Another bold concept for AARHE


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK heres a radical idea…

    First Idea:
    after the combat phase of your teams turn, the enemy gets to perform ‘reaction movement’

    the turn sequence is exactly the same EXCEPT you add in this enemy reaction movement phase. On the enemies turn you can likewise move again after his combat phase.

    The key idea here is we do the following:

    1. end the problem where germans are in eastern europe and the allies deliberatly invade france knowing the germany infantry and artillery cannot move far enough to react to the allied invasion and it succeeds. Under the current system only adjacent units ( or tanks 2 spaces away) will be able to counter. This previous concept is not very realistic.

    2. continue the trend toward ending the problem with many detached turn phases when the very nature of having many steps before the counter to what the enemy is doing actually makes the game less realistic. The first thing we gutted was the independant nations turn structure where UK, USA and the Soviets can cause a 1,2,3 hits on germany in sucession and germany can only counter it one time. WE solved this by having all the allies and axis move together.

    Now if you do this we make another step in this direction because we allow for better reaction with the extra movement. It will increase global movement

    I have playtest this but not enough times to say its a great idea. Another idea was to make reactionary movement just one space on land and half movement everywhere else ( ships move 1, planes move 2 and 3 respectively)

    A problem with the game from a historical point is when you place your fighters in say africa and allies hit say norway…. the turn is about 4-6 months of real time. I think its very possible to move your planes in such a way that on your own combat turn you should be able to attack norway… but under revised its not possible…

    The bottom line is its a very simple idea to fix alot of issues and does not significantly change the game.

    think it over.

    Second Idea:

    Naval combat should require a search roll just like looking for submarines….

    Naval Search
    Fleets must be spotted before they can be engaged.  Fleets that are performing amphibious assaults are automatically spotted until they are eligible to move again.  Search rolls are performed by the player searching with one die rolling a number equal or less than the total number of opposing surface ships.

    Each aircraft with the searching fleet has a modification of +1

    Example:  its the british turn and the Bismarck (BB) and prince eugen (CA) have gone into the atlantic to fight convoys… The British move to the sea zone with King George the 5th, and Victorious (CV) which has 1 fighter …They roll for search… take the die and roll it and add +2 for the german ships ans +1 for the fighter=+3… they roll a 2 and add and get 5… they need a 6 to spot but only get a 5… the british remain in the SZ with the 2 german ships but no combat occurs.  On the german turn Admiral Lutzens moves his fleet to attack the british trannsports in another sea zone  ( he has to roll to search as well)

    Example 2: Admiral Halsey sends his enterprise and yorktown and 2 destroyers along with 4 fighters and trys to look for the japanese fleet.  The Japanese fleet is 2 carriers and 3 fighters along with a destroyer… the die is rolled and the modifier is 6 which is automatic (the japanese fleet is very large and larger fleets are easier to spot)

    Do you see what im getting at?  I could apply this to sub search … its a totally easy system to employ. The roll of 6 could be tweeked a bit… but its pretty decent. One thing that really looks good is if the germans split the subs up into one ship fleets… this requires the allies to buy tons of escorts to protect the fleet and spend their time hunting subs. In fact the subs work in germany favor more then ever before under this system and allow for the perfect modeling of the “happy time” for the german reich. The axis buy subs and the allies find ways to counter… this is what we are after.



  • First idea
    A bit radical and starting to break the active/passive turn.
    There must be a distinction (active/passive) or it’ll become like Diplomacy. Complicated resolving.

    Don’t need to get it perfect. I mean in “4-6 months” there is no reason why troops in West Russa can’t get to Western Europe.
    We’ve already made aircrafts able to respond via DAS.

    But there is certainly more to the general direction for consideration.
    (By the way what happened to keeping the Axis and Allies favour in AARHE?  😉)

    Second Idea
    I think its getting too tactical, below level of abstraction.
    With you fail to spot enemy ship you have “4-6 months” left to look for them.
    Submarines aren’t too bad. You just submerge after they fail to search+kill you.
    As it is now in AARHE you do need lots to secure Altantic “income path”.

    Related to your other post of radical ideas…
    What we could do is for “break-off”, we apply some search dice for chasing.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Why not just make it opposition rolls?  Attacker rolls and succeeds if s/he scores equal too or lower the defender roll.

    Auto Fail = 6
    Auto Success = 1


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK they are just ideas. Jennifers idea for search is too ‘topical’ meaning its just loses the flavor of the idea w/o involving the numbers of ships as the key modifier.



  • You’re right…the number of units (naval+air) should be factored in.
    The idea of break-off wasn’t for large opposing fleets to occupy the same sea zone.  😞

    So we’ll pretty use your formula.

    So when A chooses “break-off” and B chooses to fight on…
    B rolls a search die, hitting on X or less.

    X = (B’s units + A’s surface units) divided by 2, rounded down


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The original intent was to perhaps introduce the idea that sub search and naval search have a relationship, where its not allways easy to find enemy carriers and the fleet for naval combat. I dont think the concept of inability to break-off the naval attack is as nearly important as the idea of FINDING where the enemy is.

    Again i would offer it under optional rules and not a basic rule system. It would simulate the naval situation better.



  • if a fleet is evading
    it could be hard to seek

    at the moment only submarine needs to be seached before shooting at

    the only difference is here is the first cycle of combat there is no need to search
    can’t we just consider fleet is idling not evading?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    To focus on searching for enemy ships and the ability to have combat and run and hide and the enemy not be able to follow your fleet with more combat is the indroduction of many new ideas that seem to go beyond the scope of playability.

    It would be enough to just have rules for sub search and POSSIBLY surface naval search… but adding further rules for evading makes for too many tactical ideas and tedious rolling. It would take the fun out of it.

    lets just leave the current rules on search alone and work on the NA’s


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Counterair

    The act of engaging enemy air forces alone in combat is a major factor in the Battle of Britain and many other battles during the war. Your fighters can move over any enemy territories in flight range and engage in one round of aerial combat per turn against enemy fighters. Your fighters must survive any ID rolls prior to the commencement of combat. The number of fighters should exceed the enemy because if they dont he can allocate his excess fighters for DAS missions

    This rule is an effective way to reduce enemy fighter strength and soften up the enemy as a prelude for invasion or attack.In land combat you can attack planes in nearby territories that you feel he may call to reinforce battles. Thus you deny him this ability and in some cases can achieve local air superiority.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    In the same vein, perhaps defender should have the option to retreat a portion of their naval assets?

    Taffy 3 in the Philippines basically did this.  They had their defending destroyers, massively out classed and out gunned by the Japanese, put up smoke to cover the retreat of 6 American escort carriers.

    You could say that each warship (destroyer/Battleship only) could distract 1-3 enemy ships.  Roll 1 die, divide by 3, round down.  If all enemy ships are “distracted” that round, then carriers and transports can retreat 1 sea zone.  If not every enemy is distracted, then no defenders can retreat.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    This is allowed under AARHE defender can declare retreats w/o penalty. The only time a penaly is served is under invasions, where defender converts any unit landing to infantry and re-embarks on tranny.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    How does a defender convert to infantry and go BACK onto a transport???


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK…

    you invade with 3 tanks, 2 art, and 5 infantry. In the battle you lost 4 infantry and you now know its all lost. You decide to retreat.

    the one infantry re-embarks transports and the 5 other armor units are converted (exchanged with infantry) representing the army throwing down all its weapons and running away . This was the case at Dunkirk and Dieppe



  • @Imperious:

    Counterair

    One cycle pure air attack is already in AARHE. Modelling both Battle of Britain and London Blitz.

    The only thing is “can only relocate or reinforce with excess units” applies to land unit but not air units. Air units are highly mobile. (I mean we let air units relocate 1 space and fight immediately.)

    @Jennifer:

    In the same vein, perhaps defender should have the option to retreat a portion of their naval assets?

    Yep we are making a reinforcement rule. (its not in the latest uploaded draft yet)
    land units can move 1 space, fight from 2nd cycle
    air units can move 2 spaces, fight from 1st or 2nd cycle (1 or 2 spaces away)

    Haven’t included naval units yet. There are some implications for Pacific war and Altantic war.

    [[quote author=Imperious Leader link=topic=8925.msg168224#msg168224 date=1171930019]
    This is allowed under AARHE defender can declare retreats w/o penalty. The only time a penaly is served is under invasions, where defender converts any unit landing to infantry and re-embarks on tranny.

    Well. Each excess attacking ARM capture a retreating INF on a roll of 1" for defender retreats.

    This should apply to amphibious retreat too if we have amphibious retreat.

    *should converted infantry subject to “excess ARM capturing INF”
    *defender amphibious retreat? convert ARM/ART to INF too?

    Theres some things to think about. We can’t switch on amphibious retreat too quickly.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well. Each excess attacking ARM capture a retreating INF on a roll of 1" for defender retreats.

    This should apply to amphibious retreat too if we have amphibious retreat.

    *should converted infantry subject to “excess ARM capturing INF”
    *defender amphibious retreat? convert ARM/ART to INF too?

    Theres some things to think about. We can’t switch on amphibious retreat too quickly.

    Yes right. I didnt explain all the exceptions.

    “defender amphibious retreat? convert ARM/ART to INF too?” yes that should be in the rules. full conversion to represent you are leaving all equipment on the beach and jumping on the ships just to save lifes.

    "should converted infantry subject to “excess ARM capturing INF?”  I think this would still be possible but BEFORE they are converted.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Ah, thought you were saying the DEFENDER could reatreat infantry onto transports and I was going like “huh???”


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    no! 😄


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK i noticed that the optional unit mix is missing the armored infantry ( mech infantry) unit

    i propose its at 2/2 and moves 2 spaces and can blitz like tanks

    it would cost 4

    I would allow its causaulty allocation to be considered an armor hit. Thus if a enemy tanks hit the loss can now be taken against artillery, mech infantry, or armor.

    I would also propose it can help boost the movement of one infantry  or artillery  to two spaces at 1/1 basis. (It would have to be one or the other not both)

    otherwise if this is not good then possibly it attacks at 3 on the first round only and 2 all other rounds

    ideas?



  • actually it is in already
    remember I said its already on your battleboard

    it was

    cost 4, move 2, attack 2, defense 2
    may blitz when matched with tanks 1-to-1

    I’ll add the armor hit thing

    I don’t know about the boost movement of infantry/artillery/etc
    its a national advantage somewhere I think



  • Well, you’re both right about the MECH piece…

    Tekkyy, you forgot to put in in the list of abbreviations on page 3, while all other optional units are there… But you did add it to the optional unit table on page 24…

    Add it also to the list on page 3, for clearness.



  • yep


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 8
  • 130
  • 19
  • 9
  • 14
  • 3
  • 33
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

87
Online

14.2k
Users

34.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts