Posts made by tekkyy

ideas and discussion were repeated
most important discussion/progress was at the end of your last post:

@Imperious:

OMFG… what is this? why do you keep going back to losing one ship?

haha I answered already
this is funny, a bit your like misunderstanding at the “Lite” thread

here it is again
“don’t lose more than you ship”
ship as in the verb
my system do not destroy any ships, only IPCs

basically the idea is say US has Hawaii, takes New Guinea…that is 1 IPC + 1 IPC
if Japan raids convoys from those two islands going for Los Angeles…US can potentially lose 2 IPC…not 1 IPC per Japanese ship for unlimited amount

but its ok I think in the other bits of your post you agree already not to bleed a player like that

you lose one ipc  (potentially with a roll)
Enemy ships do not hit the convoy or “travel path” from another part of the world. Only German naval in Atlantic and Indian can cause 1 ipc damage each ship to british or American,  i guess the allies decide by committee who loses this, or the German player can declare, or we allow this to be dependant of how close he is to enemy IPC of territories separated by sea.

your latest revision is yet another step closer to my system
we now have concensus on
*no more “bleeding” a player
*units can’t hitting other parts of the world

what remains in the merely last point:

remains realistic even if territory control changes
This is the radioactive part of what you are arguing for.  UK is an island economy and Germany and Italy are NOT, but YOU want them to be treated the same…. that cant be possible unless we turn Germany into an island too.

its not radioactive once you see it differently

its definitely not realistic for African income to go to Berlin if Allies control Med Sea and Altantic right?

if the convoy system is nation specific, then you would need to have some sort of blockade rule about Germany Africa, (and potentially Madagascar, Brazil…and other nations depending on the map situation)

so my system is not only shorter, but also saves us other troubles such as these

fine reintroduce the rolling idea and playtest.

to clarify, we only reintroduce rolling if you wish (I am good with 1 IPC per unit)
because rolling is incompatible as earlier you got rid of ability to store war material at victory cities

previously say UK tried to build an infantry at Singapore, other resources goes to London to build other stuff.
the (Singapore) infantry costs 4 IPC.
Japan raids 1 IPC of it fater rolling, instead of deploying an infantry…3 IPC is saved at Singapore.

so we only reintroduce rolling if you want
and then we can either reintroduce storing war material at victory cities, or do other things

also once you get the correct interpretion of the rules you’ll see its quite simple to play
now that you relaxed what a convoy route can be (South Africa can go to Med Sea via land rather than forced to use nearby sea ports to sail directly to Berlin or Italy), you simply check if there is a free path…if there then no convoy raid, if there isn’t you select the least guarded hostile sea zone

---

(other discussions that may no longer be important due to progress)

Tekkyy i have shown that how YOU wrote the 4 IPC thing makes it seem that anytime you isolate a small island the other guy loses 4 ipc. Only in one case can this actually happen…. with Borneo. With the new rule the other side has a chance to protect his empire, and also under this system its not universal (thank god) it only applies to specific historical nations that had developed this ability also historically.

um, I just shown how you high value islands are almost as common as low value islands
first acknowledge East Indies and forget Borneo, now you acknowledge Borneo and think its the only high icnome island?
its East Indies, Borneo, and Phillipines vs. low income Okinawa, New Guinea, Hawaii…

If Germany took UK the game would be OVER… thats the point the Historically based game design has victory conditions which take care of these issues, so Germany would not get in that position. The German u-boat campaign was developed exclusively by Germany during 2 wars, UK, USSR, Italy, and even USA had not real appreciation of how to successfully run a submarine campaign designed to sink commerce. Thats why only certain nations are given this ability.

no it doesn’t have to be over for Allies if Germany takes UK
it depends on the rest of the map
(and lets history replay arguments would be nice)

1939 map in particularly gives us the option to explore a heavy Battle of Britain rather than going to Operation Barbarossa
Russia given the spare time could have built up even better than they did in history

Germany has submarine campaign focus because of the friendly/enemy situation
US submarines harassed Japan shipping too
if you want to give Germany bonus its a matter making of an NA (eg. German transport can convoy raid too…how they disguised raider Kormoran as a merchant ship and then sank HMAS Sydney)

But Germany can lose income if they lose Madagascar, or take India, or Norway, of if the Soviet sub is placed in the baltic, or this or that….

you don’t lose more then you ship (verb) in my system
so Madagascar nor India are not going to be become a negative income contribution

naval units don’t hit convoys in a different part of the world in my system
so Soviet sub in Baltic is only going to hit shippping in that particular sea zone

But a Historical version must not have this because the Soviet player had no idea how to conduct these types of raids. Even if just 1 IPC was potentially at risk it would be a bad rule. This is a historical version and not a universal version. Revised is a universal version and the reason why we are doing a historical version.

this is not a question of how well one nation can raid, that can be dealt with by a Germany NA that increases German raiding efficiency
if Soviet has submarines in Baltic and Germany dont kill them, those submarines are not going to stand there and watch hostile convoy shipping going by

We don’t allow IF’s of that type, It simply was not capable for some nations to pursue specific strategies. Its like saying both the Americans and Italians should basically have the same access to technology and diplomacy or the same IPC. Why the heck do we then just give Italy 50 IPC’s a turn?///??? Thats would be a universal idea as well….

please, you are comparing grossly different probabilities

Germany damaged Allied shipping more than US damaged Japanese shipping
but Germany put most naval resources into submarines

OK ill make a new map here are the new ipcs…

USSR 50 IPC
UK  50 IPC
USA 50 IPC
Germany 50 IPC
Japan 50 ipc
Italy  50 IPC

there… now its universal rules. great… Now everybody starts out with 40 inf, 10 tanks, and 5 artillery…now just have the same 10 NA’s for everybody… and we just keep doing this until we have… checkers

A system takes into factors as input and gives an outcome.

My system is simple and universal. It is based on actual shipping. It generates different vulerabilities for each nation.

The income system is also simple and universal for all nations. You add income of all territories minus SBR/rocket damage. It then generates different income for each nation.

