The Historical House Rules Committee

[Comassion]

On the basis of a post made by skystalker in this thread (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=6792&page=11&pp=10), I am forming a (hopefully small) group of players who want to develop house rules that use A&A miniatures to fight out conflicts with more nods to realism than are found in the current rules.

We will abide by a few principles:

1. The game will be fun. There's not much point to playing a game that isn't.

2. We will keep it simple. One of the great things about A&AM is that it can be taught and played in an hour, and games last anywhere from 30-60 minutes. This is an excellent quality in a game and I don't want to lose it.

3. The units and rules will be realistic. The rules we use will be designed and units that we redesign should give a good feel for World War II combat and general unit effectiveness.

4. The units will be balanced. This is an incredibly difficult factor to gauge, but I believe that nearly all issues with any given unit can be solved by correctly costing them. Historical stats first, appropriate price second.

What we won't do:

1. We won't fix what isn't broken. If a rule in the existing set works, we'll keep it - for instance, the mechanics of attack and defense seem to work well, as do disrupted, damaged, and destroyed counters. Whatever isn't broken or unrealistic will remain in the rules.

2. We won't develop new units. We will only address units that WOTC has released.


How the Committee will work:
I will pick and choose members from the people who volunteer for this committee based on your posts on these forums, and past experience. If you've already posted your own house rules in this forum somewhere, that's a plus. Each committee member will be able to submit proposed new rules and revisions, and have an equal vote on whether or not a rule is appropriate for Historical House Rules.

To volunteer, simply say so in a reply to this thread (a bit about any experience you have, and why you want to be on the committee would be good too). I will sort through the volunteers and choose only a few to participate as actual committee members - I'm afraid that if the committee itself is too large, then it will bog down in discussion and accomplish things too slowly.

However, the actual participation in this endeavor will be much larger, in that we need as many playtesters as possible. In true forum fashion, everyone will be free to playtest the rules we come up with and offer us feedback on the forums. When we screw up, let us know, and we'll do our best to fix it.

[jiminy_fatal]

*jiminy_fatal raises his hand first to volunteer*

Been playing wargames for quite some time. I have studied and teach world history that includes strategies, unites and tactics of the great powers in both world wars. I have a lot of spare time as well.

Unfortunately I have only signed up on this board recently so have not been able to post the 400+ messages many have managed.

I have a real interest in helping this process along.


Thank YOu

[PatrickWR]

As promised, I'm happy to be your first member, Comassion. I believe that the turn sequence, mechanics, stat formula, etc in this game are spot-on; in my opinion, it is individual units that need tweaks and adjustments. Hopefully we can use some of the well-thought-out house rules threads in this forum as a starting point. I'll humbly point to my own as well.
http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=7604

Let's get rollin'!

[Dagger]

I'll volunteer for a playtester role. Perhaps the final committee can come up with a template of sorts for the playtester to report certain aspects of the new or modified rules. Or we could just wing it ;)

Dagger

(Edit: Oops! Forgot to include qualifications for consideration.)

Chess: 30+ years
Risk: 30+ years
AD&D 25 years
Mechwarrior: 17 years
RPG and WWII style Computer Games: Since the Crey
A&AM: 3 months :)

[cossackwarrior]

Have a degree in History and have gamed since 1963 in all forms but primarily miniatures. Avid reader and consumer of WWII information from all sources, especially in first person talks. Have also written numerous rules sets.

[skystalker]

Since I sort of started this, I feel a little bit of responsibilty. I'd be glad to be a play tester, and review draft criteria, but don't see myself as a member per se. If I can help, please let me know.

[Joisey]

I'll help. I've been wargaming for a few decades, from A&A to Scorched Earth/Europa. I've posted some proposed house rules here and I've also recently volunteered to be a writer for the forum and have contributed one article and am currently working on two more.

I think the first task will be to identify those units that need an historical house rule and those that don't, btw.

[fifleche]

I'll hapily playtest. Would like to work on the project, but lacks the free time to do it right now. Perhaps in a month or two...

[Domhnall101]

Wargaming 20 yrs, hex, minis, historical. After many years with AH's longest day,ASL and other such great labours of memorisation and booklet shuffling or enormous play areas. I love the simplicity and fluidity of play in this game. I applaud the guidelines you have laid out and I am excited to see where this goes!
I am also a art director and illustrator so I can help with graphics for examples of play, maybe a custom stat card to allow for additions changes etc. I was working on one anyway...
I will happily assist in any way needed.

