Posts made by tekkyy

by the way try to read the whole post before you type up your reply
sometimes it appears you read and reply at the same time which makes the response funny

Retreat (phase 4: conduct combat) -

This is too complicated. lets use something i am familiar with borrow the wargame retreat rules:

its amazing when say “too complicated”
my “fight to death” rule is much simpler than your “fight to death” rule
its the answering of your questions that was long

the actually rule as posted in one post earlier is that either side can declare it and then both sides much fight to death from next combat cycle

example: attacker has 4 tanks against 3 defending infantry. Defender decides that he will retreat 2 infantry, so attacker rolls out and gets 3 hits, so the defender rolls his two hits, then the defender removes both his defending force plus one retreating unit.

um…ok that’s a retreat rule for partial retreat
but we are discussing a retreat rule for fight to death at the moment

yes we can discuss partial retreat too, but wait for phase 4: conduct combat
we are only discussing this “fight to death” (also a phase 4: conduct combat rule) only because we have to confirm we can remove your funny phase 3: combat move rule about unused movement points

partial retreat rule does not replace a fight to death rule
to refresh your memory, this long discuss about retreat is because
*A. you want ability for one to fight to death and tie down the enemy
*B. I want attacker to be able to retreat even if it did performed too well in combat rolls killed defending units

from what you’re saying it seems you are no longer pursuing your issue A, please confirm now!
if you are no longer pursuing A, then we can simply keep AARHE’s current rule (that you can always retreat) to solve my issue B

Naval Movement - hows this coming along?
fact remains that transports are slow  (Liberty class 11.5 knots) with or without escorts
transports simply can’t join a dash through a hostile area performed by a fleet of destroyers (Fletcher class 36.5 knots) and carriers (Essex class 33 knots)

some sugguestions:
A. use AA50 rule except transports can’t go through enemy submarines, or
B. use AA50 rule except each submarine can fire once, hits can only be allocated on transports

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

we don’t want the same factory moving more than once. thats the point. That removes the power of moving a mobile factory every turn.

you want this rule to help the Soviets
I don’t think it’ll help USSR enough if it each IC can only move once per game
anyway once per game is more suitable as a National Advantage

this is too weak. one space? why? its useless to make it one space.

ok, we’ll make it you can relocate anywhere from and to, within Soviet held original Soviet terrtiories

its nothing wrong with “one factory per turn can move or be destroyed” and " placements arrive the following turn that you place factory."

referring to your link
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=22442
they are saying the plan wasn’t all that instant or magical
so I don’t think you should be able to mobilize at a moving IC this turn

anyway your placements arrive the following turn that you place factory is not well thought out
there is territory limit to number of units you can mobilize
if you pay more IPC than your deployment capacity the the IPC are lost, thats the axis and allies rule
we don’t want to make an except for this non-core rule do we? its only an adjustment rule

yeah I guess 1:1 could have issues with US overpowering Japan in Pacific
but this ratio is tuneable

2. WHENEVER a SUB is due to roll (either in attack or defence), it ALWAYS has the option to submerge instead

this is great too
especially under AA50’s submarine model of 1 defense

simple and addresses the issue of submarine survivability directly
I think the godly unlimited cancelling of Submersible ability is the important one, the cancelling of Surprise Strick ability is not a big problem

3. Special Convoy Interdiction Attack

for distinction I wish its not called Convoy

it sucks how transports can walk over submarines in AA50
hopefully this rule can be simplified and more palatable
the more complex the rule, the harder it is to balance

4. Special Deep Dive Defence

any complexity propagates throughout the game such as increased complexity of Tech
so I am not sure about this one

yeah it does seem Cruisers dominate Battleships
in the 4 CA vs 3 BB combat
and of course Cruiser is much better unit overall
(note Cruiser can bombard too)

maybe Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier shouldn’t take 2-hits after all
I haven’t played games with all optional units select for play (usually only select naval fighter)
but yeah its funny how:
BB 2-hit, 2-turn
CA 2-hit, 1-turn
CV 2-hit, 2-turn

sorry we only post major updates to Board Game Geek and minor updates here
the latest version is 20081102 (version 4.0 draft)
since then, there is a discussion in trimming down AARHE and the result would probably be called version 4.1

no updates on this however as its not practical to do so
we are cleaning up phase 1, then phase 2, etc…
naval unit movement in phase 3 Combat Move is on the agenda

i will submit the AARHE project to BGG as its own game.

don’t think thats a good idea
its not a new game and will be even less so after we get rid of the tedious bits of AARHE

@cousin_joe:

Subs should have increased survivability on defense

yeah defense value of 1 is a joke
especially since one destroyer can prevent all enemy submarines from submerging

A. SUBs are detected on a 1:1 basis.  1 DD detects 1 SUB.  If attacked, any undetected SUB may submerge prior to the battle.

yeah I dislike any unlimited capablilties
it’ll be good if AA50e did something about this as well as the godly unlimited Anti-aircraft
I like 1:1 bit of A since its simple and doesn’t have unlimited capability

yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?
anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHE

you better believe it.

what do you mean by better believe it?
as in you think you would put a revised rule into a house rule for classic?
as in you think AA50HE can be a lot simpler than AARHE?

Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -

OK lets get this straight:
defender declares his intentions ( retreat, continue, or die fighting)
attacker then decides one of first 2 options
If defender declared the third option, then attacker is stuck to fight to death?

(1) yes defender declares one of 3 options
(2) no attacker then decides also from all 3 options
(3) no if defender declares the third option, attacker is not stuck yet, but BOTH sides are stuck from next cycle of combat

reasoning below

regarding (1) we haven’t mentioned removal of AARHE’s partial retreat, if you want to partial retreat I have to think about retreat rules accordingly

regarding (2) both side has the ability to turn the combat into a no-more-retreat-style, this is important as I don’t want to disadvantage the attacker. so if we model what the defender can do to tie down attacking forces we also model what the attacker can do to tie down the defending forces from retreating

regarding (3) its from next cycle onwards because I don’t want the defender to have ability to suddenly stop the attacker from retreating. You wanted to give the defender ability to trench in and pose for city fighting. So no retreat  should be from next cycle of combat onwards. If attacker wants to conquer they are in for a messy fight with no retreat.
Now, my proposal does allow attacker to make stuck any unretreated defending units. This is I think is reasonable in the context of defender being passive forces in axis and allies.

Naval Movement - on hold

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

Well actually its “each factory can move one time per game” if the Soviets build a new factory it too can have the option. Its not one time you can move one factory, but EACH factory can move once.
lets see new scripting>>?

yeah I know
and I am sugguesting to remove “each factory can move one time per game” limit but keep the “move only one factory per turn” limit
it shouldn’t be too powerful since you can’t mobilize units at a moving IC this turn

Phase 6: Mobilize New Units
Soviet Factories
The Soviet player may move one Industrial Complex to an adjacent space. Both spaces must be Soviet held original Soviet territories. You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn.

I don’t think we need a 1 DD to 1 SS ratio.

1. it gets too heavy in DDs just to counter submarines.

well both principles (1. a ratio whatever it is 2. each destroyer roll one die) encourages players to build more destroyers
the actual numbers can be tuned

I like ratio better because it doesn’t add to the combat sequence
its also something players are used to (from placing infantry on 1 or 2 on the battle board)

3)  Submarine captains spent long times lining up shots in the security of knowing they were not seen and had plenty of time.  They could be choosier.

yeah it definitely has a place in the heavier house rules
but otherwise “defender assign hits” is a centre concept of axis and allies
it would be a bit out of place to change just submarines

@Cmdr:

In anniversary, the only way to have a submarine threat is to have your submarines scattered about.

yeah AA50 submarine is weird
(I probably should check out harrisdesign to see what the idea behind AA50 submarine rules)

defending at 1 they are very much like bombers
get wiped unless hiding in a stack

add the new reduced cost of $6
we have a unit of cannon fodder
so AA50 removes AAR’s subject of complaint the naval cannon fodder (transport)
but only to replace it with a new cannon fodder

@Cmdr:

First, I don’t care if YOU think submarines are fine.  This is a discussion for the rest of us who KNOW they are bogus!

the change in AA50 from AAR is reduced cost to $6 and reduced defense to 1 right?
your sugguestions doesn’t seem to be about that though

If you attack with 3 or more submarines from 3 different sea zones, then your submarines regain the sneak shot ability even if a destroyer is present. (Sonar isn’t almighty, you can’t see EVERYWHERE!)

attacking from 3 SZs is rare, I wouldn’t make that a requirement

regarding how you said sonor isn’t almightly
well, any unlimited ability dulls the game (eg. unlimited fire of AA gun)
I would go “1 DD to 1 sub rule” like someone said

Furthermore, sneak shots on the first round should be called shots.  None of this “I have my submarine take the hit.” crap.

yeah its a nice and simple rule
“submarines can’t hit submarines”
just like how submarines can’t hit air units in AAR (or was that for classic too?)