The system is realistic. No arbitration in the outcome needed.

Forget “lose a ship”… this is about convoy boxes and how we can make AARHE by simulating the historical boxes that normally would be on the map in a simple way. The conclusion is that each qualifying ship rolls a dice and potentially it can cost the other player 1 IPC… thats it… now specifically the convoy boxes are always allies, because historically the allies traded over the sea, while Japan also depended on the sea for economics.

forget your “lose a ship” interpretion
I repeat, ship as in the verb, not the noun

if you somehow find a static system that remains realistic regardless of whats happening on the map,
and do you let bleed a player by causing 10 IPC (by 10 units) damage to 2 IPC shipment,
then great we could use it

To model this we allow only specific nations and specific locations of enemy ships that can even engage of these attacks.

That is no modelling. That is arbitration in outcome.
I repeat, your method will only be realistic for a small subset of game outcomes. Players are not going to perform the same as WWII. Its a game, a simulation.

I’ve already mentioned specific examples (territory control and which unit in which sea zone) why your system is unrealistic.
You’ve engaged in a lot of historic replay kind of talk, if you can be more concrete in your argument and give specific examples (territory cotnrol and which unit in which sea zone) why my system is unrealistic it’ll be more helpful.

We are not talking about who is “blocking” or “ships” getting lost or anything.

ships as in actual game units, no
but convoy raiding is about losing the goods on convoy ships which are sank so don’t know what you are talking about

You tell me how we incorporate the allied convoy boxes from AAE and AAP into AARHE and stop adding convoy ideas for Germany and Italy aside from a possible Italian Medd box.

I never said static convoy boxes are realistic
hence it was never a goal for me

Ok if the USA player has subs in the New Guinea sea zone for 2 turns, then Japan faces economic isolation and thats just fine.

that get rid of the problem of US ships at New Guinea hitting convoys from Phillipines to Toyko
this is your isolation rule, which is realistic for islands without VC/IC and low income islands

then you’ve got to create an exception for high income islands like Borneo, East Indies and Phillipines

and then you write rules to incorporation AAE/AAP convoy boxes ideas

arbitration via nation specific text adds more length again

do you see what is happeneing?
you write so much to achieve realism while my system is only a few sentences

Then they are not interested in any historical edition. You cant sell people on ideas and then be afraid to tell them what the ideas are. AARHE is for people who prefer more realism and historical ideas in these games. The OOB rules are the Universal version and thats why we toil for years to create something different.

what do you mean? what are we afraid to tell?

potential players of AARHE are still interested in what-if
they just want the what-if to be more meaningful
or they just want the new dimensions added to the game such as land units can’t hit air units

Yes correct IF UK falls and USSR falls, and USA falls and Germany owns every single territory on the map…. THEN your correct but the game is nothing but the movie “Fatherland” played out for humor in a new world run by Germany. You always seem the bring examples of a game condition thats beyond the reach of the allies to win anyway to make your points to support how unfair it all sames.

no, Germany taking UK is a lot more achievable in AARHE because convoy raids can isolate UK from her colonies
if UK decides to use Canada to stage their purchase, Canada becomes the new destination of convoys from UK colonies

the situation you mentioned (UK and USSR fell) is probably end game, the situation I mentioned is not as such

This rule does not do that. Its only going by the printed values,not some inflated 8 IPC thing

oh you have new ideas for IC output limit?
anyway, remember its not a "some inflated 8 IPC thing)
the output limit is proportional to territory value, Australia is 2 IPC, her IC can build 8 IPC worth of units

it accounts for amount produced while not allowing high value pieces to be built at low income territories
I hope the new IC limit you propose is just as realistic

….but is your universal world you allow anybody to do anything. Uk can start making SS units, France can have the worlds largest navy and the Soviets can sink all the non-land locked ipcs coming into Germany from the Baltic. All these ideas are equal with the USA player turning fascist in a universal world.

my system do not allow ships in the Baltic to hit convoys in other parts of the world
so no Soviet ships in the Baltic can’t “sink all non-land locked ipcs coming into Germany”
I wonder if you still have wrong interpretation of the rules

We are giving each player the historical based tools to perform unique strategies to win, whether the actual players decide to engage in these strategies is not up to us, what our job is to model what was effective to each nation, and not rather make each nation have the same abilities as each other.

national advantages takes the task of differentiation
if you like you can give Germany a convoy raid advantage via national advantage (eg. each ships hits 2 IPC rather than 1 IPC)
but its unrealistic for ANY country’s convoys to go through obviously blockades

The American player can build A bombs more easily than Italy
The German player has developed U-boats to the extent where they nearly starved the island kingdom of England.

America can pursue technology and make a bomb and blow up Germany
Germany can build lots of subs and wipe out UK commerce

may the best nation win… thats AARHE in a nutshell.

If people want checkers and no idea of what actually was historically plausible, then keep playing OOB

research head start and research capacity in AARHE already lets US the distinct A-bomb advanatage and Germany super submarine advantage
its all there already

Germany is likely to have submarine campaign while UK is unlikely simply because at game setup, UK territories are spread while Germany are packed together
but anything goes once the game starts

I don’t know why you want to force a particular outcome
its like disallowing USSR to build naval units, but when the situation is right…its a prefectly sensible thing to do
we are not going to not let certain countries build certain units now are we? of course not

Play test then. but don’t encourage design where you start with checkers and everybody is left with " i thought this was a historical version?" and these blokes allow the British player to destroy German IPC’s just by having ships off the coast of African German controlled coastline.

no there actually has to be shipping in the particular sea zone
the idea that territories must use its own or adjacent sea port was created after consulting you
this is the second time you mentioned it I think its pretty clear you are saying its unrealistic
(last time you mentioned that South Africa resources wouldn’t have to get on a board until Med Sea)
so I’ll update my file now to remove that restriction

Go look at the map and tell me which are the 2 island nations> UK and Japan, the whole convoy system thing is for nations that are islands and USA is sort of in this block. By extrapolation we conclude based on the war, that UK was nearly starved and Japan was nearly starved. Also, we conclude that USA lost alot of Liberty ships and the Murmansk convoys got attacked as they sent trade to USSR. In the latter war period American subs sunk a huge % of total foodstuffs going to japan because they were feeding off of Japan like vultures.

