Posts made by tekkyy

yeah if it was hit by torpedos, the speed should be reduced (a hole in the hull lol)
while shells tend to hit the decks right?

but then for gameplay we wouldn’t want the player to have to draw the differentiation

ok I added the wolf pack change

sorry IL can you link the post of grammer changes
(use quote but remove the contents to do a “link”)

@Bonus_Bonus:

I made many modifications and forced my friends to play test them.

regarding getting friends to playtest
creating theme depending on your friends tastes would make house rules more attractive

I made an accessory called the Cards of War.

by the way what were the cards of war?

and its neat that you’ve added prefix “AARHE 1939” to topic name
makes the house rules forum tidy
as we have AARHE, AARe, and incoming AA50 (or whatever the official shortname is) discussion in the forum

Imperious Leader made the 1939 map
it has many ICs hehe

from memory of discussion…
the IC at India is not historic but for gameplay
the IC at China I think was supposed to be removed, and we may add a rule in 1939 rule book to let China build artillery without IC

not sure if it matters but recall in AARHE there is the “4X limit”, so an IC on a 1 IPC territory can’t build tanks

retreating into hostile submarines
so do we allow 1 transport + 1 destroyer to retreat from combat, into a SZ with 5 enemy submarines?
is that more or less realistic then retreating into a SZ with 1 destroyer?

retreating into hostile transports
actually you misunderstood
I am not saying the transport is retreating
the hostile transport is idle
the friendly fleet is retreating

so what do you think of the example

you sure you want the technology transfer to be one-way per turn?

some of IL’s explanation is not correct

we dont have nation specific convoy SZ lists
only have the sea sectioned in north pacific, south pacific, north altantic, south altantic, etc

we don’t have “adjacent” requirements
each submarine in north altantic affects enemy north altantic shipping as a whole

@Bierwagen:

I can hear the arguments already about what IPCs get affected and who gets to decide, and I wanted something I could point to.

this occurs now and then and more so in AARHE due to the combined team turn

OOB/LHTR rule applies ===> if teammates argues, the enemy decides

yeah its the intentional
the strategic situation is different between 39 and 42
China was isolated from help due to losing coastal areas

like how the change is to be implemented
I am more towards removing wolf pack from phase 4 conduct combat and putting it under national advantage Germany no.1

still waiting for response regarding Wolf Pack

@tekkyy:

@Imperious:

I kept harping on that rule with him for like a month

@Bierwagen:

Only Germany gets this benefit

it wasn’t the intention at the beginning to be a nation specific thing
hence it wasn’t put into “National Advantage” but “Naval Combat”
I am thinking US wolf pack isn’t so bad, a nature strategy if US historically decides to focus on Pacific and forgo Europe

but if its killing the game fine we’ll change it to Germany only
now lets think of how to put it in nicely
we could put it under Germany’s standard NA, since the NA is about mass produced submarines
or we could just change the Wolf Pack wordng, but end up with a rule that is German-specific in the middle of “Naval Combat”

don’t agree wth retreating into hostile submarines
a bit complex to add a rule to let those submarines roll against them, it’ll be like combat after combat done already

happy to allow retreating into hostile transports
but I though of other aspects related to transport should be discussed before changing to maintain consistency

current: combat move, move through hostile transports is allowed
proposed: conduct combat, retreating into hostile transport is to be allowed

other aspects related to transport:

current: non-combat move, move into or through hostile transport not allowed

A, current: conduct combat, attacker cannot perform land portion of amphibous assault after attack declares break-off (p.12 Naval Combat: Amphibious Assault)
B, current: conduct combat, when both sides only have transports they both must retreat or break-off (p.11 Naval Combat: Retreat Decision)

A+B = one friendly transport can’t move into one enemy transport to offload for ampbious assault

by “trading” I mean like you help teammate to gain a progress box and in return they give you a progress box

if the transfer is limited to one per side
after UK help US with one progress box of ASW tech on turn 3
US have to wait til turn 4 to return the favour with a progress box of LRA tech
and also UK can’t help US with another progress box of ASW on turn 4 but have to wait til turn 5

if we draw boxes
it must not confuse people as to think it is the particular SZ adjacent to the boxes that are grouped together

some sections are pretty big

“To take the income Allies must capture the virtual territory.  Defending land units require two hits to destroy.”

ok I put in your rewrite now

so you don’t want to model trading tech secrets?

Hehe it wouldn’t have been a long talk between me and IL on “that” issue if we didn’t both have good points.

Basically I found it unrealistic for defender’s choice in “retreat decision” to enforce attacker’s choices.
If attacker can retreat, why can’t they retreat just because the defender has retreated? Battles are not always for the capture of the territory, it can be purely for destruction of enemy forces.

IL found it unrealistic as it doesn’t fit history. Its not usual for an area to be vacated like what is allowed by our rule.

In the end we just made it you have to leave one unit behind “to capture”.

To be honest I think the issue is due to another unrealistic aspect of Axis and Allies. You should require a certain number of land units in order to capture a territory. At last talk we decided not to introduce another rule yet.

Good catch. Bierwagen!
We didn’t think about the cascading effect the rules wording can have. It wasn’t the intention for “Production Interruption” nor “Economic attacks” to reduce deployment.

I’ll change the wording of Industrial Complex Mobilization to refer to printed income value.

IL’s list of effects are not precisely correct. The current wording…
SBR = reduce income or reduce deployment
Night bombing = reduce deployment
Rocket = not redefined in AARHE but uses AARHE’s “economic attack” limits

The exact wording is “per direction per turn”. So what Bierwagen said can be done.

But if its too powerful we can change it. Though AARHE tech is generally progressive rather than sudden and reactive like OOB. So I didn’t feel its too powerful.

If its “per team per turn” then that sounds like if Japan sends technology to Germany, Germany won’t send technology to Japan! In reality isn’t “trading” tech secret the more likely case?

extracts of the written rule…
“each hostile submarines destroys 1 IPC per turn”
“damage is allocated by victim to IPC of the path”

So 1 US submarine in SZ57 can only cause 1 IPC damage.
This is not “deducted from that owning players bank”. This is allocated to a path by the victim.

(Idea is that submarines can not attack resources on land, they only attack shipping. No enemy shipping = no damage.)

We also don’t have “convoy sea zones”. They are good in their own ways but restrictive and not dynamic. Rather than considering individual SZs, AARHE sections the sea into general areas.