Super Submarines (enhanced): Your submarines are now stealthy.  Enemy destroyers must roll an attack roll to find your submarines, otherwise, your submarines may chose to disengage before the battle.  Note:  Each attacking or defending destroyer in the sea zone gets to roll and if one destroyer finds you, then all your submarines are detected.

and you should add you took that from AARe hehe

to me super submarines is about whole new performance levels in speed and noise
so I would make it destroyers can’t cancel super submarine’s sneak attack and ability to move through hostile sea zone

well thats the next step, plus our 1939 map is basically lifted of ideas to make AA50, we should start getting into the new fashion of the day and embrace the new ideas. AARHE must take in these new concepts because AA50 is the new revised and Revised is the old Milton Bradley now…

yeah thats the next step and it is called AA50HE
right now we are discussing AARHE
like you don’t put 2004 revised rules into a house rule for 1981 Classic now do you?

anyway I hope AA50HE takes a different approach and hopefully a lot simpler than AARHE

Land Movement (new rule) - removed, replaced by this fight to death thing

Retreat (phase 4: Conduct Combat) -

yes but make the language clear: I still have no idea what the rule is as you wrote it. Write in simple language
example: the defender can retreat on x round….  no more ‘unit fire step sequence’ unless its real basic.

I want to keep it simple too
I thought “retreat step” is not ambigious
but you got confused when I said “retreat step of the combat cycle”

anyway here is another go
During the “Press Attack or Withdraw” step of the combat cycle, the defender declares all actions before the attacker declares any. You may retreat some or all of your units. After that you may declare to “fight to death” with the remaining units. From the next combat cycle, there can be no further retreat by either side.

Naval Movement - on hold

Stalinst Xenophobia - done, no China rules
but other bits like Allies can’t enter Soviet held original Soviet territories is included

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

they move the factory during build phase and place in placement phase. I guess we can allow the placement in the moved factory in the same turn, but it dont look good.

I am not asking we allow units to be mobilize at an IC that is moving this turn
you don’t want to and I also don’t want to
we just say
You cannot mobilize new units at that Industrial Complex this turn.

I am trying to have it self contained in phase 6: mobilize
remove the requirement to declare in phase 2: purchase
just like how we remove the requirement to declare tech dice in phase 2: purchase

I looked at that, but it may lead to tricks. The Soviets could not move all her factories in one turn, but as i said before we can allow placement on the same turn as placement of the new factory…so resolved.

you don’t want Soviets to be able to move all her factories in one turn right?
thats fine, I am not asking to lift the one IC per turn limit
I am asking to lift the once per game for an IC limit
don’t think its too powerful provided you can’t mobilize at a moving IC this turn

Land Movement (new rule) -

during the retreat step of any combat cycle either side can declare “fight to death” and from next cycle onwards there are no further retreats

no thats not good, we don’t want the possibility of the attacker being thwarted by the defender retreating before combat.

no you can’t retreat before combat
retreat step (step 7: Press Attack or Withdrawattack) occurs after units fire (step 2, 4, 5)

but recall in AARHE defender declare intentions first in the retreat step

under that system the attack was always mandated for at least one turn.

don’t worry it still is in my proposal, you just misread (see above)

New idea: during each active players turn, his land forces may make a number of free moves:

yeah we have a similar rule already
the optional rule Strategic Redeployment
you can apply your idea to simplify Strategic Redeployment

Naval Movement -

working on it.

ok

Stalinst Xenophobia -

*Chinese territories goes to Soviet control if more Soviet troops than US/UK

this is too gamey.

ok…
constructive inputs welcomed

No Chinese outside China ( china includes japanese occupied China and British held China- in AA50)
The only way an ally can enter China is if an axis controls it, and they are taking it back
except in the Soviets case they enjoy the IPC and it does not go to China
thats very simple.

I am not fond of a “no Chinese outside China” rule
AARHE is not about turning AAR into AA50 !
people just play AA50 if they you want a separate China

after that bit it was just back to what you proposed before except the restriction now applies to all Allies
I already said why I don’t like it
its a restrictive rule trying to enforce a replay of history
a rule more suited for our friend Flashman’s house rules

Russia made Mongolia independent and there was nothing China could do about it
Russia could well make Sinkiang independent if they wanted to
no one could stop Russia from sending troops to China, it was a Soviet choice
US supported China with air force, they could have done more if they wanted to, it was a US choice

I tried my best if you still disagree there we are at a stalemate
in that case we should just leave both yours and my China rule out
like we said already its not bad, Japan already can’t blitz the 2 inland Chinese territories and 3 territories in the Far East

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

hence I asked where you want the player do be able to mobilize this turn? at the new location or old location?
I propose you can mobilize at old location, and then you can move factories at the end of mobilize phase
this way we can remove the one-off aspect of once per game limit, help Russia more times, yet not over powering

