Posts made by tekkyy

how much infantry fodder do you need?

what risk level do you take when trading?
for 1-3 inf defending, do you always send the same number of infantry?

Journalist,
no worries TripleA is continuously in the works
but there is a stable/unstable cycle thats all

Jen,
regarding your triplea problem, have you seeked help before?
if you haven’t yet you could try to ask at triple forum
or you probably can get help here too
just post the error messages or screenshots

@Cmdr:

Yea, I don’t like the idea of letting the enemy build in contested sea zones either for that matter.  If you cannot land your planes there, then you shouldnt be able to build your carriers there either.

yeah thats a funny situation in terms of logics

and then theres the two opposing ICs building into the same sea zone
“first come last served”

you should be able to right?

switch’s quote lets you move fighters to a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own and that you are going to place a new carrier there

so for a44bigdog’s “existing fighters in the same territory as the IC” (or anywhere for that matter) can just move to the LHTR’s “sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own” ?

so it might be for the old look, being an anniversay edition
but I worry the box design is not appealing and hence affect sales
like, its not bright and colour

wait I thought you can’t zoom in abattlemap?

I think both display and motion detect are infrared

in the end I mean those big touch screen table PCs

search in youtube “Microsoft Surface Parody”
its pretty funny

run Abattlemap on that

Abattemap for FTF games…
the scrolling would annoy the crap out of me

we need
*touch screen
*huge screen

quite possible actually
holographic devices would be cheap enough soon

I take it you’ve all seen the arrival of consumer level holograhic keyboards right?

oh crap? I asked 4-5 times already? lets hope IL is not annoyed  :wink:

since you’re a graphics designer, can you teach me how to make IL’s new avatar?
maybe I’ll make one with the AARHE map

@Nukchebi0:

That is, 20 cruisers would kill more land units on average than twelve battleships, but these battleships would kill off the entire cruiser force 83% of the time.

yeah thats the kind of stuff we need
scissor paper rock action
taking gameplay to a new level

you’re confusing me
I downloaded the new 1939 map with dimmed VCs

and…its the old file again!

last time this happned I also asked but you still haven’t explained
are you rolling back the map? don’t like all the changes we made in the last month or 2?

you took 35 clicks to change the VCs
I did the same in 5 seconds! :wink:
(select VC layer, unlock, select all, enter new opacity)

I learned the powerful illustrator because of AARHE
you introduced me to illustrator!

.ai file (please use)
http://www.mediafire.com/?fbibcuufemz

I’ve put updated the 1939 PNG exports at
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/

another thing, can I ask you to date the files instead of funny names like
final print final version copy copy copy.ai

(1) top 5 to keep
(2) next 5 to keep
(3) next 5 to keep

Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks 1
Production Interruption
Logistics
Spending or Saving IPC
Convoy Sea Zone
Lend-Lease 3

Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments
Variable Industrial Complex Costs
Variable Infantry Costs
Purchase Developments
Scorched Earth 3

Phase 3: Combat Move
Air Movement 1
Airborne Drop
Naval Movement
Naval Transport
Naval Occupation
Submarine Movement
Air Missions
Combat Reinforcement
Air Reinforcement: Defensive Air Support Mission (DAS)
Land Reinforcement
Strait Interdiction
Canals and Waterways
Terrain 3
Stalinist Xenophobia 2
Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation

Phase 4: Conduct Combat
Land Combat: Air Units
Air Superiority
Jet Superiority
Anti-Air 1
Land Combat: Retreat Decision
Defender retreat 2
Attacker retreat
Capture of defender’s retreating army
Land Combat: Sequence
Land Combat: Hit Allocation 1
Land Combat: Amphibious Assault Sequence, 1st cycle 3
Naval Combat: Air units
Jet Supremacy
Anti-Air
Naval Combat: Retreat Decision
Defender Retreat
Attacker Retreat
Submarine Submerge 2
Break off
Naval Combat: Sequence
Naval Combat: Hit Allocation 1
Naval Combat: Battleships
Naval Combat: Submarine Warfare
Wolf pack
Naval Combat: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Naval Combat: Amphibious Assault
Air Missions
Counter-Air Mission (CA)
Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR) 2
Ground Interdiction Mission (GI)
Economic attacks

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

Phase 6: Mobilize New Units
Industrial Complex Mobilization 3
Victory City Mobilization 1
Build schedule

Phase 7: DevelopWeapons
Research Progress
Technology Deployment

tekkyy.xls

As I said its up to you to vote keeps or removes.
For my its easier to find what I like the most.

The list has 73 lines but excluding upper level headings, its really just 60 rules.
We aim for lite to be 5 pages, thats about 20 rules.
Very much in the level of complexity as AARe.

Hence I just ask myself what I think add realism to gameplay yet is simple.
And then the rules that are complex or simple but unimportant I don’t mind seeing them go.
Thats the my philosphy.

I guess you don’t HAVE to give preference if you don’t want.
The preference matrix will deal with it for you, beautifully.

Yeah you can add removes over time. In a few days we’ll evaluate.
I’ll post my preference some time.

Yeah individual votes can do either (pick keep or pick remove).

Probably can’t do musical chairs. We’ll just have arguments when I remove something you really want to keep.
Need to evaluate collective preference rather then individually have a stab at it.
This is done with a preference matrix.

You merely voted 11 removes.
We need a way to see your preference.

Do it in groups (remove these 5, next remove these 5…)
Also you could do ordering (1,2,3,4,5…)

tell us your findings in your last playtestings!

yeah most of the time the game is played by 2 players for quite a number of reasons

but there are also fans of the otherwise calculation based play style
hence we see some 5 player games and free for all games played on this forum

maybe Delxue would have more victory conditions to cater for home, tournament and even history loving fans of axis and allies

Ill compile some things and post.

wait
don’t you want to do it like how I proposed it?

it’ll be selection simple and robust

to let “Lite” be a stepping stone to AARHE
we need an easy transition to full AARHE
that means modifications only when its really neccessary

minimal changes, merely select rules to have

I’ve copied the index to an excel file
fill it in and we then compare our ranks

http://www.mediafire.com/?j9o2sts1yn1

we should keep the discussion simple and work purely in "heading"s
avoiding modifications, cos that’ll make transition to full AARHE confusing
(also we want to avoid arguing over rules, I mean we are not making to a new rule set…we are making AARHE Lite)

actually its “Lite” not “Light” right?

10 pages is still discouraging to new players
how about 5 pages?
(National Advantages and Strategic Redployment are optional anyway, so I think they shouldn’t be included)

we start with BLANK and here we go…

stage 1 - game sequence - I believe we are in agreement, if nothing this stage is complete
*VCs, win via VCs
*all axis followed by all allies, and special Russia opening

stage 2 - turn sequence
I am thinking same as AARHE except no diplomacy phase
neutrals joining at set turn can quite funny, so migh as well leave them out

stage 3 - individual game phases
we must not spoil ourselves and add everything
must be distinctly simpler from full AARHE
I am thinking we’ll take turns to nominate 1 or 2 headings at a time
each turn you really have to ask yourself what do you think is the most important…and then nominate it

ok I’ve added the new VC icons to the standard map

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/20080303_AARHE_standard_with_setup.pdf
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/20080303_AARHE_standard_with_setup_100dpi.png
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/20080303_AARHE_standard_with_setup_300dpi.png

latest maps in this folder

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

@Imperious:

I agree with everybody get rid of victory cities because they are arbitrary. Hitler didn’t start his war to capture “cities” he wanted to conquer nations in Europe and had no connection to what Japan was doing insofar as japan was also fighting German enemies.
So naturally Historical victory conditions go in place. Then everybody can win as a nation and not as a team. And then you wont have to keep having one person play 3 nations as one.

Its not that bad. The victory cities are inside territories/nations so it does so some of what you said.

But of course I still like individual victory for the diplomacy aspect. More human interactions.