Posts made by tekkyy

the changes to the land units makes sense, mostly…

compared to AAR:
INF +5 each
ART -2 UK -2 JAP -2 US
ARM +2 GER -2 UK
FTR -2 each
BMB +3 UK +1 JAP +2 US

the numbers for naval units looks weird

you gave measurements for the player aids
have you got measurements for the size of the map?

yeah OOB rules with unlimited effects can cause some grieve
the simpler the fix the better
I would follow the concept of one unit - one dice - one victim that is used everywhere in the game

I’ve been busy and will be for some time

also, this phase of AARHE can’t progress if we keep getting side tracked

or maybe our goals are too different
maybe you don’t see my passion for making a palatable AARHE (for the possbility of making AARHE more relevant)

@Imperious:

well we need something with flavor. Let just artillery get preemptive return fire, and limit invasion by IPC each round and leave the SB as per OOB.

well OOB SB is too juicy, its god-like

don’t mind the high value of 4 for battleship nor make destroyer SB standard
its the preemptive fire and lack of 1-to-1 thats crazy
hate to see combats decided mostly by shore bombardment

the new idea is retreat is announced before the start of combat. Retreat declarations do not fire. Extra hits go against retreating units. that solves it.

In the war game it works very well.

better if there was a simpler way
ideally one or two sentences, a modification to existing rules rather than a rewrite of the sequence

anyway all that talk branched from partial retreat

I would like to reiterate that we were supposed to keep it simple and produce AARHE 4.1
removal of certain rules and simplifications was the focus
introduction of new rules was not sought after, it would be counter productive to the removal and simplifications we made earlier

no they destroy units. This is wrong. Its impossible to destroy an army from a Battleship

yes , this is why I sugguest shore bombardment to be +1 to infantry instead of OOB’s shore bombardment where the ship gets to roll a combat die

but the unit can be reduced in effectiveness and i feel this is a good model.

I see what you mean but as mentioned I feel the reality is that you can’t just keep shelling the area once friendly troops are in the area
the suppression rule just feels too powerful to me, I much prefer them supporting the attacking land units

we might be simply over doing al this amphibious assault bonus for defender and attacker
maybe it would make sense to not have this suppression and also not let defending non-infantry land units fire in opening-fire
(my worry is that powerful bonuses is not realistic as the beach fighting is overly emphasised while in reality most fighting is the inland battle afterwards…your territory-IPC-based amphibious landing limit already adds the amphibious favour to the land combat)

And since the BB can effect units defending in a range of 1-4, while cruisers its 1-3. This gives the BB a new advantage as well.

we’ll worry about that in future version when we reintroduce optional units

why would defender allocate the reduced unit (instead of infantry) as combat loss?
unless the suppressed unit is suppressed for 2nd, 3rd, 4th…eycles

Because the invasion may be very close to winning and the defender might want to take out the suppressed unit as combat loss in order to inflict maximum loses and deny losing the battle.

hm….
the defending unit allocated as casualty still gets to return fire
unless it was opening-fire
but the only attacker opening-fire for OOB style shore bombardment, which is no more and replaced by my +1 to infantry rule or your suppression rule

The defender may have 5 tanks and 2 infantry and the attacker has 6 infantry and 4 tanks. The defender retreats his tanks and the attacker only gets 3 hits on the first round. That saves most of the tanks and its realistic.

um…yeah thats if we go and add a new rule for the parting shot idea

If we only allow full retreats the defender gets to fire for free with all his units and retreat, because retreat allocations are announced at the end of battles.

well…if we have a parting shot rule it would apply all the time…no reason to let full retreat be exempt

I propose they are announced at the start of the round and retreating units allocated for retreat do not fire. Play it out and see.

yeah I saw that…all that you said sounds better if yet another rule (declare retreat being combat die) is added

I think the reason why in axis and allies you don’t declare retreat at the beginning of the cycle is the time frame
it would be stupid when one side performed well in the cycle but retreats at the end of the cycle because that side declared retreat before the dice rolling
and this would be funny for a turn that represents months

The suppress idea applies to the first round SB only. What is going on is the defenders position is ruined and the hard points of his defense have been neutralized. The way to simulate this is to reduce his effectiveness and not add attack value to the attacker.

but in the end both landartillery and naval artillery (shore bombardment) does the same thing
neutralise the hard points, soften the target

provided its supporting an advance, the attacker has a easier time
the basic axis and allies artillery +1 philosphy

So we reduce him to one and to overcome the fact that the defender will always choose infantry as his loss, we assign the roll of SB to determine which unit is suppressed, so now the defender has the decision if he thinks the battle will not go well be will allocate the reduced unit as a combat loss.

why would defender allocate the reduced unit (instead of infantry) as combat loss?
unless the suppressed unit is suppressed for 2nd, 3rd, 4th…eycles

in the end I feel the suppression rule is a little complex and not entirely realistic

Id also add a new idea: For invasions we could bring back the old “co-exist rule”  Which in this case simulates a bridgehead for the invasion.
…
Play this out and note how it looks more like D-Day and how that went.

probably more suited to a different level of abstraction
like, would it make sense for the timeline of 6 months per turn?

note, the current plan isn’t to add further complexity to AARHE
we’ve been through adding and removing complexity previously
I kind of would only consider new rules if its a simpler way to do things (replaces a string of other rules)

ok well how bout the Jeff rule from his world war two game?
Partial retreat allowed, if attacker rolls up and the remaining defenders are not sufficient, then additional hit allocations go against retreated units…

I wasn’t talking about adding penalty to defender retreat
my question is the worthiness of a partial retreat rule

is there a need for it?
what situation would you want to perform a partial retreat?

lets resume
still waiting for your response to my last post

summary:
1. I feel suppression is unrealistic and prefer bombardment to be supporting infantry with +1 instead
2. bombardment effects (in fact, all amphibious bonuses) would be first cycle only for realism and easier game execution
3. not obvious to me why the player would want to perfrom partial retreat, give me an example when you would do it

(refer to my previous post for my reasons)

@Dagon81:

Maybe this is an expansion… I dont  know… It doesnt make sense to release another version of global AA 5 years after AA Revised…!

well they gotta keep up with the times

more has happened in the board game industry and community since revised was released, than in the 2 decades between revised and classic

I am not surprised
never agreed with the popular view that anniversary is the new revised

yes anniversary is better and all that
but it is not a replacement for revised, way too expensive

not that Hasbro cares about Australia but its $115 vs. $50 here

actually this supress rule may unrealistic
even all the naval support at normandy the landing wasn’t exactly easy was it? still plenty of losses

I think its because naval bombardment is during landing of friendly troops
once friendly troops start charging up the beach or hill naval bomardment STOP or else there’ll be horrible friendly fire

so bombardment does not exactly “suppress” the enemy while your troops walk all over them

I think we should stay with BB supporting infantry with a +1 like an artillery

ok 1:1, but it may be a two round affair, ( example: landing in Norway) and having 3 SB but only able to land 2 units on first round , with latter SB on 2nd round?

note its actually:
mountainous = IPC limit
small = limit of 2

so Norway = 3 land units first round

anyway I think there can’t be any SB effects in 2nd cycle
the beach battle is over
defender bonuses for example do not appear in 2nd cycle

partial for attacker or defender?

I was thinking of both
when would you want to do a partial retreat anyway?

yes definatly partial retreats for both sides as usual.

confirming whether you understood me correctly…

I am saying lets remove partial retreat for both attacker and defender

its not obvious to me why you want to do a partial retreat
(as we no longer have any complex retreat without firing or capture-enemy-troops rules)

I would prefer it simple but yeah we could consider new Shore Bombardment ideas

1. to be simple, instead of reducing to 1 its ok to just make it not fire at all

2. effects has to be 1st cycle only, naval ships should never excert power inland or through out the entire campaign

3. still has to be 1-to-1 with invading land force, defender wouldn’t over expose themselves nor send excessive forces down the beach

partial for attacker or defender?

I was thinking of both
when would you want to do a partial retreat anyway?

ok first turn = IPC determines what can be landed

proposed script:
_Step 1: Place units on battle board
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports a number of land units equal to the territory’s IPC value. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In the second cycle of combat (or at the end of first cycle if combat is won by attacker) the attacker offloads remaining units.

Step 1: Place units on battle board (territories marked as small)
In the first cycle of combat the attacker offloads from Transports two land units. Units remaining on Transports do not fire and may not be taken as casualties. In subsequent cycles of combat the attacker may offload from Transport a number of land units to ‘‘top up’’ to two land units on the battle board._

Add Hawaii, Solomon, and Okinawa, and list to include 1939 added islands which are small.

Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar are <10 km^2 and marked as small in AARHE

Hawaii, Solomon and Okinawa are large enough as staging area and hence not marked as small in AARHE

Hawaii 28,311 km^2
Solomon 28,896 km^2
Okinawa 2,271 km^2

Allied forces in Battle of Okinawa is huge, 50% that of Battle of Normandy

last thing before moving to naval combat
if partial retreat is not hugely important I would prefer to get rid of it

ok so thats one round or every round? If just round one its not enough juice.

hehe I was worried about too much juice
in OOB you can win battles with SB and not actual infantry

anyway this is related to the model of how many cycles is amphibious landing and how many cyles is the overall battle…see below

ok then out of this defender will stock more armor for defense and not just have infantry. script it.

for amphibous assault…
Step: Conduct opening fire
In the first cycle of combat, defending artillery and tanks only fire in this step only.

the +1 mountainous/snowy defense bonus was about defensive terrain bonus
I don’t think it should apply to the above preemptive shot
if you agree I would move the rule to the particular step:
Step: Defending units fire
In mountainous or snowy terrain territories, defending land units have their defence increased by 1 on the first cycle of combat.

no it can only hit what lands, so 6. On round 2 you got 12 coming in.

I am having second thoughts
normandy landings (days) is a small part of the operation overlord (months)

its best we model the landing in first cycle of combat
also makes the rules simpler

like we already have
defending artillery/tanks preemptive fire…1st cycle only
+1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy…1st cycle only

so should try to make
shore bombardment (SB)…to be 1st cycle only?
landing limit…to be 1st cycle only?

yes the 2 limit applies now to small islands/groups ( not Philippines, Borneo or east indies.)

yeah the old list only contains Wake Island, Midway, and Gibraltar
all below 10km^2

yes but in 4.0 we have both the +1 and 4 units get one SB rule, your proposal is already the 4.0 rule.
I don’t know what to do with this. Perhaps just return it to OOB to make it easier

it’ll be good to bring back SB for the Pacific
but we don’t want OOB’s SB winning land battle

maybe I didn’t explain clearly
I am proposing SB +1 to infantry….instead of the SB rolls

Its either artillery get preemptive fire or anything with a barrel can shoot, for tanks this would be committing armor early enough in the invasion which would have had a huge effect on D-Day.  I would like the rule to be more simple but effective.

yep ok, include tanks

well its also such an important place, i think the label it mountain is not good for game play situations.

I still don’t get it
Japan doesn’t get invaded til end game

or are you ok with it now that we use the IPC limit not the limit of 2

how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?

yes lets do that. script it.

before I script I need one more detail

US invades Southern Europe (6 IPC)
1st cycle of combat, only 6 amphibious land units can roll
Germany rolls and gets 7 hits…does US allocate 6 or 7 casualties?

note, if US only have to allocate 6 casualties there is a side effect of reducing the power of the +1 defense bonus for mountainous/snowy on 1st cycle of combat
(ie. for large battles, it might actually make amphibious assault easier than normal land-to-land assault)

the stricter limit of 2 land units per cycle, I would want to apply it to territories marked as “small” (eg. Wake Island)

Jennifer, I think I see what you mean
its mostly AARe so you didn’t call it AA50J
but AARe crowd would be happier you simply call it Jennifier’s adaptation of AARe

@Cmdr:

Sorry, I just got sick of axis_roll (primarily) and a few others pissing and moaning because they thought they could kill AA50 Enhanced by refusing to participate in it’s creation and by responding with a stock reply “too many changes” to every request for assistance in its creation.

are you actually looking for feedback anymore?
you were saying its the “final version” already with only erratas planned

as for responses of “too many changes”, it happens in discussions
ask yourself what is the very most important change and talk about that first
its easier for the audience to take in

Invasions now are in the form of just invading for the purpose of killing units to prevent reinforcement to other areas, they are less frequent than OOB, but the purpose of what they have become is still not like the new rules have intended.

I think thats an issue with “reinforcement”, not amphibious assault
reinforcement: passive land units that did not fight in combat can move to adjacent friendly territory in “non-combat move”

you can increase the difficulty of amphibious assault but it won’t stop UK from attacking Western Europe with a small force to stop units in Western Europe from performing “reinforcement”

but its a problem anyway…defending units at Western Europe can just retreat to Germany or South Europe instead of using “reinforcement” rule to move in NCM…unless both are under attack (can’t retreat to unresolved combat zone)

and both under attack then the player is under attack left right and centre and I would say its fair he has to wait for his active turn to move

the idea above seems correct, but you got to keep SB bonus per 4 units landing like 4.0

what about my proposal of SB ships giving +1 to infantry instead (1-to-1)?

