegant way to do it?
Since Cruisers (CA) take two hits are they considered Capital Ships when mobilizing (e.g., take 2 turns for the "Build Schedule)?
the rule specifies only battleship and airacraft carrier and is intentional for cruiser to be one turn only
How in the world can you ever invade Japan?
as with any mountainous terrain, if you attack from the sea you need massive air support to have a chance to suceed
@Imperious:
But remember attacking Gibraltar or small islands can only be done with 2 land units, plus i presume 2 air units
yeah can only be attacked by 2 land units, no limit on air units though
excess air units will fight at a low value of 1, as per normal land combat rules
@Imperious:
He can make Gibraltar impossible by leaving 2 artillery or 2 tanks with 2 fighters. You will have to invade Spain to do the job
actually currently small territories can only be occupied by 2 units
Small territories such as Gibraltar cannot be occupied by more than 2 units and cannot be attacked by more than 2 land units.
I’ve uploaded the newer files and the changelog we said we’ll have
IL: Ok you came back…whew…
tekkyy: sorry too busy to be regular these few months, I’ll be in and out…email me for “emergencies”
IL: what do you propose? no change?
tekkyy: yeah pretty much, they are nothing compared to Haiwaii
Bierwagen: Seems to be within the scope of a piece only moving to an adjacent zone during this phase.
IL: Yes as long as they have a unloaded tranny in between Japan and Manchuria, they can allocate ONE SR transfer across the sea zone.
tekkyy: actually bridging (moving into adjacent SZ and then onto an adjacent territory) is not within the scope of moving to adjacent space. I was thinking transporting over the sea is fairly major thing to be done during passive turn. Regardless, open to discussion.
Bierwagen: According to the rules, they can each transfer a tech to each other. Seems a bit much. I wanted to limit it to one tech transfer each turn.
tekkyy: actually its “one progress box” per turn per direction, so its not a whole tech
Bierwagen: Air attack limitations of 2 out and 2 back really hampers Germany ability to fight in Africa.
tekkyy: yeah the 50/50 air movement rule changes a lot of opening moves, but it goes both ways, I mean it also stops Allies from flying the world’s air force into Africa
Bierwagen: Russia can attack into Persia and India alongside US/UK troops and DAS out there as
well – correct?
tekkyy: yeah the rules allows that
Bierwagen: Rule lawyers argued they were assigning them before they rolled, just one at a time vs. the opponents who said you have to announce all dice up front independent of the outcome of each other.
tekkyy: my bad, I’ll change the sentence to “Assign all free and purchased dice”
IL: Russian and western ally units cannot fight together, but if the Soviet sub is in a sea zone with UK/ USA naval, then it defends like anything else…but not attack.
tekkyy: the Xenopho rule’s wording do NOT stop you from attacking a non-Xeno territory together, territories included are listed in the rule wording
IL: All Soviet “liberations” preclude the allies from entering these for any reason (consider them now soviet territories) unless the axis retake it and drive out all Soviet units, THEN the allies can come back in and take it.
tekkyy: again Xenoph rule’s wording do not say that, I am thinking the Xeno-ness should be about Russia homeland and eastern europe, I mean historically they attacked Germany together and occupied their own areas
IL: Transfer is JUST giving your ally ONE level of some Tech you developed the last turn. You don’t then lose it if you give it away.
tekkyy: my bad, I’ll word it to make sure you don’t lose it ;)
Bierwagen: - Do they have to return to where they came from? - or - - Do they get to retreat to a friendly space within 2 spaces?
tekkyy: the wording just says they have to retreat, according to LHTR air units hang around in the territory and then you do the actual retreat in Non-combat Move
Um, actually someone (maybe Bierwagen) has previously displayed a worrisome thought that neutrals can get to +3/-3 too quickly before the other team can react…and hence [IL] you have changed it so a player can target a neutral only once per turn. This is currently in the yet-to-be-uploaded massively-delayed new version on my computer.
Of course, this still allows 3 Allies dice to target the same neutral per turn.
AARHE didn’t make additional definition of what is a “friendly sea zone”.
So on paper OOB rules apply which means a hostile transport in a SZ stops you from retreating to that SZ.
Yeah I am happy to see how you guys like to tune this.
We let naval units move thru enemy submarines (provided submarines fail to intercept), not sure about retreating to a SZ with enemy submarines.
I can thinking of using units to block retreat.
Also, a few months ago we made it so defender declare retreat decisions before attacker (for both land and naval combat). Now in naval combat this may or may not be weird for defender gets to choose where to run to.
Might be obviously but the 3 Allies can essentially attack Germany together in AARHE. Similarly for US UK combo in the Pacific. Though for me Russia is still having a hard time, like in OOB. This can’t be solved neatly with house rules, a map-changing variant is needed to model the ramp up of Russian production imho.
Maybe you can post a general flow of gameplay for us to comment on. Haven’t been playing recently though hehe. (I am rushing a research write up.)
Yes the rule can allow a smaller air force to stop a larger air force (in the same territory) from hitting land units.
The idea is that until you secure the skies your air units can’t perform tactical bombing. Hence we don’t allow their hits on ground units yet.
Yeah 1-to-1 is more realistic. There may be a way to solve this by making CA (Counter-Air) a multi-cycle combat. Thinking out loud here. Attacking CA air units are dedicated and cannot perform other combats this turn. We could make it the same for air units defending a CA.