The Soviets can option to relocate the factories during build phase, and the move takes place at placement phase. One factory per Soviet turn and each one time per game. thats the rule. Obviously he cant place units in a moved factory till next turn.

if I am reading this correct you don’t want the player to be able to mobilise at the new nor old location of the IC
so how about just let the rule be self contained in phase 6: mobilize new units?
I am trying to remove the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 6) aspect of the rule
for reasons similar to why we removed the span-across-phase (phase 2 and phase 7) aspect of the old tech rule

I am also trying to remove the once per game limit, because one-off rules are a waste of document space, reader attention span, and requires players to remember more things
I don’t think its over powering to remove the once-per-game limit since its restricted to within original Soviet territories and that you can’t mobilise on it this turn (as above)

its not that bad right?
defender couldn’t retreat at all in OOB, the house rule gives them some ability

I do think you are getting onto something with c) though
its like not as hard as resolving all combats simultaneous but somewhat achieves the goal

Land Movement (new rule) -

OK you are saying the option to retreat for both sides is only on the first round?

close
on the first combat cycle both sides are free to retreat
during the retreat step of any combat cycle either side can declare “fight to death” and from next cycle onwards there are no further retreats

I dont see what your saying with this example.

I am using that example as a reason why ability to retreat is not related to movement points

ok so the defender declares this? then the attacker can decide 1) to continue, 2) to retreat completely, 3) to retreat partially?

no both sides can declare this during the retreat step of the combat cycle
but recall in AARHE defender declare intentions first in the retreat step

to me it is important both sides has this ability
because in the game a territory is not one city but a large region

lets see what the proposed text is on this from the above remarks…

Phase 4: Conduct Combat
Land Combat
Press Attack or Withdraw
During the Press Attack or Withdraw step the defender declares intentions before attacker. You may retreat completely or partially. You may also declare “fight to death”, where no further retreats are allowed by either side in this combat from the next cycle.

Air Movement - done

Airborne Drop (optional) - done

Naval Movement -
tekky: I wait for stronger reasoning from you
IL: ill get you something tomorrow on this.
tekkyy: ok you get us something on this later
IL: ok ok my intention was to make something slightly different than AA50, allowing for a few transports to get thru the sub blockade. I guess we can just have each sub getting one roll and if suceeds one transport is gone, rest get thru the picket line of subs.

no need to restate your proposed rule
I find the escorted vs unescorted exception unrealistic
you said you’ll get something to backup it up

if you can’t than we shouldn’t make the exception
leaving an unrealistic OOB rule uncorrected is bad, but making an unrealistic rule is worse

AA50’s rule models that submarines are slow hence all surface naval units can run through
your rule models that transports are slow

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - done

Air Reinforcement - done

Strait Interdiction - done

Canal - done

Terrain - done

Stalinst Xenophobia -

OK so what do you propose?

an optional rule to model the reason why Russia didn’t
the rule is used to discourages Soviet from entering China until it is strategic for Allies to do so
you should recall I’ve proposed a few already

*Chinese territories goes to Soviet control if more Soviet troops than US/UK
*Chinese territories income goes to zero if more than one player have troops there

If tanks only move one space in Russia, then the proposed new Soviet rules for China and limitations on its occupation of Chinese territories is not required.

well than maybe we don’t need the China rule after all

tanks move one space in “snowy” territories
eg. Yak, Bur, Sfe
tanks move on space in “mountainous” territories
eg. Sin, Chi

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done

Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later

Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - done

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
you misunderstood
I am not saying make Soviet Factories optional
I am trying to remove the one-off aspect of the rule (less accounting for players, less waste of document space)

hence I asked where you want the player do be able to mobilise this turn? at the new location or old location?
I propose you can mobilise at old location, and then you can move factories at the end of mobilise phase
this way we can remove the one-off aspect of once per game limit, help Russia more times, yet not over powering

we should deal with factory destruction and factory movement (Soviet only) in one phase of the turn sequence not two

we don’t need any clarification of this. The Soviets can move the factory during placement phase of their turn, no need to add any weird rules. My printed rules ( from the file) are perfectly clear on this.

hmm, you seem to be claiming credit for our discussion
the proposed file you posted only had one sentence for this rule
and it was written under Phase 3: Combat-move !

anyway doesn’t matter
what matter now is that we both agree this rule is in Phase 6: Mobilize

do you think we should “declare + perform” in phase 2 purchase or phase 6 mobilize?