WE DO NOT conclude Germany lost income or Italy lost income, nor do we conclude American surface ships sunk japanese merchant ships to a high degree…. the solution is we model only the participating nations that historically were effected in this manner. WE DO NOT allow Germany to lose money because they grow food and build supplies from central Europe, while UK / USA must ship stuff to other places and also receive stuff via the SEA because they control many places that are outside in different part of the world or support these localities.

you’re bringing up history replay type of arguments again

anyway at game setup this is the likely outcome (that Germany can’t be raided much)
my system keeps convoy raiding on actual shipping, if you play the game like historic it remains realistic
on the other hand, your longer and nation specific system is do not remain realistic all the time

@Imperious:

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 selectivey in opening-fire in first cycle of combat

I would like to remind you again that the shielding rule and class system were removed a while back

ON the wasted space issues, remove the bold headings and see if the lines get closer, place former bold headings in Italics to make it different. Take the Phase 3, Phase 2 headings, etc and make them colored and underlined so they also stand out

you don’t have to set formatting for every bloody thing in a document in latex (unlike word processor)
just mark certain headings as chapter, section, subsection, subsubsection, paragraph, etc…
the document class (article, book, letter, ieee, ams, etc) formats it for you
Latex is THE professional document creation platform for the commerical and academic world

anyway I’ve applied those naval changes and got rid of some space
its now 7 pages
(I also tested 2 columns, which makes it 4.5 pages)

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080402_AARHE_Lite.pdf

we’ve shrunk a lot by formatting and not much by contents :-P
sure we could shrink the language and reduce it by like 0.2 pages but I think ultimately a couple of rules has to go to finish off

or, we could ask people like Jen and switch now to see if this is “lite” enough for them to play

our posts are getting so long
lots of points are repeated lol

@Imperious:

Ok so the solution to island isolation would be to deny income after a second turn of isolation. This gives the owning player one turn to remedy the issue. Other than that and its his own fault.

just because East Indies or Borneo is surrounded by enemy naval units
the 4 IPC is not going to vaporate
it can be used to to raise infantry at the VC for example

this is why you let the convoy raid rule to deal with it rather than a new rule

But the universal approach allows anybody to take the income, A historical version only allows the nations what historically and realistically could have done this. Of course is a game like attack, everybody can do what they want because all have equal capabilities.

my universal approach allows anybody to take income, but only where appropriate
an arbitrary rule (even if reflecting history) will only be realistic for a small subset of games where players do the same as history…in the other cases it’ll won’t be reasonable
if Germany goes outside of Europe…lets say they took UK, then control of North Sea becomes important to them

Yes right I do playtest… on the actual map that cost me $185.00 to print. I am playing the 1939 version and i can say that if you allow the allies to take off income its imbalanced. The Germans have a small window to win, but they have something thats reasonable.

now that you understand Germany can’t lose IPC just because they own Azores…you can get back to me after your next playtesting

on AARHE standard map, at game setup, Germany’ll only be vulnerable to convoy raid on Algeria and Libya (total 2 IPC)…and later maybe for Norway (3 IPC) if they somehow lose Baltic

In AARHE both sides are given the historical abilities and also the ability to develop diplomacy and weaponry, but for example Germany is NOT given the ability to become the worlds largest naval power, because if they tried that it would bust them in every other theater of war

but if Russia was reduced to an unimportant IPC level, Germany can put attention to its navy
or if UK was taken by Germany…their war strategy would change

Likewise the allies are not going to get a jump on German merchant trade because frankly Germany was blockaded from trading outside of Europe, just like in ww1….so why in a version thats claiming to be Historical can you even consider giving the allies an equal ability to develop submarine warfare to the extent that Germany or Italy is losing IPCs because the British have ships in the Atlantic? If Germany didn’t trade with say Mexico, then why can they possibly be penalized in the same manner as Germany herself did against the allies did in the real war?

in a rule that lets Altantic ships hit convoys in Med Sea, yes
in my rule, no…you have to be blocking the enemy to cause damage

What? who said lose a ship? We are discussing the western allies losing 1 IPC for each German sub or surface ship in Atlantic or Indian ocean. The rule exactly allows the only nation that historically effected the other nations to lose IPC, so that we are modeling what historically happened. Only the western allies had got income in this manner along with japan, so to model this we need those 3 lines of text.

sorry when I said “its ridiculous you can lose more than you ship” I mean the verb “ship”
what happened historically depends on situation of forces around the world
those assumptions are invalid if gameplay happens differently to WWII

OK, but the British player is going to develop tech and buy more ships to sink the German ships. What we are doing is basically to simplify the convoy box system that normally would be in the game. Thats the starting point. The result because this system where you simply counted the German/ Italian ships and subtracted from western allies. That is the only thing we are doing. It worked in AAE and AAP.

in my system you also count, but only ships that actually blocks you
and you don’t just subtract from income, because you shouldn’t be able to lose more than you ship (verb)
if AAE or AAP lets you lose more than you ship (lose more than you realistically can), then I don’t like AAE or AAP

In the 1939 version Japan cant do anything of the sort. They need to focus on realistic ideas. I remember AARe having a 1 IPC loss rule, but i guess they went to .5 IPC. In play testing i don’t see the need to go lower than 1 IPC.

well in standard map using your system then Japan can park ships between UK (IC) and Australia (income generating territory) and make Australia generate negative income

sorry I don’t mean 0.5 IPC, I meant 1 or 2 IPC in AARe
its 1 IPC if 2 spaces away from enemy IC, and 2 IPC if 1 space away
the 1 IPC amount is good, I am not arguing over that

But thats not the rule! In the pacific the case is different, you need to be within ( in between ) the path from enemy controlled territory and factory.

