Good Action Argo ! Sounds way cool. Do you plan on making a triplea version ?
AARHE 1939 map and rule files
-
I would suggest extending the desert shading to cover the north of Mauretania and French Soudan; also the whole of the Niger/Algeria border for clarity.
was considered… BUT the problem was it would now take an extra turn to get to the other side if i did that. it would take 3 turns to go south even with the NA . I guess i could draw it lower.
I think i need to recolor Portugal due to the new Italian color. I think the Italian pieces will be the puke green British that came with a few sets of revised.
-
2 per SZ mountainous landing
Yes 2 units per cycle would be better.Only 2 units from the SZ may participate in combat per cycle, until one or more of the 2 units survive.
(Represents securing the beach as in normal amphibious assault.)Other amphibious assault rules still apply. Hence the 2 units cannot be ART(artillery) or ARM(tank).
North Africa
If we are going to charge IPC then probably don’t need to limit it to 1 unit.
The price was 1 IPC. Which is up to 50% cost of raising an infantry division.I think adding Morocco is good but not sure about Tunsia. Possibly too many territories.
China
I guess China IC is not a hack considering AARHE rules. It can only produce INF and ART not ARM anyway.
But Tibet IC is a hack. There has to be a better way. National Advantage instead?Pacific
Not really asking for more islands.
(But I guess Aleutian could be significant enough to be added.
You can put it in SZ 63 so inflatened Bering Strait is not as awakward.)I am more asking for 1 more SZ.
Its the same distance from Japan to WUS and from EUS to France right now.North America
What about the other question of WUS’s strange access to SZ 54?
I realised AARHE introduced it. OOB didn’t have it. -
I am more asking for 1 more SZ.
Its the same distance from Japan to WUS and from EUS to France right now.SZ 57 and 56 will become 3 zones. Japan to west coast will take 4 spaces rather than 3, Midway to japan will become 3 as well.
-
Ok we now have this: 2 new sea zones and redrawn Sahara, recolored Portugal w/ colonies.
anything else?
-
SZ 49?
This makes Philippines equidistant to Japan as from Marianas and Okinawa, so possibly divide diagonally and move Okinawa to the north of SZ 49, with Iwo Jima taking it’s place? In fact Iwo Jima could even be in SZ 60 on this map. If you remember the main reason for taking this lump of rock was to give US fighters a base from which to escort bombers (based in the Marianas) on their way to attack the Japanese mainland.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thats a great idea! I will make that change.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?43bj1z1dwxh
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=s34t95zswl3
ok heres the fix. anything else?
-
@Imperious:
ok heres the fix. anything else?
yes, standing questions…
mountainous landing
Is “2 per SZ per cycle, until 1 or more of the 2 units survive” ok?North Africa
Remove Tunsia? Map getting hugely disportionate with everywhere broken up except North America.China
National Advantage instead of Tibet IC? eg. China can build ART (artillery) without IC.Pacific
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands
Aleutian seems significant enough to be added to SZ 63. It’ll also make the 3 SZ Bering Strait look better.North America
Why did AARHE give Western US access to SZ 54?
Should it be removed? -
I have no problem with Tunisia. It may be considered as mountainous, a last holdout for the Axis in Africa?
-
mountainous landing
Is “2 per SZ per cycle, until 1 or more of the 2 units survive” ok?++++++2 per SZ per cycle, until territory is taken. at no point during the fighting do the invaders all of a sudden get their full landed units to attack the defender. Thats the whole point for this mountain thing.
North Africa
Remove Tunsia? Map getting hugely disportionate with everywhere broken up except North America.++++++ Tunisia should be kept. Also, the City of Tunis was very important ( perhaps a VC?) Id like to make it a mountain region. American should not even be on the map. its wasted space for this game, but its ‘reality’ is just symbolic for a location to place units. Their is like zero chance for America to fall unless the game is already over and its being played out for fun… ‘just to see what happens’
China
National Advantage instead of Tibet IC? eg. China can build ART (artillery) without IC.+++++ yes i think so . Good. What should it read?
Pacific
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands
Aleutian seems significant enough to be added to SZ 63. It’ll also make the 3 SZ Bering Strait look better.++++++. Another winning idea. Ill do it.
North America
Why did AARHE give Western US access to SZ 54?
Should it be removed?I looked at this… The problem is:
-
its gonna look really weird to have a line inside of baja Calif. to break that up. Its just one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease.
-
this area is really remote and it wont matter because the axis wont be dealing with it.
-
-
I’ll post a PNG version for the next update.
Mountainous landing
Well I am thinking once 1 or more of the 2 units survive you’ve secured a position on the coastline so other units can land.If the restriction lasts through out the entire combat then it would seem to make the whole combat is on the coastline?
Similarly, the normal amphibious assault advantages lasts for first turn only.
The mountainous +1 bonus models the defender advantage for the “inland part” of the combat.Otherwise, whats the theory behind your solution?
North Africa
Fine. Don’t add VC though. VC is meant to mean big population centres for infantry raising and cheaper IC.http://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/africa.jpg (Morocco looks mountainous too.)
Western US
I still don’t understand. Why a line through the baja? Did the borders change between WWII and now?
http://www.world-atlas.us/north-america-map.gif (Its one clean line across north of the baja?)Remote in gameplay yes but OOB didn’t have it and so it can be a joke that we introduced it.
And it does make ships built at Western US can get to Eastern US faster.Eastern US
SZ 67 duplicate. (Greenland also 67.) -
Mountainous landing
Well I am thinking once 1 or more of the 2 units survive you’ve secured a position on the coastline so other units can land.If the restriction lasts through out the entire combat then it would seem to make the whole combat is on the coastline?
Similarly, the normal amphibious assault advantages lasts for first turn only.
The mountainous +1 bonus models the defender advantage for the “inland part” of the combat.Otherwise, whats the theory behind your solution?
++++++Mountain regions do not permit normal landing due to poor tides, small beaches and weather issues. An invasion bottled up on the beach is doomed unless the invasion gets a hold of territory to anchor the logistical supplies. The 2 units limit is a way to do this. Anything else would make it seem that all the sudden these invading units got a much larger piece of the territory to be able to land all the supporting equipment. IN Norway the brits had to land on many places to have a chance to keep a larger force unloaded, while Churchill didn’t invade the Balkans for the same reason why his Galipoli expedition also failed because not enough room to maneuver. The invaders should NEVER be allowed to land in mountains with their entire force unless the territory is secure. It also appeals to history and makes Norway something perhaps the Germans could even hold. Places Like Spain are protected if they get involved, while Italy mountains allow the same invasion route as the allies performed. Also, it protects the Caucasus from invasion because the axis had no capacity to attack in that manner.
North Africa
Fine. Don’t add VC though. VC is meant to mean big population centres for infantry raising and cheaper IC.http://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/africa.jpg (Morocco looks mountainous too.)
Western US
I still don’t understand. Why a line through the baja? Did the borders change between WWII and now?
http://www.world-atlas.us/north-america-map.gif (Its one clean line across north of the baja?)Remote in gameplay yes but OOB didn’t have it and so it can be a joke that we introduced it.
And it does make ships built at Western US can get to Eastern US faster.Eastern US
SZ 67 duplicate. (Greenland also 67.)++++ ok ill redraw the border and fix 67.
anything else???
-
That should be all, at least for now.
Next we’ll scrutinize the rules file.
-
By the way, I looked at real map again and Northern Italy as mountainous is about right.
-
Welcome back, Yope.
Look at the latest map and you’ll see that this has been rectified as a result of my continual hectoring on the issue.
Naming the territory is a mute point; strictly speaking Rio de Oro was a part of Spanish Sahara, but not the whole, so technically you could use either name.
-
flash start looking at the rules. I’m sure you’ll have something to comment on.
-
I’ll try to get round to it; working on a new top secret movie-tie-in version of Magnum Force. Stand by!
-
I am waiting for an update and do another PNG export.
-
Lets work on any rule glitches. The newest map changes are very small details and don’t require our attention just yet.
-
You said you used the latest (August) file. I make comments assuming so. Anyway if my comment don’t make sense cross check with the latest file.
There seems to be lots of changes. I can’t distinguish between errors and changes.
Various broken sentences (from cut and paste?) here and there. I guess you were rushed and will polish this later. A pity since you’ve posted on boardgamegeek prematurely.
I think good to put date on top right corner of first page for versioning.