[Comassion]

I'll give this thread another day (so that it runs at least a full 24 hours or more) before I make my decisions, though I'm very impressed with everyone who's volunteered so far. I do enjoy being on these boards, we have such a wealth of intelligent and knowledgeable individuals.

[Bobsalt]

I'd like to volunteer as well. I've got 25+ years in wargaming, so I'm familar with how mechanics should wrk in a historically-based game, but I'll say up front that there are a lot of others on this board who know more than I do about the historical units. I've suggested several rules fixes on the boards, and have some playtest experience from years ago. I'd like to participate in whatever role you see fit, even if it's a small one, but I also won't have a problem if I'm passed over in favor of those who have more knowledge/experience.

[Vulturedoodle]

We will abide by a few principles:

1. The game will be fun.
2. We will keep it simple.
3. The units and rules will be realistic.
4. The units will be balanced.

What we won't do:
1. We won't fix what isn't broken.
2. We won't develop new units.
Very, very good start.

How the Committee will work:
To volunteer, simply say so in a reply to this thread (a bit about any experience you have, and why you want to be on the committee would be good too). I will sort through the volunteers and choose only a few to participate as actual committee members - I'm afraid that if the committee itself is too large, then it will bog down in discussion and accomplish things too slowly.
Ahem...a word or two about your own experience might be in order. :)

I've been wargaming since 1972. Miniatures since the '80s. Designed or worked on half a dozen systems. Don't think I have the time to be a card-carrying member, but will be happy to consult and critique. Probably playtest, too.

Regards,
Steve F.

[PatrickWR]

Ahem...a word or two about your own experience might be in order. :)


In fairness, I nominated Comassion to start this group, so it ain't like he did so himself out of delusions of his own greatness! :D

[henrym203]

Id like to join in. Wargaming for over 8 years now. I am also an avid collector of WWI-WWII firearms. Currently have 26 in my collection now(growing almost weekly). I also have some reenacting experience. Currently at UIC for pre-med work, and picking up a minor in History.

[Comassion]

Ahem...a word or two about your own experience might be in order.

Fair enough. Much of my wargaming experience has been on the computer, from the Mac I had at age 6 with Patton vs. Rommel and Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War, to my beloved Combat Mission and the excellent Total War series.

My board wargaming experience (The 'real' wargames, I've played plenty of Axis and Allies and similar games) is practically nil compared to you guys. I played a game or two of Panzerblitz and Victory in the Pacific with my father, but it was so long ago that I don't remember much other than the fact that we played it.

I tried getting into Warhammer 40K at one point, but was short of funds in college (and I loathe painting). Still, I enjoyed the idea of playing miniatures games. I tried Pirates when it was released, but A&A Minis is much more to my liking and area of interest.

[Joisey]

I think of this game as Panzer General on the map table. Some campaigns linking a number of scenarios together where you would slowly build up a huge elite army, ala PG, would be great to see someone here publish.

[Comassion]

Although everyone who applied were good candidates with great credentials, I forced myself to limit the total number of Committe members to 5. They are:

Comassion
PatrickWR
Joisey
Domhnall101
Bobsalt

Primary Playtesters:
jiminy_fatal
Dagger
cossackwarrior
skystalker
fifleche
Vulturedoodle
henrym203

If you weren't selected to be a committee member, take heart. We still need your input, and I hope (though it has yet to be decided) that all committee discussions will take place in the open, with non-members able to participate as they see fit. We still need playtesters and historical knowledge and research from more than just the five of us.

Now I put it to the Committee to decide on it's own rules. I'll write up a proposal in a different thread, and the first act of this Committe will be to discuss and vote on how we will conduct our rules revisions.

Edit: The proposed rules are up - please see the HHR Rules thread (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=7673)

[Fluffy]

I would like to test, but I beleive my friends won't like it that much :)

My experience isn't as large as others in wargames, unless you consider blood bowl a wargame, I find many similarities from blood bowl and AAM, that's probably why I like it that much :).

I am quite good at finding loopholes on any set of rules, will be glad to find overpower on anything you post.

[dracos42]

I am interested in playtesting and commenting.

My experiences are numerous posts on these boards. A few house rules, unit fixes, and DIY units I've suggested. 25 years of gaming, starting with D&D and Air Force, then to Panzer Leader and onward. Panzer Leader (and PL 1940), Panzer Blitz, and Axis & Allies were the three wargames I played a whole lot of in college.

I have a BS in Geography. Not that I use the degree, but I hope to someday. Been interested in the Pacific theater for 30+ years (I'm 38). Lived on Okinawa for 4 years while my dad was stationed there.

