@Combat:
look at Websites that print vinyl banners. You can get them as low as $50. I printed my map using cheapbanners.com
Thanks… I’ll check it out.
AARHE 1939 Edition
-
I think Flashman’s point is that since the game is starting out at 1939, Germany is already father away from Moscow. And the whole game is going to be different. The map that was play tested was based off 1942 not 1939. It may actually be a more balanced game if Moscow is moved one space closer to Germany. As it is, Germany is the same distance away as Japan is from Moscow in terms of spaces.
Perhaps play testing needs to be done on this map to determine if Moscow is in the right spot. I would hate to see the game turn into a battle of Japan vs Russia. Because if there are less units in the East, the axis may have a much better chance of winning the game if Japan dukes it out with Russia and Germany just fights off France and UK.
Either way the game is going to be a lot different from starting in 1939 to 1942.
Thanks, that was exactly my point. I assumed that the map was intended specifically for a 1939 scenario, but a “one map fits all” version is a different ballgame.
However for all sorts of reasons I still think Moscow should be where it really is:
1. I hate the boring and predictable German/Japanese “race to Moscow” playout that dominates standard games.
2. It places the Soviet player in a totally unhistorical position strategically. Moscow WAS this close to Germany; it’s up to the designer to solve this problem by looking at what happened in the real war; altering geography is cheating in my book.
They actually solved the problem by moving a huge amount of industry to the Urals, Kuzbas and Kazakhstan, out of range of German attacks. This meant that even if the principle line of Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad had fallen, the USSR could still have fought on from their eastern provinces and still produce huge quantities of tanks and aircraft.
I think the solution of moving MOSCOW hundreds of miles east which “Larry’s Gang” came up with is based on the assumption that you absolutely HAVE to have the “capture the capitol with the capital” rule which to me seems so outdated for WWII.
Remove the c-t-c rule (which most people seem to want modifying at least) and the loss of Moscow becomes less decisive and so the city can be safely placed in it’s correct location without breaking the game.My map has 5 Soviet ICs: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kharkov and Chelyabinsk. The later is the Urals centre which replaces the unhistorical Moscow, Kharkov (or Kiev if you prefer) represents the huge industry of Ukraine; in a 1939 scenario the Urals centre can be deleted but give the Russians the option of transporting this complex east. In 1942 it is of course German occupied, however I never allow players to use enemy complexes.
3. On a more historical map, Japan just isn’t going to get to Moscow that easily; mountainous and forested terrain, and numerous small Chinese territories would likely wear them down. That means that Moscow really has to be attainable for the European Axis, and placing it in the Urals just about destroys this, especially for a pre-1942 game.
Latest map:
Rio de O looks much better where it is, but my suggestion was that it should border Algeria/Morocco to allow units to move down the west African coast (it was known as Western Sahara for a time). Depends on how you interpret “passable”; does being a coastal territory (even though mainly desert) make it passable to land units because they’d get support from navy off-shore?
If it doesn’t link Alg-FWA RdO would still be a redundant area.You’ve called Gold coast Nigeria; the latter would be in the south-west of the FEA territory.
Where to place other oil fields?
Burma, East Indies, Borneo, Caucasus, Trans-Jordan (Iraq) would be the obvious ones, I don’t think there was significant extraction in north Africa at this time. Saudi? Mexico?Am I correct in assuming that the two Central USA parts are actually one territory?
Couple of reminders:
Libya (spelling)
French Roundel (red and blue need reversing) -
Remove the c-t-c rule (which most people seem to want modifying at least) and the loss of Moscow becomes less decisive and so the city can be safely placed in it’s correct location without breaking the game.
AARHE never uses that rule. In fact none of my games created since the beginning have this concept. Only france, Italy, and Germany have various degrees of effect when a the capital falls. I am not changing any roundels. forget it. Rio De Oro will not be changed a second time.
Also, AARHE does not support victory conditions that would allow Japan to attack moscow. They have national victory conditions to satisfy. Read AARHE > if people however want to play normal OOB then they can do that with this map.
And the map is in fact an “everything scenario”. I don’t like people having to waste money on different maps for each year. The modules will allow for different set ups.
