Posts made by tekkyy

OK lets do this. Ill update the file, we script the exact wording here section by section.

yeah sure, if you say you have the time then you can do the compiling

I have MS word/office and your software is not good for this.

I posted a msword file, couldn’t your computer open it?

The correct section 3 is posted. I will take section 1 and 2 and integrate into the document.

what you posted is just from your proposal file
I don’t think we should blend completed rules with proposal rules

the experimental.doc files I’ve been posting is nice and small
easy to track progress
only has rules reviewed already

We are not using 4.0 as reference, what i created is a word friendly version thats readable.

yes we are going to make AARHE language more casual
this is should be apparent in the experimental.doc file I posted

think you are confusing proposal with reference
you propose changes with reference to current rules

The ideas contained are what we decide to keep or change.

no that was straight from your proposal file, not what we decided to keep or change
what we decided to keep or change is shown in experimental.doc file I posted
it has the phase 1 and phase 2 that has completed discussion

stuanderson, I’ll try to send you the file soon

wait, doesn’t light tank attack 3 defend 2 move 2 $4 ruin artillery?
“infantry + light tank” would be better than “infantry + artillery”

making heavy tank move at 1 is too extreme
how about make them can’t blitz?

after you’ve check we understood each other correctly

Phase 3: Combat Move

Air Movement - OOB’s CM+NCM combined air movement is unrealistic
so AARHE has the “50% limit”
our concept is simple
and removes the need to remember unsed points, which intersting makes it less tedious than OOB
so I think we should keep it

the wording “may use up to 50% of movement points” might sound confusing
we can reword it
air units may move a number of spaces up to the move value during combat move
air units may move a number of spaces up to the move value during non-combat move
fighter move at 3
bomber move at 5

Airborne Drop - optional rule, discuss later

Naval Movement - I believe you both transports and submarines to not control sea zones, I was ok with transports but not ok with submarines
I am now ok with it
so I remove the dice roll bits after Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only enemy Submarines and/or Transports. and just have that

Naval Movement - also, do we keep the Damaged Aircraft Carrier and Cruiser move at 2. ?

Naval Transport - this allows you to offload into friendly territory during Combat Move, a small thing that I thought of, its only for a rare issue…I sugguest remove

Naval Occupation - this allows your naval units remain (not move in) in hostile sea zone without entering combat, I sugguest keep

Submarine Movement - this lets ASW units roll a dice to stop hostile submarines from going through the ASW units’ sea zone
lets simplified? just go along with the big destroyer-submarine 1-to-1 idea?
Submarines may move through hostile sea zones. However, each enemy unit capable of Anti-Submarine Warfare
(ASW) ends one submarine’s move.

yes at the same time. good. construct proposed text.

all we are doing is removing a rule (buy tech dice during purchasing units)
so we just remove the paragraph Purchase Developments

It conveyed mainly the value of these centers for the focus of battles, so the value cant be the simple 1 or 2 thing… thats would totally ruin the work.

perhaps 0-5 scale, but the victory condition value was based on this index, so going 1/2 system would require many hours of thought with marginal change in play.

hehe the one hand you say its important and on the other hand you say its marginal
anyway we’ll talk about this when we get to that part of the document (intro bit before phase 1)

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081222experimental.doc
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081222experimental.pdf

Tunisia spelling fixed
phase 2 as discussed added
two lines of phase 6 written down (your new build limit)

check to see if we understood each other correctly

so in berlin you can build 10 tanks and 10 infantry, but you cant build 15 infantry and 5 tanks. This is not OOB rules at all.

yeah I know
I confirm with another example
Southern Europe can build 6 tanks and 6 infantry

Isn’t this too soon?

what do you mean by “too soon”?

you mean too rushed ?
I am not sugguesting this change for balance
just trying to say it warrants a simplification

you mean too early in game sequence / document ?
in AARHE we buy developement dice before combat, and roll for them after combat
so you can’t see tech result and perform combat accordingly
nor can you see combat result and buy tech dice accordingly
hence OOB’s the phase is called “purchase unit and developments”

but if you feel its too tedious to make players buy the dice first and roll for them later in the turn
then we let them buy and roll in same game phase like OOB

I think alot of discussion went on these points and for various reasons they were assigned this value and its printed on the map, so not sure if changes would ruin the game. They focus historical based objectives from these values. If it was 2 and 1 players would treat the VC as the same and not focus on the strong points… Thus battle of Stalingrad may never develop

yeah, that discussion was back in 2006, you me and The Duke mainly
we used a few matrices to determine infantry raising capacity of nations
this became the VCP values
it is used for infantry build limit

we now have a new infantry build limit (the victory city’s territory’s IPC)
realism is still there, as we have “variable infantry costs”

VCPs is now only used for victory condition
so I sugguested a simplification to make it easier (eg. 2 VCP for Berlin, Rome, London….1 VCP for Kiev, Cairo…)
if you think its too simple we can have up to 3 points, or even 4 points

if its not too complex I would make it only work for amphibious assault or waterways
it would have been too expensive to mine the open seas right?

But at original home factories you should be able to build non infantry pieces limited by IPC PLUS infantry also at this level again limited by IPC

Yeah. But this limit already applies to all IC.
Original or not, an IC can only produce a number of non-infantry units up to its IPC value.

Purchase Developments
Can we simplify this one. Instead of the current free/purchasable

Germany 2/4
Italy  1/2
Japan 1/3
Soviet Union 1/3
United Kingdom 1/2
United States 2/4

Can we just make it

Germany and US 2/4
Other 1/2

Victory City (non-binding discussing, just an understanding)
now that we have a simpler infantry limit, we no longer require victory city points varying between 0 and- 6 points. I sugguest simplify to major cities 2 points and minor cities 1 point. We’ll talk about this when we get back to introduction / game sequence.

yeah to solve the issues of cheap hit takers or a big delay
cargo can have no combat values or movement points
its still better then just handing it over
its a physical unit that the enemy can attack or block

@Constantinople:

Or perhaps it isn’t even that difficult; are there any commonly available modeling paints

I bought two boxes of AAR and the colours were different
if you are thinking of painting, you can look at WWII uniform website and try to pick a colour from paint website

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/all-forces.htm

for Krylon, someone suggusted
1606 pewter grey gloss (Italy)
1986 dark grey (Germany)

the transport capacity is one reason why I sugguest the cargo unit shall not require an explicit transport

esorting is fun, but if we make cargo unit follow naval units it’ll take too many turns to send IPC to your ally

if you are busy I can do the compiling
this file contains only Phase 1: collect income

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081218experimental.doc
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/20081218experimental.pdf

check to make sure we understood each other correctly

Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments

Variable Industrial Complex Costs, Scorched Earth
Thinking of putting it together under one heading Industrial Complex.
You proposed “cost = 15 - IPC”. I am ok.

Variable Infantry Costs
In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you proposed “infantry per turn = IPC”. I am ok but I want “build infantry at VC only” rule to remain.
You didn’t proposed infantry cost changes. No changes from me at this stage.

Purchase Developments
In http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc you didn’t proposed changes. No changes from me at this stage.

@stuanderson:

It can be in PDF or Illustrator format.

hi

I can give you the .ai file
all the icons are in separate layers
so in illustrator you can toggle on/off for all everything
in 15 seconds you can tick on/off the IPC icons, VC icons, setup icons, etc independently

by the way what are your plans?
making a new map? customized gameplay?

@allies_fly:

Please excuse my ignorance, what do you mean by tiles?
Do you mean in pieces like 8.5" by 11" sheet of paper?

If so, I would like to do that.  I don’t have illustrator to resize to 30" by 50"
Who do I politely ask to do that?  Or does such a file already exist?

yeah tiles as in the map chopped up into many .png for printing separting at home
tell me which file you want
I do it with illustrator and photoshop

@warrafael:

I can’t see many advantages of tiles over my OOB map.

tiles is just so you can print at home on the cheap
also easier to transport or repair
you can still print at it any size
this is my 4x4 A4
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2274/aarheaarfv5.jpg

if this is what you are talking about
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/25840
then yes it was made from a version of IL’s (Imperious Leader) AARHE map

did you find what you want at jeffdestroyer’s link?

by the way, you can customize some pdfs yourself with Illustrator/Acrobat
other IL or myself can probably make a change or two for you

are you taking it somewhere to print or printing it in A4/letter tiles?
we can give you .png tiles if you are printing it in tiles

maybe I didn’t make sense (regarding move 2 spaces per turn, 10 spaces per round)
forgot to add I wouldn’t make players use an explicit transport unit to move the crate through sea zones

@Imperious:

I think the UK and USA should be expanded: USA east coast and gulf of Mexico/west indies/Brazil. UK: some SZ off africa and off Middle east

not hitting USA and Russia now so don’t need Mexio Brazil etc

for UK I did thought about South Africa or Egypt SZ
but its unrealistic for UK to transport through Med Sea if Axis took Egypt
to avoid complex rule to cater for Med Sea route vs. South Africa route…think its neat to only have East Altantic, the final destination for both route

The reason for capping is that the new system models hitting general shipping rather than flow of war
shippping. War economy has more immunity than general economy. Also, wouldn’t want to see players bleed ridiculously.

For UK to bleed that much Germany would need to build way too many subs and lose the game elsewhere.

yeah for simplicity I agreed to remove the cap away and adjusted the proposal text
was just stating a strange situation that could happen
all good

ok ok ill make these changes and revise text. Ill post it tomorrow or monday. Then we continue on next section.

hopefully the new file follows our discussion sharply
yeah already looking forward to phase 2: purchase units and developments

also we could do phase 0 first
I was thinking we could remove
*references to websites to download AARHE
*references to websites to buy game pieces
*victory cities with 0 victory city points (since the only purpose of them was to repair naval units but we only allow that at an Industrial Complex now)

better let it be worth 1 IPC each crate rather than throw away IPC
its too slow to use anti-aircraft movement rules, I would make it 2 spaces per NCM makingit 10 spaces per game round

ok no caps
forgot about UK Lend Lease
adding that now, but think its simpler to have no overlapping sea zones between UK and Lend Lease shippping
giving the two distinct sea zones, since shipping from UK colonies are going via east Altantic not west Altantic

proposal text
_Convoy Raid
You collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy submarine in the Island’s sea zone.

The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 7, 8, 11, and 12.

The Allies receive 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 1,2, 3, 4, 9 and 10. Damages in sea zone 3 and 4 can only be applied to USSR._

@Imperious:

I like the text, but not liking the IPC cap. I dont think it should be capped.

yeah ok
I’ve got rid of the cap as you wish, if you change your mind we can set a new higher limit

The reason for capping is that the new system models hitting general shipping rather than flow of war shippping. War economy has more immunity than general economy. Also, wouldn’t want to see players bleed ridiculously.

Also, If a German sub is in specific SZ, i propose this:
German player takes all his subs and consults a chart and rolls a die. He indexes his result with his total number of subs and targets either UK or USA. I will make a chart for each. That way is not so fixed and the result can target one or the other.

Consulting a chart might be too much. The new system should be simpler than the old system.
Recall the primary reason for not using dice is that 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough. Secondary reason was so we have a simpler rule.

You can also do it this way: all subs within 2 SZ of a UK or USA territory roll on these charts, so you need subs near those territory to qualify.

Wait. Remember you wanted to have specific sea zone so the game is not decided in Brazil lol.
Also, it was your idea that US, Germany and USSR be not affected by Convoy Raids. Only UK, Pacific and Lend Lease.

ON lend lease, you take total subs German has and references it to total Lend Lease, so if USA sends in more, then more can be sunk
example: Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 12 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 4 IPC
Germany has 3 subs, usa sent 20 IPC…rolls die…then Germans sink 7 IPC

yeah ok
no limits to lend lease damage

ok i am good with this. Diplomacy would be optional BUT included with the document.

yeah ok
since it is a phase in the turn sequence, its reasonable to give exception to Diplomacy and include in the main document

print out some coloured trays and cup over the units?