Michael Lyons / dracos42

[Rauxa]

You have one more ASL grognard volunteer, this time from the other side of the Sea...

I am including here a response of today to a thread by Dr Cornelius.

Historical AAm with ASL perspective: stacking limits

Being a 20 year+ player of Squad Leader (SL) and ASL, I am far from neutral when assessing AAm, which I find a fun, uncomplicated game, but also a very valid tool to expand the player base by experiencing the basics of tactical combat, specially if we can reinforce the impact of combined arms and leadership WITHOUT complicating the game.

Specifically, I have two alternative and SIMPLE recommendations for "historical" AAm:

1. FREE stacking of leaders. This makes sense from a practical point of view, specially when we remember that we are talking about adding a SINGLE individual when one hex is 100 meters wide!. The effect can be significant in reinforcing soldiers vs vehicles -adding historicity-, but adds also, in a simple way, the dimension of leadership at the front vs hiding leaders away somewhere far from combat while keeping their initative bonus.

2. Allowing for a stacking of THREE, with max one vehicle and TWO soldier type units. Artillery units are NOT considered soldiers for this purpose. The practical effect of this rule change will be adding staying power to infantry, specially combined by support weapons...

AS a closing comment, in SL the scale is 40 meters per hex, and stacking is ONE vehicle and, in general terms, up to four "soldier" type units plus ligth support weapons and leaders...

[Pasalades]

I would like to contribute. I have been in the various threads regarding this little project. Particularily I might be of some help with organizing units and such forth. I'm working on the unit matrix still. I got some ideas today so I'm making some modifications. Hopefully I will post before I go to bed. I don't know if anyone will find my unit/price matrix usefull or not, BUT if you want to use it to lay the groundwork for unit design, I would like to be involved. I'd like to feel a little ownership over my hard work.

Aside from that, I have considerable academic knowledge to bring to bear on the subject of WWII. It's my profession and field of study (can't wait to get that PHD it seems so faaar away). That and I have some amateur experience with board game tinkering and creation of my own. I know that the commitee is full up, but I'd like to help on an ad-hoc basis.

[Comassion]

I think we'll be keeping the stacking limits, since we don't want to mess with the basic game mechanics much, if at all. That said, I'd like to thank all our new contributors for your support and comments so far - keep it up and we'll make a better game together.

[wilson2]

What we won't do:

1. We won't fix what isn't broken. If a rule in the existing set works, we'll keep it - for instance, the mechanics of attack and defense seem to work well, as do disrupted, damaged, and destroyed counters. Whatever isn't broken or unrealistic will remain in the rules.

2. We won't develop new units. We will only address units that WOTC has released.


1. try tiger I, croc, KV, snipers, scout cars, etc
2. uhuh ive seen these rules and you do make new units making 2-4 units for certain pieces

[TomServo]

1. try tiger I, croc, KV, snipers, scout cars, etc

Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying those units weren't broken or wrong? At the time these discussions were being held (2 years ago) the HHR Committe and the House Rules forum at large felt otherwise.
2. uhuh ive seen these rules and you do make new units making 2-4 units for certain pieces

Again, your quoting a statement from two years ago. When Heroes were introduced in Set IV, the HHR Committee and users who frequented the House Rules forum felt that heroes were, well....stupid. Instead of just ignoring the miniature we decided to use the miniature to create units that were missing from the game.

You have your house rules and we have ours. You don't see HHR members posting on your thread and casting dispersions upon your rules. There's room enough for both systems on these boards. Perhaps your familiar with the old cliche about stones and glass houses?

[Moderator Kayn]

I deleted one off-topic post, but I think RedMax's questions got lost in the shuffle. Those answers might be enlightening for new posters.

Thanks,
Mod Kayn

[Bobsalt]

Are you willing to answer?
What is the purpose of HHR?
Who votes for Committee Members?
How often and when does voting occur - eg. once every four years in November or when hell freezus Over?
What is needed for a mandate in this House?
Redmax,

To try and answer your questions:

1) When A&AM was first released, it was heavily promoted as being “detailed and historically accurate” – their quote, not mine. All of the articles and promotion of the game for quite some time prior to its September 2005 release made it sound like it was going to be a “beer & pretzels” light tactical wargame. Anyone who doubts this can just go to the main website and read the articles from summer of 2005 and come to your own conclusions as to what the game was promoted as being. Set I had its problems, but the overall game system was there.