AARHE 4.0’s one SB die per 4 units landing sort of took SB out of the game, especially in the Pacific

importantly, neither of us want battles to be over (in opening fire) before it started due to SB

2. defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)

yes we previously had defending artillery fire in opening fire on 1st cycle of combat, are you saying we should include tanks?

Japan is mountainous, but these are in the interior. So for invasions its effect is too great because it makes this important territory virtually impossible to invade. In Southern Europe its more like Norway where the cliffs and poor terrain are located much closer to the shoreline. Hitler feared the British would invade in the Balkans, but knew they didn’t have to be defended too much because of the terrain was so favorable for the defender.

Japan’s mountains are pretty close to the edge too
it also has a low % of coast line invadable (Japan vs. Eastern part of Southern Europe)
however, the territory “South Europe” includes the plains of Italy

as for “important territory virtually impossible to invade”, South Europe surely gets invaded while Japan usually gets invaded in end game

so I think the mountainous amphibious limit of 2 units on 1st cycle, 4 on 2nd, 6 on 3rd…are just too low for both South Europe and Japan

how about no limit on normal amphibious assault
and use your IPC limit for mountainous amphibious assault?

Well lets just say their is no need to change the movement sequence.

I think by “movement sequence” you meant “round sequence”
yeah we can keep AARHE’s existing round sequence

we got carried away, I am trying to say that you mentioned D-Day but there is no D-Day (or any other OOB-wording National Advantages) in AARHE

@axis_roll:

The ‘council’ of players would discuss and make suggestions, do the game play testing with a final recommendation for a rule.  Cousin_Joe did have final say, basically to avoid a ‘mutiny’ type of situation from ever happening.

yeah I know what you mean

though I would use the word ‘mutiny’ to refer to the main testers/supporters not happy with cousin_joe’s decision and thus withdraw their support/endorsement for the rules

under a council there is no such thing as a mutiny, but simply a proposed change that did not pass

to keep the set of house rules clean, its better controverisal changes don’t go through rather than letting them creep in and see what happens

so the naming issue aside, I would hope Jennifer go forward rather than backward in the formation of the rules

Yes collaborative effect would be nice. Though I thought AARe was ultimately in charge by cousin_joe rather than a council anyway.

I do sort of think people should not use an established name to name their set of house rules.

yes i prefer this as well. make it more simple. but you need to add a step where the defender can allocate adjacent planes for support.

thats “Air Reinforcement”, which is declared during “combat move” phase

Also, on item #7:  should read Press attack or retreat declarations.

that list was just what LHTR had as a combat sequence
its not a AARHE combat sequence which I am saying we don’t need to make

The defender needs to get to fire first, but this can be limited to artillery like we have it before.
so:

1. shore bombardments (defender removes loses)
2. defending non-infantry fire ( attacker removes loses)
3. attacking units fire
4. defending infantry fire
   how bout this?

ok we just say defending artillery fire in opening fire in the first cycle of combat
but for shore bombardment, I was sugguesting:

*no shore bombardment dice, just +1 to infantry on 1-to-1 basis

]They are huge territories  but invasions are only performed in narrow sections. The limitations are realistic. playtest it and you will see less invasions, but more stronger invasions rather than raids.

what kind of raids are you seeing in your games?

in AARHE you collecting income at end of turn, so UK doesn’t collect income from Western Europe to replace losses unless they can hold it

add that basic shore bombardment change (not an original idea) there would be little incentive to raid?

what I am thinking is your limit does not affect small attacking force, but disadvantage large attacking force

I disagree with the rule as I consider the capturing of beaches and ports to be shorter than the 1st cycle of combat, a small thing in the overall campaign that last several cycles
where majority of the fighting occurs inland

Invading specific mountain areas is nearly impossible to do with large forces. Japan should not be mountain.

territories are labelled “mountainous” in AARHE according to actual geography
if Japan is not to be labelled mountainous than Southern Europe (with a higher % of plains) can’t be mountainous…and than if Southern Europe is not mountainous something else in turn shouldn’t be…

lets make defender advantage (for amphibious assault on mountainous terrain) itself realistic rather than blame other rules

no not at all. That cant be changed. its great. we should have some rules on multi national forces.

well I am not sure OOB or LHTR National Advantages are compatible with AARHE
it wasn’t the intention for players to use OOB National Advantage or Technology in AARHE

what do you mean by “the first national power that is attacked”?
does this still use standard OOB rules’s round sequence?