it wouldn’t be correct to put it into that list
that list has maps of scenarios using the base AARHE rules plus a few scenario rules
AA50HE has its own rules
and it has its own list of scenarios
maps of AA50HE would be listed in a list in the AA50HE rules file
vision
I think this updated AARHE:Lite will bring great things for us
lets playtest electronically finally
you say the list of your changes is from playtesting
but I know, I know what the situation really is
you’ve always played AARHE marginally different with your group
at times, more differently than oldsalty or Bierwagen
after we update AARHE:Lite
we playtest against each other ok?
this project needs to more or less finalise
AARHE:Lite will be the result of our work after all this (since 2006)
a common point we agree on
where as AARHE full thing, everyone just play it differently
seems to me that list is far from complete
I only glanced at the file and I can recall a few changes like IC cost
I believe you’re reinventing the wheel, AARHE:Lite has a simplified system already
@Imperious:
Yes its a step toward a less fat AARHE. Its got some cuts, but took the ideas and made the result less painfull to go thru as far as some of the more tedious steps in combat.
we’ve reduced the complexity of AARHE alot since the peak
but if you still find it tedious (though I have a feeling you are thinking the old rules)
then you are hammering away at the wrong thing!
read AARHE:Lite again and we go from there
AARHE:Lite’s combat is not tedious
*minimal combat sequence change from LHTR
*most realism is done via hit allocation
quite efficient
of course i have a latter file, but will look at CAP as a support for losing some of the naval flavor.
strange, very strange
you want to remove the tedious combat steps and yet introduce CAP again?
if we use a simple non-tedious system (like that in AARHE:Lite) and add CAP in…it’ll be so awarkard
everything is simple and suddenly there is CAP with big proportions
to refresh your memeory
we had CAP before! remember?
but got rid of it because it was just too much
players already have to do ASW allocation
the naval combat sequence was crazy with the mega combo of ASW + CAP + submarine fire + more…
(AARHE:Lite don’t even have ASW allocation)
The air missions are all together
but air missions were already all together, in Conduct Combat
except for two paragraphs in Combat Move
*air mission, merely a reminder that you can now declare air missions in Combat Move besides LHTR’s ‘attack’ and ‘SBR’
*DAS/Air Reinforcement, this is NOT an air mission (this is merely a rule to allow relocation of air units before combat)
anyway I haven’t been as keen as you have been with having “air missions” in a less fat AARHE
ASW tech went down a box
changes due to lots of playtesting of all of the included new concepts
ID is gone. Its too much seasoning and not enough flavor…so AA gun is back, but modified
the goal was not to leave ambiguity. It should require perhaps 2 reads to be clear.
Historical VC is gone… not enough bang for the buck
SPA was not utilzed well enough
only
*ASW tech down a box
*removal of historical victory condition
were discussed
anyway these two and the other changes, if we do them, I have to do to both AARHE and AARHE:Lite and update the two changelogs
in the end
so how do you want to do this less fat AARHE?
I believe the best and shortest way is to work on AARHE:Lite
make AARHE:Lite your 97% fat free AARHE
1. you sugguest, we tick off
2. I upate AARHE:Lite (and on AARHE too if relevant)
3. when its done, only then, you do your transform/language/MSWORD thingy
thats right, air units only fire once per combat cycle
in both land and naval combat air units only fire once per combat cycle
the dogfighting situation is in both land and naval combat (if enemy has air units, you roll dogfight values instead of normal combat values, and that your air units’ hits has to be allocated on enemy air units)
the only difference between land and naval combat is when do air units fire
land combat: opening-fire
naval combat: main round
actually I am just slow
I don’t have the game AA50 and haven’t read AA50HE
to be fair to him
he did have CCP/KMT split in one of his maps
@Imperious:
yes thats true, but the icons are needed. I can remove duplicates
not sure if you are doing this
but this is what you did before (instead of using layers)
you selected all items of a particular type (eg. setup icons) and drag it into the icon tray
explain how to do layers that does not load up memory in .ai files?
does using layers add to extra .ai file size .ai?
I wasn’t aware
I just loved how I can toggle on/off a particular layer
*for releasing versions with/without setup icons, income icons, etc
*for ease of editing, you only unlock the layers you are editing, very easy to select items
*display correctly, since you choose the order the layers…you never have the wrong thing going over another thing, like setup icons going over territory names or something
I divide China, with the USSR controlling the CCP in the north.
this one is good
I would try that
gameplay wise we can now increase IPC of China without making it too strong for Japan to take on
historic wise is cool because Russian influence is one reason why KMT didn’t attack CCP all out
but not exactly north
central and north west
no thats more like AARIL 1.0 :wink:
notice some changes
what do you want to change?
language? structure? rules?
discuss, agree, and do only one thing thanks
(eg. if its language then you change that and touch nothing else…)
this is how I did it in the past months
someone sugguest, we discuss, agree and I update the changelog
otherwise I’ll have to compare to current file side-by-side
slowly and painfully discover and discuss what you’ve changed!
so why can’t you use layers again?
by the way think the file because larger and larger when you keep adding groups of stuff to the icons tray
Also I’d like to see a version without the roundels, they seem to clutter up the map and are redundant as the controling nation is the same color.
I hope IL has learnt from his AARHE map project, and remembered to use layers this time in his Illustrator source file
in which case he can turn features (like setup icons, income icons, terrain etc) on/turn in 5 seconds
did you forget to update the time stamp in the filename?
the link still says 110908…
Does that include air dogfights? If so, do the planes in the dogfight only have one dice roll each per combat cycle rather than than rolling until one side has air superiority as in land combat?
yeah air units still “dogfight”
as in, they still use “dogfight” values instead of combat values until air superiority
its just that it happens in main round
Seems strange that an air combat would be resolved in total before main round in land combat but not naval.
from rule structure perspective: because unlike in land combat, air units do not hit preemptively in naval combat
from realism perspective: the idea was that things like speed and terrain cover that give air units the advantage in land combat, does not exist in naval combat
Good stuff on the subs. Helps alot.
hope its ok
if you guys still find it too powerful we’ll look into tuning it
such the mentioned proposal
@Imperious:
AARHE lite is no good. Its construction is faulty and uncoordinated. For that we just took ideas as complete whole and tried to make them fit.
thats because it is intended to be a lite version of AARHE
not a whole new version
more like a set of simple to implement rules of AARHE
I wouldn’t recommend spreading out too thin into many versions
rather have one good version, whether it’ll be AARHE or AARHE:Lite
Its like a jigsaw puzzle that you took pieces from to make a smaller jigsaw puzzle. It does not work that way. AARHE lite should have been a much more simplistic approach, but complex ideas were patched together.
hey I wanted it to be simple
you’re the one that insisted on having complex rules like air missions in AARHE:Lite
I set a goal of 15 or so rules but we ended up having like 30 because you wouldn’t let some of them go
ended up as 4 pages after I do 2-column
I was aiming for 5 pages 1-column
if you have changed your mind since, we can revisit it
Professorial denotes very dry stuffy language that does not lend itself well enough for quick reads or a greater familiarity with the rules. This leads to ambiguity and debate on their meaning. You need to write in a manner that is “dummy proof”
I am worried “dummy proof” style is not scalable for the level of complexity in AARHE thats all
I will get to work on 5.0 ( user friendly non-quibbling language) and AA50HE
You guys can input, but let me have a crack at it first.
I repeat my position: you should do it for AA50HE as a trial run
just because we can rewrite a rule or two into informal language…it doesn’t mean the whole ruleset can fit together without using formal language
we really should discuss this before you try anything
for example, I am against not using the timeline format of phases
I am also against going on and on with examples (which if you must, can be in a separate file…“example game”)
comments requested
AARHE language is really like an old SPI game from the 1970’s
also a bit like 2004 axis & allies revised
the only time I see “dummy proof” informal language is in games like 1995 Settlers of Catan or 2000 Carcassonne
those rules are like 4 pages (+ reference in case of Settlers of Catan)
@Imperious:
Lets assign our Historical victory as IPC. You decide how much. Look at the ones for AA50 in the fact sheet.
so its going to be a free-for-all game mode?
instead of historical conditions, its just IPC level?
Unfortunately, we hardly play AARHE anymore due to the quibbling over the rules.
oh…sad to hear
is it like because its still changing
or because of my language
or the complexity of the rules?
and AARHE: lite is only 4 pages
subs
if enemy masses submarines you have to get ASW tech (if sea control is important to your strategy)
Imperious Leader’s “happy time” is heavily represented here
the odds are in favour of submarines, but thats ok
submarine is supposed to be a cheap naval unit
but remember they don’t do as much as destoyers!
*can’t kill air
*can’t kill submarines
*can’t 100% block sea zones
*can’t do shore bomardardment
also remember selective-fire is both an advantage and disadvantage
it means you could waste hits depending on the numbers
subs: proposal
if submarines are unrealistically powerful we could do this
consider undetected submarines can sneak in and hence selectively-fire
but they give away position after firing
that means under Phase 4: Conduct Combat -> Naval Combat: Anti-SubmarineWarfare (ASW) ->
In the main-round these units may perform an ASW “attack” roll instead of normal combat roll. Each roll destroys one detected Submarine on its hit value.
becomes
In the main-round these units may perform an ASW “attack” roll instead of normal combat roll. Each roll destroys one enemy Submarine on its hit value.
naval air
in naval combat air units do not fire first
they always fire in main round
in fact, the listing makes the cycle seem complex
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. ASW attack.
3. Naval units fire.
4. Air units fire.
5. Remove casualties.
we could change that to
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. Air and Naval units fire.
3. Remove casualties.
@Imperious:
Tekkyy: this is a function of the way the rules are written. The language is too professorial and dry.
I want to make it a clear cut alternative for AAR and segway it to adaptability for AA50.
hehe “professional”
I am just trying to sound like the original rule
yeah I am aware you disagree with the language
but when I was writting it I didn’t see how I could use an “unprofessional” tone while being precise or concise
if you are thinking of adding lots of examples it’ll only add more pages
but please don’t make it into another language for AARHE yet
how about you do it for AA50HE and we’ll see how it goes
Id like to get a copy of the rules in Microsoft office ( non PDF) I will make a new version in user friendly language and something easier.
please email
anyway you’ve asked before and I answered already but I guess you forgot
I don’t have it in MSWORD format anymore (like ever since we start releasing it in PDF)
we can only copy and paste the lastest pdf (November) from my homepage and paste it into MSWORD
alternatively, you could learn to use Lyx
its a GUI for Latex, the professional publishing format
for Windows, MikTek is a popular Latex provider
Lyx, with GUI, is a popular WYSIWYM processor for Latex
um you saying you don’t want historical victory anymore?
(just after we have AA50, with the same style historical conditions…)
“IPC bonus of X IPC a turn” is just the individual economic victory in classic no?
the correct names for the maps are the following as used in the rules file…
_AARHE Standard Map: The map is mostly as the original revised map. Baltic Sea (sea zone 5) is no longer connected to Western Europe. Balkans and Turkey are connected. There are other small changes. Income and unit setup remains the same. Setup icons and AARHE information has been added for your convenience.
AARHE 1939 Map: Game starts in 1939 with France, Italy, and China as separate players. The map contains a large number of changes from the original map adding important sites such as Malta, Tunsia, and Iwo Jima. Territories are also a bit more divided.
AARHE 1942 Italy Map: Game starts in 1942 with Italy as 6th player. This map contains a small number of changes from original map adding territories such as Italy and Finland. Setup remains the same for other territories._
oh yeah I just realise we don’t have to add 4th game mode
its already there under Historical Victory
currently Victory Condition is
_Victory is achieved if victory conditions are maintained for one full game round. Three game modes are possible.
Victory City: Axis wins if they control 45 VCP (Victory City Points). Allies win if they control 55 VCP. Each victory city has a VCP value.
Historical Victory: The first nation that achieves it ranks first, with other nations ranking second and third accordingly. A list of historical victory conditions is found at the appendix.
Economic Victory: Both teams bid the number of rounds that they want the game to last. The team that bids the higher number of turns plays Axis. The team controlling the majority of territory IPC at the end wins the game._
so I’ll change Historical Victory to this?
National Victory: Three national goals are selected randomly. The first nation to achieve the goals wins. A list of national victory conditions are found at the appendix[page blah].
oldsalty, yes you can except attacker have to leave at least one land unit behind (in land combat)
in naval combat attacker can retreat all
@Imperious:
THEY CANNOT ROLL DICE AND THEN WIN, BUT ELECT NOT TO ENTER THE TERRITORY. THAT DECISION WAS TO BE MADE BEFORE ROLLING THE DICE.
without going into the details of the long discussion…the compromise we arrived at resulted in adding this to the rules
-> Phase 4: Conduct Combat -> Land Combat: Retreat Decision -> Attacker retreat
However if defender has no land units left, attacker must leave behind at least one land unit.
and I don’t want to start that discussion again unless oldsalty wants to