New Guinea is the income generating territory, Tokyo is the factory
thats how your rule can turn out

OK LETS TRY THIS:
new idea….  Each submarine or surface ship within 2 sea zones of any western allied controlled territory can destroy one IPC ( must roll as usual) not to exceed the total value of this territory.
Example: If German subs are off Canada, they can take income not exceeding the total income of Canadian territories, plus they need to roll as usual. This method does not drain the economy.
How bout you try realistic numbers of subs and ships to see how much Germany actually destroys.

once again we’ve changed your rule one step closer to what my system offers

unless you can show something good at this stage I just won’t buy nation specific rules because they are only realistic for a small subset of game outcomes that followed exactly like history
I am afraid players are not going to play the game exactly as history

normally Canada resources would be shipped to UK
in that case 4 IPC might be all you can hit from East Canada sea zone

but if UK fell, UK continues the fight from Canada, building infantry with resources from their colonies…then the amount that can be hit will be greater
so limiting damage to 4 IPC is not realistic

or imagine Australia, its 2 IPC but with an IC it can build 2x4=8 IPC worth
UK colonies might send resources to Australia for that…then Japan has work to be done
its no longer 2 IPC we are takling about but potential 8 IPC worth of shipping

“realistic numbers of subs and ships” is a large range…but unimportant now that they are seeing the importance of limiting damage (as reflected in this revision you made) , rather than 1 IPC per ship for unlimited amounts

We are talking about capabilities. its not realistic to allow everybody to be able to do anything. Italy cant make the a bomb,

USA is not going to turn into a nazi state and fight the allies.

Some things are not to be allowed in a historical game.

though it seems you are talking about capabilities if the game happens the same as WWII
we model realism and everything falls into place
A bomb requires 10 tech boxes, only US is likely to achieve it
other nations can try (and probably fail) if they want
we use technology head start for that, rather than nation specific tech list
see? we don’t have to arbitrate it to history, models the factors…not force the outcome to happen exactly like history

If German captured all of Africa the supplies would run into the medd and transport to southern Europe. It would not go by way of the Atlantic and get shot at and sunk by the allies, yet your universal system allows this.

come on I gave you that argument  :lol:
the system is derived from model we made back in 2006 that resources are going to go via land or use a sea port in prioximty
if its realistic resources to travel far distances on land to a sea port, or even multiple sea trips…then I simply relax my system to let that

If we succeed is modeling history AND also modeling what was realistically possible AND providing play balance so that the axis win nearly equally that the allies , then we have done what we needed to do. I can guarantee you that the way you keep making everything universal, its not the key to providing a historical or realistic version.

on the other I can guarantee you that if we keep making more static/arbitrary rules (even if they reflect history), the game would be realistic for only a small subset of game outcomes,
specifically those where players play like history

Id rather playtest a version thats historical and realistic and then play test, than the other way around.

your system is historical but unrealistic
my system is realistic (and historic until you prove otherwise…so far your complaints such as Allies can hurt Germany or Germany can hurt Russia has been shot down…my system do you let you bleed a player by hitting on non-existent convoys)

The only reason why you wrote that 4 IPC thing was based entirely on your refusal to make a number of simple sentences, which clarify who can attack what.
2 rules:

1. you don’t get income of small island territories if the other player occupies the sea zone for 2 complete turns.
2. each European Axis naval unit in the pacific and Indian ocean costs the British player 1ipc ( each ship must roll as per rules)

oh you forgotten already?
I refused because resources are not going to evaporate

and your 1) and 2) system is only realistic islands without VC nor IC
funny though in those cases the outcome is the same as my “convoy sea zone” rule, so I don’t need what we need to length it

thats all were talking about, but latter i added the idea that USA/ UK subs next to a Japanese IPC territory can also do this but also will roll.

we got rid of the roll already
but if you want to introduce it again I guess we could…

Thats about as hard as this thing gets, but i have you with this 4 IPC, everybody does everything, 10 subs take off 10 ipc thingy…… Thats not the rules even for a second. Its only what is written in those 2 sentences and you can add the third to give the allies some historical play.

again, the 4 IPC thing was only because you wanted a one single naval unit to reduce whatever island IPC to 0, I don’t actually want it

Its not like writing these 2 sentences are going to land you in prison or you become the laughing stock of Australia?

It will make every thing easy to understand then that 4 IPC rubbish

the 4 IPC rubbish is no more
I removed it at the first instance you are happy for it to be removed

some reasons why I defend my system:
(also a benchmark I use against your evolving system (which is improving) and certainly has the possiblity of passing and replacing my system in the future)

*you do not lose more than you ship
*enemy units do not hit your convoy when they are in a different part of the world
*remains realistic even if territory control changes

unfortunately msword does a lot less in other areas
line spacing is set to single, thats inside paragraphs
the spacing before and after headings does leave some gap
I’ll learn how to use change the layout file in a moment
in latex the layout file does the formatting for you
the document gets a consistent and professional look

anyway the point is that it was using same formatting as AARHE
allowing a direct comparison…AARHE is 20 pages, Lite is 9 pages
we’ll want to get closer to 5 pages

I’ve got rid of the page header (section and page number) and reduced margins
later on if you want we can even shrunk font, make it 2 columns, etc…

the ASW changes I am thinking should give us a simple system that is some sense similar to full blown rules, formally:

Naval Combat: Sequence
Pre-Combat
1. ASW search (1st cycle only).
Opening-fire
1. Undetected Submarines fire, selectively (1st cycle only).
2. Naval units perform Anti-Air.
3. Remove casualties.
Mid-Combat
1. Units are allocated to normal combat or ASW.
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. ASW attack.
3. Naval units fire.
4. Air units fire.
5. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision
1. Defender
2. Attacker
->
Opening-fire
1. Naval units perform Anti-Air.
2. Remove casualties.
Main Round
1. Air units fire.
2. Naval units fire.
3. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision
1. Defender
2. Attacker

Naval Combat: Hit Allocation
Submarine can never be hit by naval units except by Anti-Submarine Warfare rolls.
->
Only Destroyer hits can be allocted on Submarine.