Watermark could be dimmed to make it easier to read.
Index would be nice. I like to let people know the main part is actually only 20 pages.
Why is the frontpage at the back?
Page 1. Its not version 1.3 when we’ve already released 2.0 and 3.0. Probably call it 3.1.
Page 2. Before I made it that victory conditions were vaccessed in real-time so Allies can’t win with a suicide attack.
Page 4. Mechansim to save money is removed. Its important in some situations.
Page 4. Cruiser used to take 2 turns to build. Is that still so?
Page 4. Convoy. I like would to rehash why we didn’t use a convoy zone system previously in AARHE. Both a supply-side and demand-side convoy zone becomes stupid when supplies ain’t even going through the area. If you want to simpify the old system we can work out ways.
Page 5. Upkeep. You shouldn’t be able to delay upkeep payment and definitely not delay indefinitely and further definitely not delay without combat restrictions. Make it they can’t move and simply become destroyed on contact. 2nd turn without upkeep it becomes destroyed.
Page 7. You want canal treatment for Baltic Sea? Remember to update the map.
Page 7. I don’t see why strategic movement should be unaffected by special passage.
Page 7. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact is an obvious addition. But we didn’t have it before and there was probaly a good reason?
Page 7. I don’t agree with the new Conquest rule. You lose your capital you lose that bit of income. There need not be further penalty. It could be part of a planned retreat anyway.
Page 8. Those 1939 rules should not be under “Phase 3: Combat Move” section. In fact think its better to group all 1939 rules together in a section explaining the map in optional rules (like before with “italy map”). As you’ve put it, this is a template for various AARHE maps. Things are gonna get messy real quick with new maps. Also, 1939 rules include a string of W@W like arbitary attempts to recreate history. Not the style of AARHE at all IMO. We also don’t want the page length savings to be taken up. You wanted to shorten the thing.
Page 10. Jet Supremacy. So jet can make targetted attack against air units now. Is the old ability of “skipping dogfight” still go?
Page 11. “If at any time one side has only air units remaining in battle they must be retreated to
a friendly territory within ½ flight range.” I think attacking air units retreat with normal range. Defending air units retreat within 1 space previously. Define “1/2 flight range”.Page 11. Anti air is EVERY cycle. Don’t think we should give all territories 1 ID.
Page 12. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment is limited to one hit every four attacking land units (which probably should be changed to count INF and Airborne only). Not one SB roll every four attacking land units.
page 13. Destroyer negating submarine opening-fire on a 1-to-1 basis is a great rule for OOB. But it breaks the AARHE sequence.
Page 14. Naval anti-air is very different to land combat. Naval anti-air is more powerful due to no terrain over and no emergency landing. Naval anti-air is not pre-emptive because the target IS the anti-air. No flak guns shots popping up at the unexpected places.
Page 14. ASW was last at 3 to search and 3 to hit. (25%) vs. Submarine’s 2 to hit (33%).
Page 15. “Naval units’ hits in main-round must be allocated on naval units first before air units can be allocated.” They already performed anti air earlier. I don’t think main rounds hits should be able to hit air units.
Page 16. Naval Combat: Amphibious Assault. All hostile naval units that submerged or break-off do not prevent the land combat portion.
Page 16. Defensive Air Support Mission. If combat is over before they arrive WHICH territory can then relocate to?
Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
Page 16. Escorts. Lots more work defining it.
Page 16. Ground Interdiction. What happens if enemy has air units remaining in the territory? What happens when the bomber is attacked in enemy’s turn? Ground interdiction was the way it was for various reasons. I wanted to expand air missions before but there is much work involving air units.
Page 17. Strait Interdiction. No longer need value column in the table. 2 dice if you hold both territories right?
Page 17. The Strategic Redeployment might not be a good model. Maybe better to draw rail lines.
Page 18. “Built naval units are placed adjacent to either an Industrial Complex or a controlled Victory City.” What do you mean Victory City?
Page 19. Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Should list modifiers not specific numbers. All air units? All same value?
Page 22. Neutral Military Deployment. Would be more realistic if 1939 had 1939 values? Did Spain and Turkey have such a large force in 1939?
Page 23. Appendix. Carrier was attack 1 defence 1.
Suggested Topics