Of course, this only stops a smaller defending air force from stopping a larger attacking air force from hitting land units. (Attacker can use CA to strongly tie down defending air units, provided the player has more air units.) It doesn’t stop a smaller attacking air force from stopping a larger defending air force from hitting land units. Though I don’t think its too bad to give attacker this advantage.
hehe yeah its a bit grainy
those images don’t do any justice
but I get the idea from your descriptions
remember how we changed it to defender make retreat decisions first
in naval combat it felt weird
because defender choose to retreat/press-on first hence they get to choose which SZ to run to
Dakar was the french main port, Port Said ( suez was major uk port), Gibralter was less important but a stopover for convoy to and from africa
well thats no good
they are nothing compared to Hawaii
They had to get rid of all areas because if they focused on Normandy it would give away the plot.
whether they want to give it away was their decision
we just want to see if air missions should be before, after, or concurrent to [normal] combat
Hawaii….should be an exception, along with gibrater and suez and dakar.
Perhaps i need to add a few port symbols to the map?
yeah I realise Hawaii has a substantial naval facility
but Gibraltar, Suez, or Dakar…are they on same scale?
Its not complicated. Your just performing the air mission separately.
actually in current rules air missions are separate and prior to normal combat
I believe you wanted them to be relate more closely to normal combat
Those air missions have nothing to do with sending units into an enemy territory unless your bringing in air units and need to fight for air superiority which presents a quasi connected battle insofar as once the sky is clear the air units can begin hitting land units.
Otherwise AARHE does treat them separately already.
I don’t precisely know what you mean by the “unless” bit
currently air missions are resolved prior to normal combat, so the functioning of the air missions are not related to whether we are performing normal combat on Germany
The process of performing air missions with the object of pinning down enemy air forces is not artificial, but rather a modeled form of warfare where your shaping the battlefield to conform to ultimate success of the land campaign, much like the allies did just before D-Day by taking out all the German air units before landing troops and saturation bombing etc…
Allies didn’t take out all the German air units right?
They just achieved air superiority so German air attack on Allied troops were insigificant?
In terms of pinning “down enemy air forces”…
AARHE’s dogfight system is just that. Defending air units can’t hit attacking land units until they achieve air superiority.
Meanwhile CA mission on a territory prevents defending air units (1-to-1) from relocating with DAS rule.
So is these something we can see should be allowed but can’t be done in AARHE?
well if it doesnt feel right then we dig deeper and see what it is
so far I don’t see this proposed rule (super subs cost cheaper) being realistic
say, maybe it is ok to convert
you can’t easier refit old submarines to super submarines
(for starters the hull shape is quite different)
but I guess you can still model recycling steel or whatever
And regarding TripleA, one day, one day we’ll support NAs and with some luck other official AA games. Pushing it further and being very hopeful then TripleA might even support house rules in the future.
Well thats the thing.
Revised is not balanced hence we have bids.
(Discussion of why people use bids are out of scope.)
It makes it hard to bid when you don’t know what you are bidding on. :|
Maybe a system can be devised somehow.
because we are allowing total choice on hit allocations ( except transport and sub). If we make it too easy to repair then it would prove only a minor inconvenience to have the BB or CA repaired.
ah I see, you should have mentiond it when you sugguested the change
I didn’t know what you were thinking
note, this means you can’t repair at naval outpost like at Hawaii anymore
is that ok?
yes but we don’t allow planes to be hit by land units, so its not ‘simple AA structure’, but rather independent but concurrent combat actions. Planes attacking Germany cant do so until the sky is clear, then hits go on land units
yes AARHE certainly changed some aspects of AA structure
but in my context I was referring to OOB’s distinction between SBR and “normal combat”
and correspondingly AARHE’s distinction between Air Missions and “normal combat”
ok when you say “attack germany” and perform GI….huh? thats the same thing
hence attack Germany and peform SBR/CA/GI on Germany is not the same thing
and that you can perform SBR/CA/GI on Germany even if you attack Germany this turn
now if you want independent concurrent combat actions to include Air Missions you’ll have to devise a system and we add it to AARHE
might be complex though
for starters…
defender needs to assign which combat to defend against
or artifically disallow attacker from performing Air Missions on a territory if attacker (or team member) is also attacking it in (normal combat) same turn
Interesting & touche’. I’d not read the rules close enough.
oh, no I did not intend to have that tone…
as for missing that bit, what made you miss it?
maybe we can change the sentences a bit
@Imperious:
SBR is a in/out attack….
yep all air missions are in/out style attacks
DAS only lets defends against normal combat, which represents months of action
I thought the goal of LITE was to play on the AAR map, so this is a tough one to get around.
Actually why is it hard to get around? In terms of VCs, LITE has the same list as full AARHE.
@Imperious:
VC one infantry unit per VC point… a 5 VC city can place 5 infantry
If no VC then Infantry only at 1/2 value of territory rounded down.
Wait No.1 is just infantry deployment rule form full AARHE.
If we have that we don’t need No.2.
I like No.2. Simple and not too powerful.
we went over “discount” thing for jet fighters already
now with super submarines have you got a reason for them being cheaper?
Infantry Deployment
This is a worry.
In full AARHE you can deploy at VCs, with the capacity being the value of Victory City Point of the VC.
In LITE you can deploy anywhere, with the capacity being the income value, but 50% for captured territories.
Sure it also helps Allies but
Japan can deploy 9 infantry at Mainland Asia
Germany can deploy 9 infantry near Cau (3 each at Eeu, Ukr, Blk)