Naval Combat: Submarine Warfare
Undetected Submarines fire in opening-fire and selectively. It may only target non-Submarine naval units. All targets are selected before any rolls. Detected Submarines fire in main-round. Submarines are automatically detected from second cycle of combat.
->
In the first cycle of combat Submarines fire in opening-fire and selectively. All targets are selected before any rolls.

Naval Combat: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Remove
(In full blown AARHE only Destroyers can perform ASW attack, value is 2…the same as normal combat value.)

Tech: Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
You ASW now have the following base values:
->
Fighter hits can now be allocated on Submarines.
(In full blown AARHE fighters can perform both ASW search and ASW attack rolls.)

no its single spacing
and it is in the same formatting as normal AARHE

focus on content

ASW, Submarine warfare, Counter Air, Ground Interdiction, etc…there has to be something that is not as important as core ideas of AARHE

I think ASW can be replaced by adding to hit allocation that only destroyer hits can be allocated on submarine
Submarine warfare can be removed, hit allocation already only has the relevant restrictions
ASW tech then lets fighter hits be allocated on submarines
naval combat sequence is then shortened

or make your own sugguestions

++++++++++++++ But that was the point of the greater east Asia prosperity sphere, to build a insurmountable line of fortified outposts of islands to protect Japans holdings. If Japan cant do that they should not get the income. Perhaps we can say on the second turn of isolation, the owning player does not receive income. That would give japan a chance to recover. Besides you keep bringing up that 4 IPC thing, when it is only the most resource rich island on the map, while most of these buggers are 1 IPC.

yes but for one single naval unit to destroy whatever the island produce seems unrealistic
convoy raiding does the same thing but factors in more ships required to intercept more income/shipping/coastline

I bring up 4 IPC thing because there are just as many high income islands as low income islands
East Indies 4, Borneo 4, Phillipines 3 vs Okinawa 1, New Guinea 1, Hawaii 1

Its not important if you want a universal writing style, what is important is the mass players who benefit from this can get on with playing the game as soon as they finish reading it ONE TIME.

then you shouldn’t have to remember which country can be affects by which country

++++++++++These rules are also trying to balance the game, The axis are in need of some basic tools considering the fact that they are economically totally outclassed. And we address this by giving play balance and some historical justification. Your point would be correct if each nation started out with the same IPC and the same military forces.

do things for realism not balancing
until you’ve done substantial playtesting you have no idea on the state of game balance
you could easily be making it worst
AARHE is very different to revised, Germany armor and air force crushes Russia
lets not complaint about abattlemap and start playtesting

++++ what is written above is not a “static system” its just an outline of how income is stripped by naval ships, so that people are not confused into thinking that the axis are in the tank even more because we went against history in a variant designed to model History, and secondly, you made everybody have the same ability to sack 4 IPC or whatever because you want to give the allies even more things they can use their superior fleet for which bring imbalance.

it is static as it does not consider what is happening is the game, where are IPCs going to
my system don’t go against history, if Germany is confined to Europe like in history, then Allies can’t really perform convoy raid on Germany just like history
Allies can have a fleet in Altantic but it won’t do anything because Germany does not have shipping there, unless Germany performs differently to history

++++++++ yes this is true, but its also true that the Axis cant pay for these items unless they are not spending it for land units. In the case of Argentina they are sinking ships that travel either to and from S America or go around the southern end. Look at a map of where the U-Boats operated and you will have the correct answer. www.uboat.net

that is the player’s option
the same can be said for Allies’ SBR bombing vs building landing air units

Argentina is only an example, the point is your (1) does not consider “where” like in (2) and (3)
and also none of them consider actual shipping
its ridiculous you can lose more than you ship
to bleed a player like that is unrealistic

this is quite similar to why AARHE have a round limit for SBR/rocket

In the case of Hawaii, this is also true. If japan can build that many subs and send them near American territories, then the USA player has either lost the game already or Germany just fell a bit early and they used every thing possible for Europe.

I wouldn’t have such judgement
AARe had a static system too
1/2 IPC per submarine near IC
Japan can easily afford to gradually build submarines to park at Hawaii or Western US

In the case of New Guinea, you can also look up what happened to Japanese shipping by American subs. If America built the historical equal to 10 subs, it would have been really effective.

well well well, in WWII American subs were actually positioned at the right place to hit convoys

a super high concentration of submarines at South East Pacific don’t do much against shipping at South East Asia

That consistent rule as you call it is not a historical model from ww2. Its an everything for everybody approach that turns a historical game into checkers. Otherwise whats stopping the American player from building SS panzers? You cant just lump together stuff that didn’t happen in world war two in sole pursuit of “universality” Remember this IS a historical version.

it models realism
if gameplay occurs like history then things fall into place like history
its that simple

but players are not forced to do as the nation did in history

++++++++ Nope. I already made it clear that Germany is not effected by IPC naval raids. Besides they use the medd as the focal point of supplies, which the allies can only attack directly with planes if they control Malta or whatever.

can’t just use what happened in history and apply it to all possible cases

if Germany captured more than small holdings in North Africa I don’t see why don’t need to secure convoy routes

or if you think switching between ships and trucks multiple times (eg. Australia to Africa via sea, across Africa via land, Africa to UK via sea) is an effective way to transport then we can relax my system further to allow that

That would be fine for a ‘universal’ version of Revised. This is a Historical version. It is also a balanced version. Not one time in playtest have i ever used what you wrote on that 4 IPC thingy, rather we used the historical model, because for balance reasons the axis have a very small navy and would have to retool the economy totally differently to start buying 10 subs. If they did that Russians would crush Germany

again I emphasis historic realism not historic replay
in terms of balanced or not maybe you should start playtesting fully rather than cherry picking rules you like where funny things can happen

the 4 IPC thing is new, in attempt to incorporate your island isolation
my system is really just 1 IPC, just like in your system
except my system do not allow you do bleed a player unrealistically

remove introduction
remove acknowledgements
remove optional units
remove airborne drop
remove references to optional units
wrote the mobilisation rule
added tech

reduced by 2 pages, it is still 9 pages

conduct combat is 4 pages and a bit (p . 3 - p . 8 )
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080331b_AARHE_Lite.pdf

as you can see this is very long

I think we don’t need Submarine warfare and ASW
I would just make it only Destroyer hits can be allocated on submarines
after tech, fighter hits can also be allocated on submarines
submarine hit allocation is already in

for tech I’ve put in
Jet Fighters -> Jet Plane
Rockets -> Rockets
Super Submarines -> Advanced Submarine
Long-Range Aircraft -> Long Range Aircraft
Combined Bombardment -> Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare
Heavy Bombers -> Heavy Bomber

Ok read the whole thing before you reply:

Economic Isolation of small islands:
If you occupy the sea zone that surrounds the small island groups, the controlling player of that island group does not receive income until the sea zone is cleared of enemy ships.