Keeping India in one because it weakens it to break it up and its important for UK to protect the middle east oil.
considering making Germany into east/west but still don’t want to make territories too small. I could make a dotted line which basically says (its one territory but if the allies invade they can take just one half)
I don’t agree with this idea that if the western half of Soviet Union falls “they keep fighting w/o missing a beat” that is bogus reasoning. If they lost those 3 cities/territories they would cease to be a real major power and resort to something that was going on in China also with no effective military presence. Your quite wrong in that approach.
England would continue to fight in Canada but also with limited effectiveness.
france is france and surrenders when the wind blows too strong
Italy is the same…just add a full day of bad wind
-
ok using France as a base figure ( i think they have a perfect IPC level of 17)
we have this according to Harrison:
Germany 32 currently at 12 need 20 more
Italy 13 currently at 8 need 5 more
Soviets 31 currently at 34 need -3
France 17 at 17 good
Japan 16 currently at 14 need +2
UK 24 currently at 32 -8
USA 74 currently at 38 need lots at 36
China 7 goodok where to add and subtract???
ideas>
-
I think this is more playable
POWER ….WARMAKING POTENTIAL
USA- 42 %
Germ- 15 %
USSR- 14 %
UK- 10 %
Fran- 4%
Jap- 3.5 %
Italy - 2.5 %
others- 10 % -
I mistakenly added in dutch interests as the french base figure giving france 17 instead of 12… thus the divider is GNP divided by 16.58 ( using france at 12 IPC as my base figure) then i get
Soviets at 34
France 12
Dutch 10
Japan 12
Germany 24
Italy 9
Uk 27
USA 52 ( rounded down to 50)Soviets collect 17 IPC till turn 3 due to 5 year plan growth investment during peacetime and reorganize military industrial complex.
USA collect no income before turn 4 except they can loan 10 to UK each turn starting on turn 2
and a total of 20 to UK/Soviets starting on turn 4.USA income goes to 60 on turn 6 and 70 on turn 8
Soviets must maintain an eastern garrison until turn 4 (siberian army)
Japan cant attack Russia unless Moscow/and or Caucasus is captured and Soviet cannot attack Japanese occupied territories until Berlin is captured.
Under this model given actual Japanese and German/Italian historical conquests Japan will be at 30 and German Italian at about 51 = 81 while allies are about 47+32+26= 115 which is a difference of 34 which is about the same in revised= Balanced.
I am going to make more changes including stretching the map 12 inches to allow greater aesthetic of Pacific and Atlantic oceans to allow a better feel for naval battles. I may add another island group in pacific, but will try to keep all sea zones the same.
I will have a finished draft tonight. ( 4-5 hours or less)
-
@Imperious:
I am not changing any roundels. forget it.
Oh, dear. Just when I thought we were getting some sense, we get the very essence of lunk-headed bigotry. This is not an opinion, it’s plain simple fact: the French roundle has a blue centre and red outer ring. It always has. There is not one solitary good or ever defensible reason for NOT changing it, other than idiotically saying “I’m right, you’re wrong and that’s the end of it whatever the evidence”.
So we have:
France using the British roundel,
Fascist Italy using the post 1943 ALLIED roundel,
USSR using a fictional hotch-potch copyright Milton Bradley 1984As far as “Historical” is concerned I give up. It’s your map, do what you like. Just make it pretty.
Oh, and if your going to stretch the map consider the central strip - look at how squashed Kazakhstan is compared to a real map.
-
updates:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8gxy2hoaylt
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=42811bjy1yz
Big decision was made on adding a sea zone and accommodating Iceland. I dont want USA to be able to invade france from New York. (its now 3 spaces away forcing them to stage in England first)
However like in History they can invade Africa in the same turn from New York
The compensation for this will be to allow transports movement of 3 if moving to friendly territories (NCM)
so it wont trouble Americans too much.
I am going with flags to help get flashman off my back.
-
Looking good.
Just one question. How did you figure France to be making almost twice the amount that Italy is in terms of ICPs? Just wondering because I always thought that they were around the same. Perhaps this is due to a game balancing issue of some sort. Please enlighten me.
-
1939 numbers :
france 199
Italy 151Conversion 16.58 giving us 12 for france and 9 to Italy.
France lost a bunch of stuff to the Dutch that was figured in accidentally ( actually i was lumping them together but this is not correct).
see recent map file coming up.
-
-
I miss the nice circle things with the number inside. As from what I can see I only see the numbers. Perhaps it is my adobe viewer.
As mentioned earlier, acrobat reader won’t handle layers prefectly.
I’ll keep posting PNGs.@Imperious:
hence I will time the material advantages to allow for this to happen or as Tekkyy would say “to model it”
To clarify I like to model things so we do historic simulation, yet not historic replay.
@Imperious:
considering making Germany into east/west but still don’t want to make territories too small.
Yeah I would be against splitting Germany any further.
@Imperious:
Soviets collect 17 IPC till turn 3 due to 5 year plan growth investment during peacetime and reorganize military industrial complex.
USA collect no income before turn 4 except they can loan 10 to UK each turn starting on turn 2
and a total of 20 to UK/Soviets starting on turn 4.USA income goes to 60 on turn 6 and 70 on turn 8
Keeping in mind of AARHE income rules…it would be more practical to specify which territory takes the gains.
Are we going to do the peace time vs. war time thing with Russia?
Probably want to model Germany’s economic rationalisation too in addition to US.
@Imperious:
Soviets must…
Japan cant…We are putting in new income numbers from Harrison. We even have oil rigs.
Sure we can model the historic reasons resulting in it being unreasonable for Russia and Japan to duke it out in the game.
Prefer that then hard rules.@Imperious:
Big decision was made on adding a sea zone and accommodating Iceland. I dont want USA to be able to invade france from New York. (its now 3 spaces away forcing them to stage in England first)
Wait a minute. I don’t think you can invade Western Europe from Eastern US in OOB.
Giving Australia “mountainous” is probably unrealistic. I think at 3 territories its overly split up.
Why the new SZ? Are you trying to make it harder to going from Alaska to Far East? Otherwise realistically you would decrease the number of SZ to 1 not increase it to 3?
Why is Sahara that colour? Is it just desert?
What are we trying to do with Nigeria?
-
20070919 PNG version (50dpi this time)
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3660/20070919aarhe1939ds5.pngPut date in front of filename. Better than “copy copy copy copy copy copy.ai”. Yes you are up to 6 now lol.
I see you have a new North America continent.
And you want to do more in the Pacific.
I think you are half way to making a new map (as I sugguested earlier) anyway.Low-res PNG this time. Can you slice away the unwanted bits of the new North America continent. It just nudged it over the max dimensions. The big white box still gets exported…unless there is a way to set print-area or export-area…
-
Those flags look good, but the Japanese flag is the naval ensign - the national flag is a plain red disc on white.
http://www.atlasgeo.net/fotw/flags/index.html
Widening the oceans also makes the board look more like a real map of the world. But if you can’t reach France from Washington should you be able to reach England? I made my map so that transports are forced to either rest in mid-Atlantic (giving the U-boats a fighting chance) or take the longer northern route using Greenland/Iceland.
A quick point about the distortion: making Europe larger but not Africa is what causes the wierd shape to Trans-Jordan and the rather pinched look of south France. In the end I decided to widen Africa as well to make the map look better, and after all a lot of action can take place in north Africa. It’s a question of having enough room on the projection you choose to have (note the drastic solution of “struggle” where south Africa is shrunk to nothing.)
-
20070919 PNG version (50dpi this time)
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3660/20070919aarhe1939ds5.pngBEAUTIFUL BEAUTIFUL BEAUTIFUL 8-) after alle this years, this is THE map.
Only one little issue, sea-zone 3 should be split, its a long distance from UK to Northern Norway. Now if I want to play with Tirpitz/Scharnhorst/Lutzow at Kaafjord, try to stop the Murmansk convoy, then there is no way this fleet can be in sz 3 without being destroyed by RAF in turn 1.
In operation Paravane 15 sept 1944 and operation Obviate 29 okt 1944, the distance from Scotland to Tirpitz in a north norwegian fjord was too long, so the british Lancasters had to use a Sovjet airbase in Archangels. But in Revised map, every little fighter in UK can attack whatever sail in seazone 3
-
Also South Germany should be named Austria, so we can play WWI scenarios on the map too.
And what happened to Mexico ? You can go from Canada to Venezuela in one move ?
-
Also South Germany should be named Austria, so we can play WWI scenarios on the map too.
And what happened to Mexico ? You can go from Canada to Venezuela in one move ?
I have Germany split w/e with the east being “Prussia”, but this absorbs most of Poland. This couldn’t really be done on this map as the line Germany-Poland-Belarus-Moscow is shifted far to the east of where it really is - something I just don’t do on my maps.
My Central europe territory is roughly equivalent to the Austro-Hungarian empire, but this is much more than Austria.
I also suggest moving the Vichy-Italy border a little east to give VF a reasonable coastline to invade.
-
Those flags look good, but the Japanese flag is the naval ensign - the national flag is a plain red disc on white.
That is not correct. This is the Imperial flag and Japan was run by the military and they used this flag exclusively. The Imperial flag was banned after WW2. Its also the flag used by Japan during the Russo Japanese war.
Also South Germany should be named Austria, so we can play WWI scenarios on the map too.
Austria and Czechoslovakia were obs orbed into the Reich by 1939. Also, the southern Bavarian alps represent a possible last stand for Germany under AARHE NA called Alpine fortress.
And what happened to Mexico ? You can go from Canada to Venezuela in one move ?
This was a mistake and forgot to fix. The map is only at 85%
Also I am not making Prussia because its too damm small for pieces. Germany will not be divided further in the interests of playability.
I will make a WW1 edition but it will be true to that map in its entirety.
Vichy-Italy border a little east to give VF a reasonable coastline to invade.
what does this mean??
Only one little issue, sea-zone 3 should be split, its a long distance from UK to Northern Norway. Now if I want to play with Tirpitz/Scharnhorst/Lutzow at Kaafjord, try to stop the Murmansk convoy, then there is no way this fleet can be in sz 3 without being destroyed by RAF in turn 1.
Looking at it. stay tuned.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?0z0ixe529kc
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=dd125dtm1wz
I made some minor changes as per adlertags request. Now the Murmansk convoy to Russia can be intercepted because it cannot complete a full back and forth in the same turn allowing for interception.
Lend lease will have to be shipped to Russia (using chips) and convoys can be intercepted.
The Germans are quite strong in 1941 ( representing the period just after Japans attack on Hawaii –about mid December 1941… but USA can lend lease income directly to allies. they begin in 1939 at 50, then move up to 70 after a few turns… so this also make the focus on Germany, while i will force the US player to allocate a specific IPC figure only to pacific buys.
I need you people to use the icons from AARHE and make a mock setup for 1939.
AARHE rules will be used, except with some diplomacy changes ( adding new neutrals etc.)
I like the sea zone lines much better now.
I also fixed south france and downsized the flags.
Please make a high DPI PNG. Lets all have an exact look at a high quality picture tekkyy
-
I think you missed my post. Anyway I’ll post new questions and old questions again.
low-res
Couldn’t do high-res last time because the white bars are exported too. Your new North America continent (and the big white box over it) just nudged it over the max. dimensions.
Anyway I just learnt how to use the scissors tool so its ok this time.Australia
The mountains in Australia are negligible. If anything New South Wales is more mountainous than Queensland.China
Could gives Szchwan mountainous and Inner Mongolia desert.
Hsinking is located correctly but then its weird cos Manchuko doesn’t have its capital.
You accidentally moved Urumqi to Tibet while dividing China I think.SZ 62
Why new SZ? Realistically you would reduce it from OOB’s 2 SZ to 1 SZ instead of upping it to 3 SZs from Soviet Far East to Alaska.Sahara
Why is the fill /colour that pattern? Why does it mean?
Should bump Rio de Oro further north to prevent SZ 17 access to Sahara?Nigeria
Whats the purpose of Nigeria? Might be incorrectly located too. Maybe it should be at can be a territory between “Western Africa” and “Equatorial Africa” instead.Phase 2 Purchase
Is that a rocket launcher? -
2007-09-20 PNG version
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3378/20070920aarhe1939mi6.png
Suggested Topics
