to change IPC values you can use small numbered chips or labels
the board should withstand blue tac and certain stickers
to add new territories you would use blow up boxes
don’t really want to over crowd unit pieces further
I print maps at home with inkjet myself
about a $1 per A4 with glossy paper (more for some printers)
use a thin layer of blue tac to stick them onto the table
in the end the rule didn’t seem too useful for Axis and Allies
could be good for a more divided map though
actually, maybe Europe, Bludge, or D-Day already have such a rule or house rule
@Gallo:
- The Game turns should be WE-GO instead of I-GO-U-GO
just need to merge the turns rather than one team member after another
its over powered to let you act after seeing team members combat results
its saves time that you take the turns in parallel/simultaneously
and also you sleep proportionally less during gameplay
@Gallo:
I’ve read a lot about how annoying is that just one destroyer can cancel the special capacities of any giving number of subs.
I don’t find that very problematic myself
its not hugely problematic
just looks funny to have one destroyer tagging along a huge fleet
but some players suggest that you should match one destroyer with one sub for canceling subs capacities.
but what about this: one destroyers cancels the capacities of a wolf-pack of three subs… the fourth sub (and the next ones) still have their special abilities.
yeah the one-for-one rule is nicely intuitive
(because of original ruleset’s one-for-one bonus for infantry+artillery)
maybe you could make it simple and just make the wolf-pack cancelling 1-to-1 too?
ok lets do this… which is the original idea from day one… 1 IPC but for each sub in specific ocean…or somebody buys subs out of harms way to qualify.
yeah is has to be general enough yet not irrelevant
don’t want to bleed players neither
proposal text (informal langauge):
_Convoy Raid
You collect 1 less IPC from an Island in the Pacific Ocean for every enemy submarine in its adjacent sea zone.
The UK player collects 1 less IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 7 to 15 and 33 to 35. Maximum damage is 10 IPC.
The USSR player collects 1 less Lend-Lease IPC for each German submarine or destroyer in sea zones 3 and 4. Maximum damage is 5 IPC._
right 1 D6, plus you wait one turn for repair to conclude and its done at SZ adjacent to factory. Also, if you roll 1-2 perhaps you can repair at neutral -1/+1 ( the ones you can dock at)
yeah we’ll work on neutrals in phase 8 diplomacy
especially since I am leaning towards neutrals should be optional
proposal text:
Naval Repair
Damaged naval units can be repaired in sea zones adjacent to a friendly Industrial Complex. Roll a die and pay the value in IPC. Place the unit in the territory and return it to the sea zone upright in “Mobilize New Units” phase.
yes right
no one is qualified to sugguest house rules until they’ve playtested the base game enough
anyway, would be nice when we come to playtesting the house rules that there’ll be a good amount of PBF games
please post a file everytime we finish with a game phase
the first only would be MSWORD convert of 2008-11-02 version of 4.0 draft
with no changes besides those in “phase 0” and phase 1
Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks - done
Production Interruption - removed
Logistics
Example: Axis have 2 transports, so all units greater than 4 cost 1 IPC to maintain in Africa?
it’ll be unrealistic cos say the German transports could be in the Baltic
also, think the goal at the moment is to
*simplify complex but important rules
*remove or make optional complex but unimportant rules (rules that only affect non-core gameplay anyway)
Spending or Saving IPC - removed
Convoy Raid
SO you don’t like the fun of rolling it out? I think its fun to get to roll dice and possibly get 1,2 or 3 IPC damage
removing unneeded dice is only secondary
the primary issue is I think 1 IPC per submarine is powerful enough already
Lend-Lease - done
Naval repair
yeah ideally there should be cost and time
but we have to find something simple
cost: ok d6 is fine
time: you cannot use the unit this turn
cool
that reduces rules file from 30 pages to 18 pages straight off (National Advantages is 9 pages, Optional units, Rail, etc)
my early prediction, 15 pages
very touchable
yep one section at one time, as ordered by 4.0 draft 2008-11-02
Axis players keep income for neutral conquests…The Allies do not gain from taking territories.
the “Axis is bad” theme eh…
don’t mind too much, except I want neutrals to be optional (I am thinking rules deemed too much for the masses shall be optional, we’ll discuss as we get to them)
Phase 1: Collect Income
Economic Attacks - you written it under new Income heading…I am ok
Production Interruption - you didn’t include it under new Income heading so I presume you want to remove it….I am ok
Logistics - you written it under new Income heading…I want to remove amphibous assault cost and only have desert and airborne assault cost
Spending or Saving IPC + Convoy Raid - I am sure you want to remove my system…discussion below:
rehash the long convoy discussion many months ago:
I prefer submarines hitting IPC movement.