Just because an island (eg. East Indies) is under blockade, resources (4 IPC) don’t just evaporate.
The resources can be spent on the island itself.
Hence I tried to incorporate it into convoy raiding, to keep it real.

But as mentioned previously I am not fond of allowing one single naval unit to destroy everything. I think convoy raiding is enough.

rewrite it without the mumbo jumbo.

Heres the problem.
I prefer it written short, consistent, and in game terms.
You prefer the W@W style. Static, nation oriented, historic replay style of writing.

We shouldn’t have to remember which particular player can be raided by which particular players.
We shouldn’t let players have immunity even if the game goes differently to history.

1. Each German or Italian naval unit outside the Baltic and Mediterranean sea can strip one IPC of income from either UK or USA (if at war).
2. Each Japanese Naval unit in the Pacific and within in any path of sea zones between British or American factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost either of these players 1 IPC.
3. Each British and American Submarine in the Pacific Ocean in any path of sea zones between Japanese factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost the Japanese player 1 IPC.

I’ve already explained why static systems are unrealistic.
You can read the back log if you wish.

I see this time you’ve expanded your system with wordings like “path”.
Its getting longer and longer. But it still doesn’t get rid of problems I’ve already mentioned.

What you wrote allows:
*10 German submarines at distant unrelated sea zones (eg. Argentina) hit UK for 10 IPC per turn
*10 Japanese submarines at Hawaii hit US for 10 IPC per turn
*10 US submarines at New Guinea hit Japan for 10 IPC per turn

These ideas and what we have from your text are totally different. What you wrote allows:

1. Soviets to attack German IPC
2. British to attack Italian
3. British to attack German IPC
4. American to attack German IPC

Nope.
The simple consistent rule models actual shipping.
Russia, Germany and US territories are lumped together. For the most of it you can’t hit their shipping. Until the status quo changes.

However if Germany takes Africa and they want to spend the money at Berlin, they’ll have to protect the related sea zones.

Reality: Germany didn’t have any merchant trade by sea except by iron ore deposits from Sweden. And the Soviets never had any capability to interfere with it.

Britain didn’t sink any Italian merchant ships, they sunk transports sending supplies to support DAK, and this was 85% done by fighters based in Malta.

Britain didn’t sink any Japanese merchant trade either.

Japan did sink some American trade in the Pacific. VERY LITTLE

American subs pulverized Japanese trading in the mid and late war period as they closed inside to Japan. It should have been persued more because it nearly starved Japan

Thats historic replay.
Its only realistic is the game happens the same as history.

My system is basic, universal and remains realistic regardless even if Germany takes Africa, or US takes South Pacific.

ok test document is 11 pages
sure we could cut a few things
but we’ll still be 9 pages

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20080331_AARHE_Lite_preview.pdf

we really need a portable document of about 5 pages
so people would actually try it

another representation…
things we’ve removed so far, just too few IMO:

Phase 1: Production Interruption
Phase 1: Logistics
Phase 1: Spending or Saving IPC
Phase 1: Convoy Sea Zone

Phase 2: Variable Industrial Complex Costs
Phase 2: Variable Infantry Costs
Phase 2: Purchase Developments

Phase 3: Submarine Movement
Phase 3: Strait Interdiction
Phase 3: Canals and Waterways
Phase 3: Terrain
Phase 3: Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation

Phase 4: Conduct Combat
Phase 4: Land Combat: Amphibious Assault Sequence, 1st cycle
Phase 4: Break off
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Battleships

Phase 5: Air Transport
Phase 5: Non-combat Reinforcement
Phase 5: Strategic Redeployment (optional)
Phase 5: Other Restrictions

Phase 6: Industrial Complex Mobilization
Phase 6: Victory City Mobilization

Phase 7: Research Progress
Phase 7: Technology Deployment

@Imperious:

Phase 3: Submarine Movement: this rule merely lets submarines go through destroyers after rolling, rolling before combat might be a lot.

Its only a few lines of text. Sub stall is a HUGE issue and this puts an end to it. Subs are too good value for what they do. This takes away some of this and gives value to destroyers, which can indeed stop fleets but at a higher price.

oh, then its “Naval Movement” you want, not “Submarine Movement”

Phase 4: Land/Naval: Jet Supremacy: selecting targets before each roll might be a lot

Its easy to use this rule. anything that is simple to learn and has AARHE ideas mus be used whenever possible.

yeah I’ve moved that item to the draft list already
it’ll be a line when explaining the Jet tech

Phase 4: Naval Combat: Submarine Warfare + Phase 4: Naval Combat: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) how do you intend to simplify these two? I am worry about selecting targets before rolling and unit allocation…and I am sugguesting no ASW search, submarines undetected first cycle, detected other cycles (the same as normal AARHE except you roll search dice to determine for first cycle)

This is a major component from AARHE. It cant be removed. Just try and make it in simple jargon.

download the latest full AARHE (since we’ve simplified some aspects just recently) and give some ideas then
its already written in the minimal way

Phase 4: Counter-Air Mission (CA) -> ok we’ll have it, this is going to add some length

This is a must have or the battle of Britain does not happen. Ground interdiction should be kept also but made simple.

right… nowyou even want GI now

almost everything in conduct combat phase you want in
conduct combat is 7 pages (p.6 - p.13)
we are removing like 1 page only

so Lite is going to be over 10 pages
(I will give you a definite figure soon)

remmeber we are making AARHE:Lite
not AARHE with just a handful of rules removed

I’ve told you from the start and I’ll remind you again
you need to be more selective
some things has got to be less important

ALSO, get rid of that “you lose 4 ipc” thingy from the normal AARHE rules.