We dont need this mumbo-jumbo… “declare, mobilize, perform” professorial text either.

don’t worry, when I said “declare + perform” that was not a proposal text
I just wanted you to know what I mean
so far so good, in this round of discussion we got rid of some span-across-phase aspects
(1. tech dice 2. destroying factories 3. moving soviet factories)

Land Movement (new rule) -
I am happy to make a rule for your “fight to death” thing
the “fight to death” rule is simple, no more retreat by either side from next cycle onwards

nothing to do with movement points
using unused movement point to retreat is ridiculous!

combat move is travelling to raceway
conduct combat cycle is the race
non-combat move is going home
fuel used during the race, making aggressive maneuvers is not the same scale as cruising
you refuel many times during a battle or operation

OOB: Attacker can’t retreat if defender wiped. Defender can’t retreat.
AARHE: Attacker can retreat. Defender can retreat.

new: Attacker can retreat. Defender can retreat. No retreat from next combat cycle if fighting to death.

I am not removing 1st cycle attacker retreat (unless you want to remove defender retreat)
this is cruical otherwise defender has advantage, unrealistic

this is like symbolic logic proof. make the language more simple:

that is to present the sequence, it won’t be written like this in the rules
because I can’t understand your if…and…if…and…but paragraph

Land units with unused movement point you can use it to retreat, reinforce a territory just attacked, or attack again a new territory.

wait I saw that
I am only here to make a rule for your “fight to death” thing
I am not making a reinforce or attack another territory thing, I’ve already said thats way too complicated
because it required a simultaneous combat system to be relevant, otherwise realism goes down not up)

these few weeks we are simplifying AARHE
this is not about removing the rules you don’t like and adding complexity to the rules you like
all rules get simplified or moved into optional

Air Movement - done

Airborne Drop (optional) - actually that was a typo
I meant to say I think bombers carrying airborne should attack at 0 in the first cycle
but doesn’t matter we can keep it simple

Naval Movement - ok you get us something on this later
I just don’t see it your way regarding escorted and unescorted transports running through enemy submarines
don’t want to introduce a joke while fixing OOB

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - done

Air Reinforcement - done

Strait Interdiction - done

Canal - done

Terrain - done

Stalinst Xenophobia -

I support historic realism based rules, not historic replay based rules

well this is realistic. The Soviets did this in 1945 and they never entered China before that point.

no thats historic replay talk again

the Soviets had a choice, our rule can model why to encourage an outcome, it must not enforce historic replay otherwise you destroy the game

[qutoe]IN phase 1 or 2 tanks cant blitz in mountain territories so we already solved this

that was to model terrain and discourage Japan from using tanks to Moscow
not Russia can’t help defend China we are back to square one

*China and Sinkiang goes to Soviet control when Soviet troops enter them
*US/UK held territories goes to Soviet control if Soviet has more land units then them
*for Axis to collects IPC from China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Sinkiang they need the same number of land units occupying

way too complicated:  isn’t more simple to say: “the Soviets can only liberate axis controlled territories and if they do this they keep the IPC ( it does not go to the original owning player)”

that are realism based alternatives, you only use ONE of them to replace “Soviet can’t enter China”
for related to Soviet capture of original Allied territories, thats done already

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done

Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later

Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - done

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

~once-off~ rules like this is sort of a a waste of writing space and reader attention span

yes once per game per factory, we dont want the Russians moving the same factory all over the place like a mobile unit creation platform.

optional rules I can understand, but I would avoid once-off rules like this for the main rules
maybe there is a way
do you want the player to be able to build this turn at the IC’s old location? new location?

also, following the simplication of tech
we should deal with factory destruction and factory movement (Soviet only) in one phase of the turn sequence not two
do you think we should “declare + perform” in phase 2 purchase or phase 6 mobilize?

yeah moral bonus can add a new dimension the game
you can win over time or you can win with a rush of capturing of victory cities

hi stuanderson
you get can the blank here http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/20080321_AARHE_blank.ai

Land Movement (new rule) -

Just play it out. its simple:

simple it is not
just look at how much you wrote after the “:”
in your own words, that is third reich style rules
its a whole new complex sequence for the retreat step of the combat cycle

reading your proposal I presume you no longer insist on the bit that attacker can’t retreat because no defending units left
thats good (say so if otherwise)

I don’t know if understood you correctly
you didn’t give a proper sequence but just a bunch of ideas and lots of "if"s

how about this

1.defender retreat fully or partially
2.defender optionally declare die fighting
3.attack retreat fully or partially
4.attack optionally declare die fighting
5.if neither side declared “die fighting”, no more retreats from next combat cycle onwards

this give the ability you wanted
but not forced on 2nd cycle or whatever, players have a choice
this leaves the advantage to the attacker which is what I am after

propose something on this.

I don’t really want to add more complexity
but the direct way to deal with your concern of

its got to have some effect of requiring the attacker to stay in the area after combat to reset the population and restore order.

would an optional rule that you require X land units to capture a X IPC territory
if you can’t capture, you retreat

Air Movement - done

Airborne Drop (optional) - ok use the AA50 limit (can’t drop behind enemy lines) if you want
but what do you thnk of AA50’s rule that the bomber doing the transportation gets to attack the territory as per usual?
I think they shouldn’t fight at 0 in the first combat cycle

Naval Movement -

if escorting, the whole fleet overall slows down to transport speed right?

no slowing down thing. old idea and subject to stalling tactics in playtest.

your reasoning actually backups up my proposal
if no slowing down then don’t see why a special rule for escorted and unescorted transports
it should be the same for all non-submarine naval units
I wait for stronger reasoning from you

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - done

Air Reinforcement - done

Strait Interdiction - done

Canal - done

Terrain - done

Stalinst Xenophobia -

historically its not possible for the Soviets to enter sovereign Chinese territories but if Japan occupies them than all bets are off. I want to limit Japan/ russia thing as much as possible, to support the German/ russian conflict

I support historic realism based rules, not historic replay based rules

gameplay wise, this would make China even harder to defend so it’ll encourage the Japanese player to march to Moscow via China
I think this rule does the opposite of limiting Russia/Japan thing

realism wise, China sided with US and didn’t ask for Russian help, but if things gets worse anything can happen
Russia had more than enough power to tip the balance anyway, it was their choice to leave China supported by US/UK

so I think the case for this rule is not strong

anyway some realism based alternatives you could have as an optional rule:

*China and Sinkiang goes to Soviet control when Soviet troops enter them
*US/UK held territories goes to Soviet control if Soviet has more land units then them
*for Axis to collects IPC from China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Sinkiang they need the same number of land units occupying

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - done

Soviet Winter (scenario rule) - later

Soviet Partisans (a new rule) - ok, for Germany to collect income from a original Soviet terriotry, they need 1 land unit per territory income value

Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

yes just one factory per turn and the same factory moved only once per game.

do we really need same factory “once per game” limit? players would have to remember this thing
~once-off~ rules like this is sort of a a waste of writing space and reader attention span

Land Movement (new rule) - you’re reasoning is quite confusing, a lot of ifs and buts
whereas the rule I am trying to keep is a clean cut
to me what you said isn’t really helping your argument:

The attacker can now be stuck in the territory if he chooses to destroy the defender and does this.

then you don’t want the “can’t retreat if battle is won” rule since that doesn’t give attacker a choice
attacker could roll a little better than average and be punished

If the defender retreats the attacker may also retreat in whole or part. But if the attackers intent was to eliminate the defender we assume this was a battle of close actions, perhaps in a large city fighting block by block…

hm, so you want to give defender ability to block attacker retreat?
realistically it would be the other way around
also, just because defender didn’t retreat, it doesn’t mean close combat or city fighting
it would be funny for a small suiciding defender force to tie down a large army

its got to have some effect of requiring the attacker to stay in the area after combat to reset the population and restore order.

I would go along this path and find a rule that directly addresses this
rather than introducing these situational retreat restrictions

Air Movement - yeah thats fine, something like this
Air units may move a number of spaces in Combat Move up to its movement points. Air units are not subject to Anti-aircraft fire when flying over a territory.
in Non-combat we’ll add
Air units may move a number of spaces in Non-combat Move up to its movement points.

Airborne Drop (optional) - yeah add to optional list for discussion later

Naval Movement -

Its very simple: each transport is moving over unknown waters.it has no idea if subs are under the water.

the thing is axis and allies doesn’t have fog of war
so not sure what you are getting at

The chance is an unescorted transport may avoid a sub or may not. So we have a roll for this.

I thought about escorted and unescorted transports
if escorting, the whole fleet overall slows down to transport speed right?
so I am starting to thin that my earlier proposal
Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports.
should be more like
Naval units (except for transports) may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports.

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - ok 1-to-1 without rolling, done

Air Reinforcement - done, yes no “two spaces away” thing, looking at the changelog I think we changed it to adjacent in 2008 May
At the end of the phase, the passive players may relocate their air units to adjacent friendly territories.

Strait Interdiction - done

Canal - done

Terrain - done

Stalinst Xenophobia -

Yes Russians cant enter Chinese territories unless it was Japanese controlled. The IPC does not go to China but to Russia.

was asking for justification not clarification
we had the UK/US can’t end Russia and the Russia does not liberate UK/US territory things previously
this is bit about China is new

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - ok, done

Soviet winter (a new rule) - removed, now optional rule under 1939 scenario etc, note it and script it later

Partisans (a new rule) - oh fine call it “Soviet Partisians” yeah?
for gameplay reasons we might have to put it in Collect Income phase
1 inf is not much though and wouldn’t help with your concern that Russia player needs help
some sugguestions for “original Soviet territories”, Germany needs to

*have 1 inf per territory income value occupying, to collect each IPC
*have i inf per territory income value occupying, to collect any IPC at all
*or even just collect 1 less IPC than territory income value

Soviet Factories (a new rule) - done, now in mobilize new units phase and only between original Soviet territories

hm, 5.0 already?
each 1.0 increment should represent major changes
not tweaks and simplifications

its been “4.0 draft” since Feb 2008
think the result of the current rule revising should be called “4.0 final”
then do some solid playtesting, particularly between you and me

don’t keep skipping ahead and leave behind a trail of meaningless documents

Merry X’mas from Sydney

Land Movement (new rule) -
but in AARHE they do not get stuck
attacker retreat is allowed, regardless of defender decision or combat result (except you have to leave behind one inf to capture if you won

and I am against “attack can’t retreat if battle won”
why should land units be able to retreat, but not able to if battle is won?
and then able to retreat if movement points in reserve?
sounds a bit funny

as for tank blitzrieg attack again thing, I think too complex
we are not trying to add complexity, save them for your optional rules

Air Movement - hehe you wrote a paragraph about “1/2 movement”, you didn’t have to, as I said in the post before that post…the 1/2 thing is no more

the AARHE idea is actually really clean, it was just written poorly with the term “1/2 movement”
it is simple, you can move X spaces in Combat Move and X spaces in Non-Combat Move
this can be the new wording

not having to remember already used movement points is only side effect
the main effect is so we don’t have Allied fighters bouncing between UK and Russia to attack Germany that is typical of OOB games (its annoying, its unrealistic)

Airborne Drop (optional) - oh ok we discuss the optional rules too (was eager to get the main thing running so we can playtesting hehe)
I recall you wanted to remove Transport Plane, I agree too, so remove reference to it
I see you added the AA50’s rule of “can’t drop behind enemy lines” thing, is that needed? I guess that depends on what we think Airborne Drops are capable of

Naval Movement - just waiting for feedback here
your argument for letting transports go through enemy submarines with dice  rolling was

it is not known if the submarine in in the SZ this is why the unescorted transport is attacked for a round

I think that is fog of war stuff, out of scope and not a reason

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - I don’t precisely understand what you saying

tekky: how about each destroyer prevent submarines from going through the sea zone on a 1-to-1 basis?
Imperious Leader: This is a good point except its more complicated. I also allow for the 1:1 thing because each ASW stops only 1 sub with a successful roll.I am just making this less painful to play.
tekkyy:what do you mean? how is rolling a die less painful than simple 1-to-1 ?
Imperious Leader:All must roll up to the equal total of submarines that is 1:1, excess do not have to roll, which encourages players to buy even more subs, to get a chance to kill.

don’t think you’ve explained how rolling a dice is less painful to play then my simple 1-to-1
“each total of submarines”? “excess do not have to roll”?
with my 1-to-1 rule no rolling is needed

Defensive Air Support - the AARHE rule DAS/Air Reinforcement lets you relocate air units to defend in adjacent space instead

CAS is just planes supporting ground troops, this is simply a normal combat in Axis and Allies?
that is different

Strait Interdiction - ok Turkey removed, done

Canal - for Turkey, could be
Naval units may not move between sea zone 15 and sea zone 16 if their side does not control Turkey at the beginning of the turn.

Terrain - ok, done

Stalinst Xenophobia - you say mixing of units, hence I thought you want to let UK/US enter Soviet territories

the other bits are covered

Imperious Leader: NO mixing of any Allied units ( UK, USA) with Soviet units (including naval).
tekkyy: The UK and USA players may not move units into any space occupied by Soviet units.

Imperious Leader: Soviet Units can liberate Japanese occupied Chinese territories and that’s the only time they can enter China.
tekkyy: I asked for justification and still waiting

Imperious Leader: Soviet units can also ‘liberate’ any Axis occupied territories and keep them as their own even if they were previously owned by Allied nations.
tekkyy: Whenever Soviet player captures a territory they gain control of it.
if not enough then,
Whenever the Soviet player captures a territory they do not liberate it but gain control of it.

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - ok, done

I can’t really comment on your playtesting that Russia needed help as you’ve been playing modified versions of AARHE
I would mostly avoid the nation specific rules until we have solid playtesting

Soviet winter (a new rule) - in the case of your reasoning, I would say add in the dice and put it in one of scenarios like 1939

because for 1942 game the Russian winter was history, Moscow was saved, and German spearhead loses many units on Russia’s 1st turn

Partisans (a new rule) - waiting for reasoning to show this was significant enough to be in main rules

Soviet Factories (a new rule) - can you show me that this was done easily in WWII and not some isolated events?
also I think this would be more realistic:
The Soviet player may move 1 Industrial Complex to an adjacent territory. Both territories must be an originally controlled territory.
AND move to phase 6: mobilize new units

Land Movement (new rule) - I am not up for that, you are basically removing attacker retreat

Air Movement - why go back to OOB?
AARHE is less tedious than OOB because you don’t have to remember how many movement points left for Non-Combat
OOB’s combined movement is unrealistic, planes either have enough range or it doesn’t…nothing to do prior flights…you can’t attack somewhere real close and just so that can retreat to somewhere really far away

by the way when you say “They can move their full movement as long as the final movement is on a Carrier or Land territory.”, are you removing proposaing to let attacking air units stay in newly captured territory

Airborne Drop - wait wait wait, we went over this already, all optional rules are not to listed here…only exception is for Diplomacy phase due it being part a phase of the turn sequence
no brownie points making a 20 page document no one would touch

Naval Movement - that is fog of war stuff, out of bounce currently

Naval Units Co-occupation - done

Submarine Movement - what do you mean? how is rolling a die less painful than simple 1-to-1 ?

Defensive Air Support - yes DAS is the military term, but the actual rule is simple relocation of Air units hence I was thinking it should be called Air Reinforcement
I try to google the DAS term but results were about games
have you got a link defining DAS?

Strait Interdiction -

I am fine with OOB the Turkish straights, except its neutral and you must account for the crossing with interactions dealing with the neutral.

actually there is nothing to say, it strongly established in OOB rules
you don’t control turkey, you can’t move through
all we have to say is movement between sea zone 15 and 16 requires controlling turkey at the beginning of the turn….just like movement thru panama requires control of panama at the beginning of the turn

Terrain - yeah thats more direct, my next comment is small territories
2 unit limit for occupying forces is fine
2 unit limit for attacking forces should only be on land units right?

Stalinst Xenophobia - how about saying it more directly
The UK and USA players may not move units into any space occupied by Soviet units. Whenever Soviet player captures a territory they gain control of it.
second sentence about Soviet and China I am not so sure about…whats the justification?

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - alright we’ll keep it, similarly can we say it more directly in the tone of Combat Move phase
The Japanese player may not move units into any space occupied by other Axis units.

Soviet winter (a new rule) - letting ANY players choose is unrealistic
Partisans (a new rule) -
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -

to me these 3 are specific and tedious
weighting down the game

we making a new and friendly AARHE right?
I am against having all these nation specific bits rules
its gonna look down a house rule more suited to our friend Flashman

though feel free to put them into the AARHE optional rules file, under National Advantages

Phase 3: Combat Move

Land Movement (a new rule) - the language is bad, like very inexact…can you be precise? what you want to let tanks do? and when?

Air Movement - with your proposal, what happens in Non-combat move if you used up all your movement points in comat move?

Airborne Drop - optional rule, so remove?

Naval Movement - don’t think its realistic to let unescorted transport encounter enemy submarines
how about just
Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy submarines or transports. Unescorted transports may not go through sea zones consisting of enemy submarines.

Naval Units - give it a proper name, like “Sea Zone Co-occupation”
and get rid of the 2nd second sentence, we could be referencing rules that won’t existing

Submarine Movement - how about each destroyer prevent submarines from going through the sea zone on a 1-to-1 basis?

Defensive Air Support - the rule lets passive players relocate air units one space
give it a more correct name, like “Air Reinforcement”
and it should remain in “phase 3: combat move”
its messy to include it under Air Missions in “phase 4: conduct combat” because this is not an attack

Strait Interdiction - I don’t agree putting Turkish Canal under Strait Interdiction
its not that easy to walk through an enemy controlled Turkish canal is it?
think its better to let the connection between sea zone 15 and 16 be handled by OOB canal rules

Terrain - are we even doing the terrain stuff?
can be less professorial, maybe change to like “Tanks may not blitz a territory if its snowy, mountainous or desert.”

Stalinst Xenophobia - the language is bad, very inexact…what is “NO mixing of any units with Soviet units”

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Co-operation - I feel unnecessary, is it worth having?

Soviet winter (a new rule) -
Partisans (a new rule) -
Soviet Factories (a new rule) -
these 3 are some very specific thing, a bit tedious, justify with your reasoning if you wish to intro them….maybe you could have some of these for national advantage