You prefer submarines doing damage via dice.
I don’t like your system hitting non-existing war shipping and enforcing history rather than base on current in-game situation.
You don’t like my system producing outcomes different to WWII.
I am happy to move my system into optional rules.
So we use your system, but some tuning.
*It doesn’t depend on current in-game situation we’ll say its hitting trade shipping instead of war shipping. So we’ll have to cap it. Don’t want it to be funny like Japan holds one island but is totally wasted (into 0 IPC) even though they hold all of mainland Asia. To go with your idea of reflecting historic shipping amounts and raiding capabilities, German can do good damage while US can do some damage.
*OOB’s 1 IPC per submarine was already distorting gameplay. So just 1 IPC will do. No need to roll d6. Less unneeded dice the better anyway.
Proposal: Max 15 IPC for UK+US. Max 6 IPC for Japan. 1 IPC per submarine. No “convoy box”, descriptions like “Atlantic or Indian Ocean” will do.
Lend-Lease - if we keep Lend-Lease, we’ll have to add to convoy raid
Northern Altantic Ocean, German submarine against USSR
max damage is the Lend-Lease sent
Naval repair - lets simplify
proposal text: Damaged ships are turned upright if its next to a friendly Industrial Complex.
@TG:
I dunno… it sounds like you’re explaining AARHE to me. How would they be different? I don’t want to tamper with the core mechanics of the game. If other people do, then I recommend AARHE.
heheh I wish (that was AARHE was that)
like AARe, thats a variant playtested by community of the late Avalon Hills forum
I am hoping there would be a AA50 variant playtested by axisandallies.org
but I guess you don’t have that much time (like the old days)
so you probably won’t put your hands up for PBF games
yeah you have you feelings about AARHE:Lite
but my feelings remind there’ll be a bit of reinventing the wheels
yes it would be good to discuss one or a few rule at a time right from the start, then we do phase 1, then phase2
some shall be toned down (simpler model)
some might be removed if deemed more tedious then adding to gameplay/realism
my latest feeling is not a slightly adjusted AARHE just in areas that you don’t like
but potentially a new lean AARHE for the masses
one ruleset instead of two
optional rules separated from main file
every page discourages people to print it out
every page makes it harder for them to get their friend to even touch it
@TG:
Anyways, I see my House Rules as being “open source” where anyone can contribute to them. They are less specialized than yours and catered to less experienced player.
are you serious about open source where everyone can contribute?
you should create a system
imagine a base ruleset playtested on this forum - voted by a development team
plus some optional rules that are you were saying as not “cumulative” - contributed from people
regardless AARe sort of belong to Avalon Hills forum community
I am saying a AA50HE that belong to axisandallies.org forum community
@Imperious:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ntw0nuzm2zc
here is latest Lite proposal.
my participation in discussion of new rules will start, after top level conflicts of the project is resolved
after the recent discussion of long posts
I strongly feel you are confused and don’t really know what you want
more like 30 pages
AARHE is 30 pages NOW
removing some rules (eg. those you already mentioned) -> 25 pages
tone down complicated rules -> 20 pages
optional rules in separate file* -> 15 pages
so it could be 15 pages
it could be the new AARHE
it’ll replace AARHE:Lite as you wished in that we won’t need a AARHE:Lite anymore
since AARHE is simple enough for the masses
*all those optional stuff like National Victory (removal pending only), National Advantages, etc are fluff and don’t add to core gameplay anyway
I can bring up each new idea here and make it easier for you, who only need to comment on what you like/not like of each new idea. So i will do the work.
if you bring up idea, we discuss, agree and tick off…then that is the existing system and all good
only thing changed is that you become the AARHE compiler
thats fine
but then you say this:
yes right, but not like the way it was done before… not like laboratory tests… a bit more free form.
laboratory tests? are you describing the existing suggest-discuss-agree-update procedure?
if so then yes I bloody prefer that rather than whatever you meant by free form
the proposal files (as you call the links) you’ve been uploading should only be for reference
there must be a current file containing only changes that have been ticked off
by the way, if you think you can’t handle it, you should don’t take on the role of the compiler
Thats because the language is prohibiting people from enjoying it. It was professorial.
lol now you are avoiding the question by talking about something else
I was referring to you taking an outdated 2.x file make 3.0
nothing to do with languge
purely an inconsiderate action wasting team time
don’t worry, if we succeed in making a “less fat” version of AARHE
then we have a chance of making dummy-talk style work for the rules file
yes i was wrong and after playing OTB its clear Lite was not good.