I’ve replied in the other thread.

ALSO, get rid of that “you lose 4 ipc” thingy from the normal AARHE rules. I have 2 people also telling me it makes no sence and try to argue that all they have to do is get a sub in the atlantic and Germany loses 4 ipc if they own the Azores.
Convoy Sea Zone
A sea zone part of a path* [see Spending or Saving IPC] is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit
(except Transport) destroys 1 IPC. This is applied to IPC going via the path. Exception applies if it is an
island sea zone, then each hostile naval unit (except Transport) destroys 4 IPC instead.
This line must go away.  Japan owns like 10 island groups and USA buys 10 subs and takes 40 ipc off japan. Rubbish.

yeah we’ll remove it
its a careless side effect of trying to incorporate your island isolation idea earlier

note you cannot bleed a player like in the 2 examples you gave
its common in static systems, but never in AARHE

Azores is 0 IPC
generates no income, cannot build IC
no convoys related to Azores
ships at Azores sea zone can only hit other convoys

Don’t worry. Its going great. We’ve progressed a lot.
We add items to the list once we’ve reached concensus.

Its better than you add some, I add some…round robin style.
That will only produce a document neither of us agree with.

Though it seems we have different feelings towards AARHE:Lite. I want it fairly light.
AARHE is just 20 pages excluding NA. If AARHE:Lite takes 10 pages then whats the point?
I am hoping Lite will be quite a bit under 10 pages.
The list is fairly long already. Will see what happens.

In already:

Phase 1: Economic Attacks
Phase 1: Lend-Lease
Phase 2: Sorched Earth
Phase 3: Air Movement
Phase 3: Stalinist Xenophobia
Phase 3: Airborne Drop
Phase 3: Air Reinforcement: Defensive Air Support Mission (DAS)
Phase 3: Naval Transport
Phase 3: Naval Occupation
Phase 4: Retreat Decision
Phase 4: Defender retreat
Phase 4: Attacker Retreat
Phase 4: Land Combat: Air Units
Phase 4: Land Combat: Air Units: Air Superiority
Phase 4: Land Combat: Anti-Air
Phase 4: Land Combat: Hit Allocation
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Air units
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Anti-Air
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Hit Allocation
Phase 4: Wolf pack
Phase 4: Submarine Submerge
Phase 4: Economic attacks
Phase 4: Strategic Bombing Raid
Phase 5: Air Transport
Phase 5: Non-combat Reinforcement
Phase 6: Mobilization Limit* (new)
Phase 7: Jet supermacy

Comments on remaining conflicts:

Phase 3: Submarine Movement: this rule merely lets submarines go through destroyers after rolling, rolling before combat might be a lot
Phase 4: Land/Naval: Jet Supremacy: selecting targets before each roll might be a lot
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Submarine Warfare + Phase 4: Naval Combat: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) how do you intend to simplify these two? I am worry about selecting targets before rolling and unit allocation…and I am sugguesting no ASW search, submarines undetected first cycle, detected other cycles (the same as normal AARHE except you roll search dice to determine for first cycle)
Phase 4: Counter-Air Mission (CA) -> ok we’ll have it, this is going to add some length

hehe you forgot again
we already got rid of the class system

hits don’t have to be allocated according to class

but, hits are allocated on damaged units

so is it still ok for damaged battleships to fire preemptively?

ok you’ve cut down to 31 items

these 6 are actually already in:

Phase 1: Economic Attacks        1
Phase 3: Air Movement        1
Phase 4: Land Combat: Anti-Air        1
Phase 4: Land Combat: Defender Retreat        1
Phase 4: Land Combat: Hit Allocation        1
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Hit Allocation        1

so 25 left
from those, these 15 are simple yet major in gameplay
so we’ll have them:

Phase 3: Airborne Drop        1
Phase 3: Air Reinforcement: Defensive Air Support Mission (DAS)      1
Phase 3: Naval Transport      1 
Phase 3: Naval Occupation    1   
Phase 4: Retreat Decision  1     
Phase 4: Land Combat:  Attacker Retreat      1
Phase 4: Land Combat: Air Units    1 
Phase 4: Land Combat: Air Units: Air Superiority      1 
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Attacker retreat        1
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Air units      1 
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Anti-Air        1
Phase 4: Wolf pack        1
Phase 4: Economic attacks        1
Phase 5: Air Transport        1
Phase 5: Non-combat Reinforcement    1

the remaining 10 I find are either complex or not major
you shall defend them, or we simplify or remove them

lets hope we keep it “lite” !
we want a small subset, not AARHE with just a few rules removed

Phase 3: Naval Movement      1 -> might be a bit complex for lite to roll dice even before combat
Phase 3: Submarine Movement  1  -> might be a bit complex for lite to roll dice even before combat
Phase 4: Land Combat: Air Units: Jet Superiority      1 -> not major, not core to gameplay
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Air Units: Jet Supremacy        1 -> not major, not core to gameplay
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Submarine Warfare    1 -> AARHE hit allocation already sorts out a lot, we could remove this paragraph, which’ll merely removes first cycle bonus
Phase 4: Naval Combat: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)    1 -> a bit complex for lite, we don’t want players to have to allocate air/naval units to ASW resulting in a complex combat seqeunce

Phase 3: Air Missions        1
Phase 4: Air Missions          1
Phase 4: Counter-Air Mission (CA)        1
-> I think “air missions” sounds complex for lite, could do with just the 2 most important moves, SBR and DAS, SBR rule is already in and that describes the AA and dogfight before SBR rolls