HHR was started due to the frustration that many of us more historically-minded gamers experienced in seeing the direction A&AM began to go in with the release of Set II. When Set II was released, it became evident that the problem in which several units in the first set were priced considerably wrong had been repeated in that set as well (this was before the admission by WotC last summer that they deliberately price many of the units incorrectly). In addition, many of the rules were not sufficiently thought-out or playtested (for example, when Set II was released, cavalry could ride in jeeps, halftracks, on Russian tanks, etc.) or just plain stupid (paratroopers could beam down any time and any place they wanted). It was at this point where a lot of questions began to be raised by the historical gamers on the boards as to whether a company that made fantasy games could design a quality game based on WWII. We began to be concerned (rightly, it turned out) that the game was going to end up being more “Kool Aid & graham crackers” than “beer & pretzels”. Someone made the comment that based on what he had read on the boards there were people posting who could design a better game than what WotC had produced. A guy named Comassion picked up the ball and ran with it from there.

The purpose of HHR was to take all the kiddie elements out of the game and produce a rule set that would play (within the basic system) more like a true wargame. A “beer & pretzels” level of complexity to be sure, but still more true to life than the basic set. The hope was to produce a uniform set of rules that would be used by the historical gamers, who at the time of the beginning of HHR were probably in the majority on the boards. Alas, most of the historical guys are gone now, which is why the A&AM board is so dead these days.

2) The committee members were selected initially by Comassion, who abruptly disappeared from the boards about a year ago (involvement by WotC operatives in his disappearance has not been proven at this time) for the simple fact that he started the project and got it up and running. Board members were invited to apply to be on the committee and Comassion selected 5 of us to be voting members based on our knowledge of WWII equipment, wargaming in general, our posting history on the boards to that point, or a combination thereof. The current committee consists of TomServo, Oberst Hermann, Joisey, Domhnall101, PatrickWR, and myself. Tom was added by the committee to replace Comassion when he disappeared, Oberst was added due to his considerable knowledge of WWII equipment, and the rest of us are original committee members.

3) The voting process is for the most part fairly simple. When WotC releases a new set, we open discussions with a thread about each unit in that set on the House Rules Forum, Anyone who comes onto the board is welcome and invited to post their thoughts and we have an open dialogue for each unit until it looks like there’s enough of a consensus to vote on a particular unit. The committee then votes, and either it passes, in which case it’s added to the HHR set, or it doesn’t, in which case the discussion continues. Anyone and everyone can throw their 2 cents in as to what they think a unit should be, but only the committee members can vote on what the unti will be.

The current lack of activity in HHR is for the very simple reason that there hasn’t been any activity by WotC in releasing new product. I am hoping to put something together to have some of the existing units given a second look, but with my recent marriage I just haven’t found the time to do it.

4) A mandate is achieved by the simple act of getting a majority of the committee to vote in favor of a particular unit.

The two most important things (in my view) we try to do in HHR is to give each unit capabilities that are historically comparable to the other units in the game, and make each unit cost balanced relative to all other units based on their capabilities. You may not know this, but in summer 2006 WotC admitted that many of the units in the game had been priced incorrectly deliberately – this is the reason why even though the Sherman and Pz IVG are fairly even in capability, the Pz IVG is priced 30% higher than the Sherman. In HHR, we reduced the gun stats on the Sherman and left it at 21, and added Schurzen to the Pz IVG and reduced it to 26. I’m not sure these costs are perfect, but there’s no question that the HHR versions are much more competitively priced relative to each other than their official counterparts.

Is HHR better? “Better” is a subjective term, and so whether or not it’s “better” will depend on your individual taste. Is it more realistic? Within the limits of the game system, I’d say there’s no question but that it is. Is it perfect? Of course not. For example, the SS Panzergrenadier was priced at 6 in early 2006 before people had played enough games to realize the impact of 5 defense infantry on the game. WotC changed the official SS Panzergrenadier to 7 points effective 6/01/07; the HHR one should probably be changed to 8. However, in the aggregate, I’d say the unit costs in HHR are much more correct relative to each other than in the regular game simply because part of the design philosophy of HHR is to price units according to their abilities relative to each other. For example, at 57 points, the Jagpanther is one of the biggest white elephants in the official game. In HHR, the gun has been upgraded (it carried the same main gun as the King Tiger) and the cost is 46 points. WotC wants certain units priced incorrectly in order to drive sales of other certain units; HHR wants unit costs balanced in order to have a competitive balance.

Hopefully this will answer your questions sufficiently. If not, your comments, questions, threats, etc. are welcome.

Thanks - Bob

[Bobsalt]

What we won't do:

1. We won't fix what isn't broken. If a rule in the existing set works, we'll keep it - for instance, the mechanics of attack and defense seem to work well, as do disrupted, damaged, and destroyed counters. Whatever isn't broken or unrealistic will remain in the rules.

2. We won't develop new units. We will only address units that WOTC has released.

1. try tiger I, croc, KV, snipers, scout cars, etc
Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying those units weren't broken or wrong? At the time these discussions were being held (2 years ago) the HHR Committe and the House Rules forum at large felt otherwise.
I have to agree with Tom – I’m not sure what your point is, either. To go into a little more detail, the Tiger was overpriced for what you got, and was made obsolete (WotC’s propaganda notwithstanding) by the Veteran Tiger at a cost of only two points higher. The Croc was changed to the Churchill since the mini doesn’t include the fuel trailer towed by the Croc (though personally I’d like to see both in HHR). The Hulking Mass SA on the KV-1 prevented the possibility of a one-shot kill. While that might be accurate when going up against Pz III’s in 1941, it had no basis in reality when fighting against a Tiger or Panther. Giving it Superior Armor 2 instead means that it’s still a bear for the under-gunned early war panzers, but is more historically vulnerable to the later war German heavy tanks. Everyone knows the Wehrmacht Sniper was horribly broken. Scout cars in the game had some unhistorical abilities that were corrected by making AT guns more deadly.

Also, I have to point out – the statement you quote states that we won’t change rules that don’t need to be changed – and we didn’t. The rules in HHR are almost completely unchanged from the official game. However, your list above is one of units, not rule changes, and we said up front that we would be changing the units; indeed, that was the whole point of the HHR project.

2. uhuh ive seen these rules and you do make new units making 2-4 units for certain pieces
Again, your quoting a statement from two years ago. When Heroes were introduced in Set IV, the HHR Committee and users who frequented the House Rules forum felt that heroes were, well....stupid. Instead of just ignoring the miniature we decided to use the miniature to create units that were missing from the game.
No one could have predicted in January of 2005 that WotC would have come out with kiddie units like heroes and HQ units, while at the same time also leave so many holes in some of the nations OOB’s. With 7 heroes (is that number correct?) and 3 HQ units, that’s 10 wasted slots (for historical gamers) taking the place of what could have been useful units.

Using the heroes to fill some of those holes was simply taking the lemons given to us by WotC and making lemonade. We used them primarily to fill in holes left by WotC – for example, we created some paratroop officers/non coms so that each nation’s paratroops would be on an equal footing. Now, I admit that in addition to the heroes, we did create a few other units, but these were due to special circumstances. For example, the Turan I and II were virtually indistinguishable from each other visually, and so we created the Turan II to give more options to the Axis player. The Fallschirmjagers were only used as paratroopers early in the war; after Crete they were used as regular straightleg infantry, and so we created an extra card for late war fallschirmjagers to reflect that historical reality. Some Pz IIIF’s had a 37mm gun; others had a 50mm, so we created an extra card to reflect that historical reality. And so on.

We didn’t, however, create a lot of new units out of whole cloth. We used existing minis to fill some holes where we could. As an example of our thinking, consider this. The last set came out last December, and we were told some time ago that the next set won’t be out until next December. That’s a year between releases. Now, Set V included fallschirmjagers, but didn’t give them an officer, which means head-to-head they would be at a disadvantage versus, say, US Screaming Eagles. We had two choices: We could either make a card for an officer and use the hero mini and – presto – the Germans have an officer for the fallschirmjagers, or we could game without them for a year, waiting for next December for WotC to make one, with no guarantee that there will be one in that set. Under the circumstances, I think we made the right choice, and I’d say that the members on the boards that participated in the discussions wholeheartedly agree.

You have your house rules and we have ours. You don't see HHR members posting on your thread and casting dispersions upon your rules. There's room enough for both systems on these boards. Perhaps your familiar with the old cliche about stones and glass houses?
I agree with Tom. Why worry about what other people are doing with their house rules? Personally, I think HHR are the best rules (I admit my bias), but I’m not going to denigrate your efforts. If someone wants to download your cards and thinks your rules are better – more power to them. There’s plenty of room on the boards for everyone.

[Bobsalt]

My correction in bold above is acceptable - yes?

My interest lies in A&A Naval Miniature forum. Hope to see you there!

PS: above - treats would sound nice?
Actually, your correction is NOT correct – I was making a joke, that being that sometimes people’s responses are more like threats or challenges to step outside than a true discourse.

I doubt you’ll see me much on the War at Sea forum. I know the game’s wildly popular, but I’ve played it a couple of times and I have to say I don’t get it. It’s got a few good concepts, and I could speak at length on the game, but I’ll summarize by saying that for me it still needs a lot of work to bring it up from “Kool Aid & graham crackers” to “beer & pretzels.”

[TomServo]

Actually, your correction is NOT correct – I was making a joke, that being that sometimes people’s responses are more like threats or challenges to step outside than a true discourse.

I doubt you’ll see me much on the War at Sea forum. I know the game’s wildly popular, but I’ve played it a couple of times and I have to say I don’t get it. It’s got a few good concepts, and I could speak at length on the game, but I’ll summarize by saying that for me it still needs a lot of work to bring it up from “Kool Aid & graham crackers” to “beer & pretzels.”

I wasn't gonna play it either. But I checked out Old Farts modifications and liked them alot. His changes defenitely made it "beer and pretzels" as opposed to "kool aid & graham crackers."

[OldBloodandGuts]

I'm one of those historically-minded gamers who has more or less abandoned AAM because of the 'Kool-aid and graham crackers' minis like HQs and heroes (heck, I didn't even think planes had any place in a tactical combat game of this scale), but I will say that HHR kept me involved with this game for probably two sets longer than I would have otherwise (my current project is creating a detailed HHR for Memoir '44, but that's a topic for another thread).

I haven't always agreed with the HHR changes, but I've always respected the thought process and discourse that lead to the decisions.

So if there are FNGs here who aren't familiar with the Herculean accomplishments of HHR, let me say it clearly: these guys do good work. Making lemonade out of lemons is one way to put it; there's another (and IMHO, more apt) metaphor...I'll clean it up, but let's just say it's tough sometimes for these guys to make chicken salad.

I still peruse these boards now and then to see what's happening in the AAM community (any word on if those Advanced Rules were any good?), and it's almost shocking to see how the threads have changed in the past few years. I would guess that the age of the average poster has decreased substantially. Not that it's a bad thing -- good to see kids who aren't just playing video games -- it's just different than it was a few years back.

Anyway, just wanted to give a word of support to HHR from a member of the Old Guard. :)

[NorthernRommel]

Well I would just like to say for the few times I our group played using the HHR rules there last year they seemed to be a much better and improved version of AAM. It goes to show how little changes and a good amount of playtesting can spawn much better games in general.

Its a shame that Wizards did not look at your rules when considering what to make the "new and improved" version.

And OBG I would say the same for your WAS stuff, even though I dont play the game (I have friends who do).

[TomServo]

Well I would just like to say for the few times I our group played using the HHR rules there last year they seemed to be a much better and improved version of AAM. It goes to show how little changes and a good amount of playtesting can spawn much better games in general.

Its a shame that Wizards did not look at your rules when considering what to make the "new and improved" version.

And OBG I would say the same for your WAS stuff, even though I dont play the game (I have friends who do).

Thanks for the kind words. I'm proud of the work we did.

I don't know what HHR's future is. For me...I'm done. The whole reboot from AAM 1.0 to AAM 2.0 has pretty much killed any passion I had for this game....:( I'll still play, though I'll get any new vehicles from some other vendor...not WotC. I don't really need their stats for new vehicles anyway. I'm quite capable of statting a Matilda or Semovente.

This whole thing has taught me a couple valuable lessons though.

1: Never buy into a collectible game.

2: Never buy anything from WotC.

I'm pretty certain that in a year or two the people playing WAS will be asked to reboot their collections too.

[polish_horsy]

I'm pretty certain that in a year or two the people playing WAS will be asked to reboot their collections too.

They are already doing the beta testing and simply don't know it!

I mean who says "pay $300 to get the necessary pieces and the help us fix the game." And people bought it!

[TomServo]

They are already doing the beta testing and simply don't know it!

I mean who says "pay $300 to get the necessary pieces and the help us fix the game." And people bought it!

LOL...yeah that's the current joke at my FLGS. But if you're willing to pay WotC for the pleasure of getting the same units you already own, you're willing to pay good money for a glorified BETA release.

Thank you sir, may I have another!!

[OIFvet]

Gentlemen, I know that you guys put together an excellent, well-thought, and play tested product with HHR. I have a few questions for you:

1) Will HHR continue to provide us with historical units/ accurate rules?

2) Will HHR adjust the actual house rule portion to include the expanded rules set?

Thank you for taking the time to answer!

[Domhnall101]

I suspect we will in some form.The commitee will change members and move on.
yes to question one
don't know about Q2.

We started wit ht idea of just redoing the stats and not messing with bae rules. We messed with rule a lot when the ircraft rules came out but we counld not find a common consensus to go with for most of it.

[Heir_Ludendorff]

I will help. Haven't gamed for too long compared to you guys but I have experiance with a large number of the old Avalon Hill games as well as simpler ones like Risk and Chess.

[SturmVogel]

I suspect we will in some form.The commitee will change members and move on.
yes to question one
don't know about Q2.

We started wit ht idea of just redoing the stats and not messing with bae rules. We messed with rule a lot when the ircraft rules came out but we counld not find a common consensus to go with for most of it.

I'm sorry that TomServo won't be with HHR. I play exclusively with HHR rules all my AAM games, standard, official scenarios, even the online campaign. I even started with my co-player a project of making some modifications to your rules (mainly to make them more coherent), also added some SAs and some new units. If it wasn't for HHR guys, I would have left AAM a long time ago.

[SturmVogel]

Continuing my previous post here is a compilation of all the new/modified from the official game SAs by the HHR commitee. I did that bcs I noticed some incosistencies (??) in the SAs written in the cards. Underlined are the modifications my group has made to the original HHR rules.

[TomServo]

I'm sorry that TomServo won't be with HHR. I play exclusively with HHR rules all my AAM games, standard, official scenarios, even the online campaign. I even started with my co-player a project of making some modifications to your rules (mainly to make them more coherent), also added some SAs and some new units. If it wasn't for HHR guys, I would have left AAM a long time ago.

HHR will go on with or without me. It's survived much worse...:) It survived earlier member defections and even the mysterious disappeance of its founder, Comassion.

I can't imagine that there won't always be a need for it.

[Bobsalt]

Gentlemen, I know that you guys put together an excellent, well-thought, and play tested product with HHR. I have a few questions for you:

1) Will HHR continue to provide us with historical units/ accurate rules?

2) Will HHR adjust the actual house rule portion to include the expanded rules set?

Thank you for taking the time to answer!
Thank you for your kind words.

Speaking only for myself, I plan to continue with the HHR project for as long as I continue to play A&AM, if for no other reason than it’s the only thing that makes the game playable for me.

If there’s a consensus to take on the expanded rules, I’ll push to take it on. There are also still some revisions that I think need to be made that we missed when we did our big cleanup project.

They are already doing the beta testing and simply don't know it!

I mean who says "pay $300 to get the necessary pieces and the help us fix the game." And people bought it!
EXACTLY why I didn’t buy War at Sea. I am astounded that so many people seem to be playing it, because it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as a finished product as A&AM. On the other hand, it seems that they did stay away from a lot of kiddie things, so maybe that makes the difference to a lot of people. I think with some tinkering it could be a really good game – but I think it would require a lot more work than HHR for A&AM.

I suspect we will in some form.The commitee will change members and move on.
yes to question one
don't know about Q2.

We started wit ht idea of just redoing the stats and not messing with bae rules. We messed with rule a lot when the ircraft rules came out but we counld not find a common consensus to go with for most of it.
Hey Dom, nice to see you (so to speak). I wondered if you had disappeared.

I remember that we didn’t want to mess with the rules when we first started HHR – but who could have known then just how bad a lot of the stuff that came out was going to be? The aircraft rules were so bad that we had to do something to make them even playable. Once we did that, it became easier to address other rules.

I just read the house rules that Tom sent me that he uses, and I think they’re really good for the most part.

I'm sorry that TomServo won't be with HHR. I play exclusively with HHR rules all my AAM games, standard, official scenarios, even the online campaign. I even started with my co-player a project of making some modifications to your rules (mainly to make them more coherent), also added some SAs and some new units. If it wasn't for HHR guys, I would have left AAM a long time ago.
I was really glad to read this post. With no many of the old guard having left the boards I was wondering just how many people out there were using HHR. I was afraid that it wasn’t being used anymore by anyone other than those of us on the committee.

HHR saved the game for me too. I know a lot about how games work and writing rules and such, but I don’t have enough knowledge of the hardware and I certainly couldn’t have produced the cards that Dom did, so without HHR I would have stopped playing the game with Set III. I’ve also enjoyed the creative process and working with people to create what I think is a darn good game.


HHR will go on with or without me. It's survived much worse...:) It survived earlier member defections and even the mysterious disappeance of its founder, Comassion.

I can't imagine that there won't always be a need for it.
I’m still hoping you’ll reconsider. I don’t know if I’ll be buying the new vehicles or not, but there’s still the infantry, and maybe you’ll change your mind if they actually get it right this time. If nothing else, maybe with the larger scale we can sub in FOW vehicles now.

I still wonder whatever happened to Comassion. There was no indication that he was getting bored, or found other things to do. One day he was there; the next day – nothing.

I agree that there will always be a need for HHR (or something like it). Somehow I have my doubts as to WotC’s ability to get things right going forward, if for no other reason than the fact that anything they do still has to be compatible with their aircraft rules, heroes, HQ units, etc. - unless of course A&AM 2.0 winds up being a total reboot and they invalidate everything from the original game.

[TomServo]

Who knows Bob...stranger things have happened....:) Aside from the reboot...I was so underwhelmed by the "Expanded Rules" that it made that bitter taste in my mouth even worse.

One thing about those rules I sent you. They're done with the assumption that all 5/5 infantry are 4/4 SR2. A house rule we've been using for some time now.

[GraphCorp]

Armchair Generals,

I applaud your superhuman efforts to keep the game accurate.

As long as Historic Battlefronts is around, you will always have a home!

[Colonel_Coo]

I still wonder whatever happened to Comassion. There was no indication that he was getting bored, or found other things to do. One day he was there; the next day – nothing.

unannonced departures of friends and fanatics are usually from illness or death.

[Bobsalt]

unannonced departures of friends and fanatics are usually from illness or death.
Yeah, that's usually the case, though I didn't want to be the one to bring it up. I hope he just had a sudden loss of interest though.

[TomServo]

Yeah, that's usually the case, though I didn't want to be the one to bring it up. I hope he just had a sudden loss of interest though.

Well if you view his public profile it shows that his last board activity was about 2 months after his last post, so maybe he did have a sudden loss of interest.

[Domhnall101]

I am going to regret this but...


Bobsalt, would you be so kind as to give us a list of the units you think need a little tidying up.
Then we can perhaps look at a few rules?
Although I would say that any list of rules should be very much optional for users. Perhaps even giving two versions of some of the rules so people have a choice? I don't want to get into talking in circles like we did on the aircraft rules. Funny that the flight rules rules for WAS are almost exactly what my group had come to of our owwn accord. Iwould suggest these woulold be a great starting point for any such optional ruleset we might construct.

Now how can we lure Tomservo back (raw meat?)

[TomServo]

Now how can we lure Tomservo back (raw meat?)

ROTFLMAO!!!!:D

That made me smile.....

[PatrickWR]

I still wonder whatever happened to Comassion. There was no indication that he was getting bored, or found other things to do. One day he was there; the next day – nothing.

Actually if you google "Comassion" (which is a pretty unique online name) you'll see that our dear friend Benjamin has been spotted on various other gaming boards as recently as April 2007. So he's around -- just through with AAM, like so many other good players these days.

[Bobsalt]

Actually if you google "Comassion" (which is a pretty unique online name) you'll see that our dear friend Benjamin has been spotted on various other gaming boards as recently as April 2007. So he's around -- just through with AAM, like so many other good players these days.
Interesting. I wonder why he didn't at least say goodbye then.

Dom, I'll see if I can sit down this weekend and produce a Word document of what I think needs to be addressed. That will depend on what plans may have already been made for me by my wife, of course...

[SturmVogel]

Since you HHR guys meet in the forum after a long time of absense, I'd like to ask a question. In your rules states: "a Flak unit making a defensive-fire attack against an Aircraft... if it rolls 3 sixes while scoring at least one hit". Does this applies only to the Flak units or also in the Ad-hoc AA units? Also if a Ad-hoc AA transport with the Fighting Platform ability has a Soldier unit aboard (not a mortar) and an Aircraft is placed within defensive-fire range,does the transported unit gets to also DF the Aircraft. Thanks in advance.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I am planning to go into the HHR rules myself (until now I thought they were changing too much), but with the upcomming changes it might be a better idea in going their way of rules.

Anyhow - if you plan on reviewing your effort and you need help, I would gladly offer you a hand...

[TomServo]

Since you HHR guys meet in the forum after a long time of absense, I'd like to ask a question. In your rules states: "a Flak unit making a defensive-fire attack against an Aircraft... if it rolls 3 sixes while scoring at least one hit". Does this applies only to the Flak units or also in the Ad-hoc AA units? Also if a Ad-hoc AA transport with the Fighting Platform ability has a Soldier unit aboard (not a mortar) and an Aircraft is placed within defensive-fire range,does the transported unit gets to also DF the Aircraft. Thanks in advance.

Yes on the first question and no on the second one.

AdHoc AA only allows that specific unit to make defensive fire against aircraft; not a unit it is carrying.