what the heck man? you gotta stop doing that :-P
you agree with me (that you were stopping us from having simpler combat sequence in AARHE) and in the same sentence you twist it to attack something else (that AARHE:Lite is not good)
AARHE:Lite doesn’t have the AARHE combat sequence
eg.
naval combat seq: no ASW step, no Battleship fire …
amphibous combat sequence: doesn’t exist
Enhanced realism rules are great!. They are meant to not all be used but a platform of ideas for people who want just the sections they want more realistic.
glad you realise that
now you should know why AARHE (being an actual ruleset) can’t use the “silo structure” and should use the “timeline structure” of OOB/LHTR
The air missions were not complicated, but the combat and movement rules for air units was complicated. Most of these air missions are an attraction to the AARHE experience.
wow you are attacking AARHE’s core rules
(core rules = eg. collect income at end of turn, air movement 50% rule, defender retreat…)
oh my, this is why we must not change rules before discussing
rather than commenting on the actual new rules I’ll have to check side-by-side and discuss why certain rules that I felt are simple yet important were removed and rules that I felt are complex and non-core to gameplay are kept or introduced…all before we can actually discuss new rules
@Imperious:
Yes they were for the most part, but the real issue was the Land/naval/air combat and amphibious sequence that became a chore to play in games. Lite didn’t manage to do a thing to abrogate the difficulty.
wait a minute I answered that in another recent post already
AARHE:Lite doesn’t add to Combat Sequences much
only AARHE does
AARHE:Lite merely extends the hit allocation restriction of OOB/LHTR
(eg. OOB submarine hits can’t be allocated on air, AARHE submarines hits can’t be allocated on air/submarine)
the only thing AARHE:Lite adds to the Combat Sequence
*Land Combat: Air units fire preemptively
*Naval COmbat: add preemptive Anti-Air
AARHE:Lite does not even need to list out the Combat Sequence and people would see know what is happening
its there partially to remind players that there is defender retreat
AARHE:Lite 's Combat Sequence is closer to OOB/LHTR than AARHE
OK. Cost of the IC is not an issue. Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15. Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?
They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then). I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.
yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15
“4 x IPC income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both
*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build
Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism? Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.
no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out
AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible
simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it
unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map
but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism
Would this slow the game down too much and create stalemates for large stacks? I imagine it would(slow down the game) when playing by forum.
yes it does slow down play-by-forum
in my opinion defender retreat is important
it get rid of another kind of stalemate with meaningless unit trading in border dead zones
I also think relaxed attacker retreat is important
its sad to perform too well in the unit trading and had to give up your game you know
@Imperious:
In my opinion Lite was not well received when it should have been a triumph. So we retool and formulate a new ruleset.
some of the more complex rules in AARHE:Lite I did not totally agree in having
but you insist they were important
I am not sure things are going to work this time around neither
you seem to want to simplify some things yet remain firm on having some complex rules
you complaint about air units in land and then air units in naval being a “chore”
meanwhile you add CAP
I think for new players, combat sequence is the scary part
you could write CAP in 3 sentences
but ever item potentially adds sentence to the combat sequence
I just laid out the idea in general.
you mean you are justing laying out ideas rather than forcing the course of the project
then thank god
you can go ahead and release the experimental file (but don’t call it AARHE)
after that we continue the existing system
I update the file and changelog as points are ticked off
I need to first finish the file… i have 2 versions since the one i posted… ill get it done then you make point by point which need clarification or make new ideas. The only idea that seems weak is the AA guns, but ID is too complicated as it stands.
Tekkyy please just pull the concepts you less favor one by one and well have a look. I will submit the file today
I can’t believe you are still doing this
we are in a hole, please stop digging
I have been commenting on points only to be polite
do realise you are getting a bit rude?
(submit? you can release AARIL and AA50HE at any time lol…but right at the beginning of AARHE you said you don’t own the project)
no discuss-adjust-agree-update process, no changelog…
its easy for YOU
but painful for me who needs to read your whole file side by side with the latest file
it takes me a lot of time to do this and I am afraid I can’t afford it
my position remains that we use the existing system of discussion-adjust-agree
I update the AARHE:Lite file as points are agreed/ticked off
after that, if the rules are short enough (like 5 pages 1 column)
then you can experiment with MSWORD, self-contained structure, etc wbut the rules must remain untouched for that purpose
if you want to adjust AARHE (with 30 pages) then I strongly disagree with going MSWORD
for a small file MSWORD is ok, for large file its pain to update spacing
adding one sentence requires reviewing the whole document
I can tell you already OOB is not written with MSWORD
for many practical reasons
(by the way you did this last time too
you came back from your other projects and decided to make a colour version of AARHE
you took an old 2.0 file, something like 6 months old
made wholesome changes
wasted months of past development time
took like month to discuss the new file just to get it back on its fleet
only then we get to start reviewing your changes)
@Imperious:
nothing more than AAP
whats AAP?
also, the idea for what was cut was a tedious and not fun amphibious landing rules with all sorts of sets and different steps in each round.
amphibous assault and naval combat were both simplified
we didn’t simplify it enough partially because you didn’t want to, if you recall you even introduced mountainous amphibious assault
The DAS from 2 space range is too powerful
DAS from 2 space away is an old rule
I am really scared :-(
if you had to remove it you are reading the wrong file
ASW rules are totally confusing for new people. The new system is simple as can be.
it’ll be interesting to see if it is simpler than AARHE:Lite 's system
Air with naval and air with land was a chore.
I’ll have to see
because you had no changelog its pain lot of reading for me to do
can’t comment yet
Submarine interactions on economy much easier with Xeno style rules. 2 sentences and its done. Not like 3 pages of ridiculous over complicated explanations and people cant get a clue whats going on.
hm, it was never any close to 3 pages
I hope you are not mixing AARHE up with your other projects
don’t know what Xeno used, hopes its not the unrealistic convoy boxes
Id defense is too complicated. the new system has faults…still looking at it. basically going with low luck rules on them with OOB rules.
the search die attack die system is not nice
it was partially because we didn’t want to use a D12
anyway, low luck is scary and I hope your system doesn’t involve OOB’s “only one AA can fire” thing
Technology and diplomacy are perfect. don’t need any changes…only remove the useless extra pieces like SPA and transport planes. Nobody buys them anyway.
yeah we can easily transport plane, the rules are written in mind when the optional units transport plane is not selected for play
not so sure about SPA, we designed the numbers to give it a role
If you read the new ideas you clearly see the idea and dont have to read it a second time. Everything needs to be self contained in its own section and written in simple language.
self contained has not worked inm history and unlikely to work
there is a reason why OOB and LHTR is written the way they are (phase by phase structure)
it however may work if we do my sugguest of making a less fat AARHE:Lite
when its just 10-15 rules, it could work
this is one reason why AARe worked with the semi-self-contained structure
and why it didn’t work well for enhanced realism rules, because it was too complex
The new ideas in many cases take the same flavor but model it simple.
yeah thats actually what AARHE:Lite does with production and combat
its much simpler than AARHE
AARHE lite was basically take the same complicated ideas but just hodge podge fewer of them on paper. the problem was the entire document needed to be a dumb down version, but we kept the same stuff. its not what the people want.
for much of production and combat AARHE:Lite is far simpler than AARHE
there is nothing wrong with keeping th same stuff for simple things (like collect income phase being at the end of the turn sequence)
to me its mainly the complex rules like air missions that you insisted on keeping when we created AARHE:Lite
They just want to read the thing once or twice and start playing the rules need to be simple with no questions to be asked.
The volume of questions can only lead to conclusions that the rules were complicated and subject to interpretations.
this will depend on how simple you want it
an adjusted AARHE, it’ll unlikely be simple enough
however an adjusted AARHE:Lite can do it
I have played different versions because frankly the complicated rules blow people away… they are too much for normal AA players. I think this new version is the new lite version.
we are much closer if we just adjust AARHE:Lite
while I can adjust AARHE
I would play a game, but not with a program like AAA
wasn’t thinking of axis and allies simulators but more like electronics boards like Abattlemap
I would just set up the 1942 with no pieces and roll real dice on the table and i guess each round we decide if we retreat.
another way is to use the edit function of TripleA I guess
I thought that infantry was only built in VCs, not at factories. So the factory would have no impact on infantry costs, only location of VC.
that is correct
its great infantry drafting is decoupled from machinery production
which helps the second point below
2. We’ve taken the position based on several discussions in this forum, that factories in Asia, S America, Africa, India and China, including Japan’s starting factory in Manchukuo is limited to mechanized and artillery due to resources and technology. Nations are required to transport or maneuver their big stuff in. Everyone Agree?
think its not resource but technology
you can setup the technology it’ll just cost you
hence we have variable Industrial Complex cost
Imperious is thinking of having a new formula the cost of Industrial Complex cost
to be based on IPC income rather than VC
would this is be sufficient?