Phase 5: Air Movement        1  -> lets just use OOB for NCM air movement? NCM air is not that major
Phase 5: Strategic Redeployment (optional)      1  -> this is optional in the first place

now for the naval combat simplification…

*as mentioned I wanted to make it you always dogfight if both side has planes, so no more CAP.
For air units allocation you now only choose between 2 things (normal combat and ASW) rather than 3 (those +CAP)

*let Anti-Air work against all enemy air units (because making CAP air units immune to enemy AA fire is only realistic is naval engagements were mostly standing-off assaults)

*last simplification, wonder if damaged Battleships could fire in opening-fire too…could say

existing summary

Pre-Combat
1. ASW search rolls (1st cycle only).
2. Air units are allocated to naval attack, CAP, or ASW.
Opening-fire
1. Undetected Submarines fire, selectively (1st cycle only).
2. Other naval units perform Anti-Air against naval attack air units.
3. Remove casualties.
Mid-Combat
1. Undamged battleship fires. Remove casualties.
2. Naval units are allocated to normal combat or ASW.
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. ASW naval and air perform ASW attack against Submarines.
3. Other naval units fire.
4. Naval attack and CAP air units fire.
5. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision
1. Defender
2. Attacker

new summary

Pre-Combat
1. ASW search (1st cycle only).
Opening-fire
1. Undetected Submarines fire, selectively (1st cycle only).
2. Naval units perform Anti-Air.
3. Remove casualties.
Mid-Combat
1. Battleship fires. Remove casualties.
2. Units are allocated to normal combat or ASW attack.
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. ASW attack.
3. Other naval units fire.
4. Other air units fire.
5. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision
1. Defender
2. Attacker

@Imperious:

======= But the rule of 1:1 for CA missions is good also because that exception wont get ‘tricked’ by

yeah thats pretty much the idea
keep it realistic to minimize ability of players to trick the system

@Imperious:

========= Lend lease is one line, Xenophobia is another line make it so.

ok cool

===== you can destroy your factories by declaring it at the start of the combat round, if you still have forces left they are considered sufficient to have blown up the factory. Also, if you have any factories you may also “sell” them back and get 5 IPC to your treasury. This is done at the end of your turn only.

hehe thats pretty much the existing rule
so lets use the existing?
(existing rule is declare in purchase phase, destroy in mobilization phase…new rule is declare in combat phase, destroy at end of turn)

though we shouldn’t be adding new things
so lets not have the 5 IPC sell thing (thats more of IC relocation rather than sorched earth idea) nor requirement for force (this is your turn and your territory, after all)

++++++Get rid of that 4x the IPC thing. Battleships and carriers can only be created in original sea zones adjacent to your original factories. In all cases you can build total quantity of units of any type in factories equal to the IPC value, and an additional amount of infantry also equal ( example: Territory value with factory can build 3 tanks and 3 infantry. Territory of 3 ipc and no factory can build only 3 infantry if its originally yours or 1/2 rounded down if occupied. Also, you cant build factories in occupied territories, BUT you can capture enemy factories ( also producing at 1/2 rounded down rate)

ok nice and simple Mobilization rule, we’ll use it to replace both IC and VC Mobilization rule
I don’t think we need to disallow building IC at enemy territories though
limit of 1/2 round down is fine I think

Alright probably resolved all conflicts.

Updated draft:

Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks
Lend-Lease
Phase 2: Purchase
Sorched Earth
Phase 3: Combat Move
Air Movement
Stalinist Xenophobia
Phase 4: Conduct Combat
Anti-Air
Defender retreat
Land Combat: Hit Allocation
Submarine Submerge
Naval Combat: Hit Allocation
Strategic Bombing Raid
Phase 5: Non-combat Move
Phase 6: Mobilize New Units
Mobilization Limit* (new)

Time for next step. Working in the opposite direction.
You gave 37 1’s. (items you want)
Can you have a look the 37 again and give me 15?
It shouldn’t be hard for you now that several items you wanted is now already on the draft.

++++++++++++++ any time the defender send planes to assist in combat its a DAS mission. Not “combat reinforcement”

ok we keep it as DAS

+++++++++++++ I think i see what your saying. OK planes that defended in CA can also defend against sttacks. Otherwise CA would be a trick to avoid multi round combat of dogfights where the attacker has brought lots of bombers to attack land units, but the trick was to find a air mission of limited duration that would remove the bombers getting in. So thats why the defender can perform both.

hehe actually I am saying the opposite
that they shouldn’t be able to do two things at the same time
but fine that just depends on our model of timeline

anyway defending air units shall not defend in two space
3 CA air units should tie down 3 defending air units, which shall not perform DAS

system is going fine
you merely misread my post  :-P
this is so funny  :-D

Air Movement–- sure planes no longer fly. great
Stalinist Xenophobia---- no allies in USSR. whats hard about that?

that list is “consensus between us”
(part of the 15 items I want AND not part of the 13 items you hate)
we ARE having them, don’t worry

I am asking for comments on conflicts
(part of the 15 items I want AND part of the 13 items you hate)

Lend-Lease
Scorched Earth
Terrain
Land Combat: Amphibious Assault
Industrial Complex Mobilization

I’ve given in on terrain and amphibious assault.
You just have to comment on the other 3.

@tekkyy:

These conflicts remain. Comments required:
Lend-Lease: One line and no accounting needed. So why not? It is important as US/UK can’t enter Russian territories.
Scorched Earth: One line and no accounting needed. So why not? “Sorched earth” man.
Industrial Complex Mobilization: Its not simple in that it requires adding up IPC value of the units you are deploying. But you don’t really want Battleships to pop out of anywhere but major industrial centres. I am 50-50 on this. What do you think?

Economic Attacks–- each german naval outside baltic takes 1 ipc off UK/lend lease and each USA/UK sub in pacific takes one ipc from japan… how hard is this to have in LIght?

don’t get confused
Economic Attack is about economic attacks having a round limit
what you mentioned is an alternative Convoy Sea Zone rule you proposed about a month ago
and I have already posted several unrealistic outcomes of that

IL I am combined our preferences and noted some conflicts
waiting for comments here

@tekkyy:

These conflicts remain. Comments required: