OK here is the batch of files for my house rules. This includes maps, score sheet, new tokens,technology cards, and rules. Soon the phase 3 map will be available and i will add event cards but im not sure on this.
Rule set:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1719431d339c3594dd8b33b5aa27078d
Phase 1 map:
http://www.mediafire.com/?amzmjhoi5uv
Phase 2 map:
http://www.mediafire.com/?zzmzndttdgj
Tech Cards- sheet 1:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ynningmdojm
Sheet 2:
http://www.mediafire.com/?qntc5gw5o50
Sheet 3:
http://www.mediafire.com/?3majiznzzek
Tokens:
http://www.mediafire.com/?nwzjmmzdjmy
http://www.mediafire.com/?tcygoymajit
http://www.mediafire.com/?a02yn5glzmn
http://www.mediafire.com/?nkmyd0w0xcm
http://www.mediafire.com/?2wcnlzjm241
http://www.mediafire.com/?mlmaigmhwd1
Score sheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1719431d339c3594dd8b33b5aa27078d
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1719431d339c3594dd8b33b5aa27078d
this is the AA50 map with 1941 setup, so just print and you wont need setup sheets anymore.
If you think i should ghost the icons, i certainly can if they bother your eyes
IL - where’s Okinawa and the Caroline Islands? If you are going to include Midway you should include these too. Also I’d like to see a version without the roundels, they seem to clutter up the map and are redundant as the controling nation is the same color.
As for the Phase 2 map - why not include some kind of text as to the value of a convoy route. You could use a roundel here to denote the origional control possibly in a dashed lined box of some other feature to set it off from the seazone?
-Keep up the good work.
where’s Okinawa and the Caroline Islands?
They would be added to phase 2 map. Phase one is only the actual map.
I like the roundels because when you print it out, the roundel on the map is exactly the same size as your token, so when changes occur you just put your token over it. I think its easier to count income the way its set up.
I intend to add the territory thats attached to the convoy zone underneath, so when it changes hands people will know its time to change ownership of the convoy zone.
I am awaiting input on the sea zones from people, but this will come after more games. I dont want to have too many zones or too little. Also, remember they can only be tapped out for 3 IPC max each.
source file for Phase 1:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1719431d339c3594dd8b33b5aa27078d
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1719431d339c3594dd8b33b5aa27078d
Phase 1 map with 1942 set up included in PDF
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1719431d339c3594dd8b33b5aa27078d
basic map with some fixes for missing line for sea zone near UK and SZ 6 and 7. most current version for the OOB map.
Due to Axis domination in 1941 and 42 the following new rules apply:
Moscow can place 8 Units, even if it says 6 it can place 8
The Soviet player can move 1 factory each turn once per game
The Soviets get 1 fighter 1 bomber in 1941
they Get 2 fighters 1 bomber in 1942
Starting on turn 2 They get 2 tanks, 2 artillery, 2 Infantry but lose 3 infantry from eastern Russian forces. This represents the Siberian troops.
Infantry in factories in 1941 scenario defend at 3 in the first cycle of combat.
brilliant what about a special thing saying like round 6 that germany gets like 5 free tanks since thats when they really made tanks super good. (while this happens usa or gb gets 1 free fighter and russia gets 2 inf and 2 artillery. 30-28 mmm i like this
The rules already have something like this, but its more toned down. DL the rules and see for yourself
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ltfzkjyhmgy
current rules updated
did you forget to update the time stamp in the filename?
the link still says 110908…
Also I’d like to see a version without the roundels, they seem to clutter up the map and are redundant as the controling nation is the same color.
I hope IL has learnt from his AARHE map project, and remembered to use layers this time in his Illustrator source file
in which case he can turn features (like setup icons, income icons, terrain etc) on/turn in 5 seconds
I cant use Layers, but i do group them together and add them to the Icon tray.
so why can’t you use layers again?
by the way think the file because larger and larger when you keep adding groups of stuff to the icons tray
yes thats true, but the icons are needed. I can remove duplicates
explain how to do layers that does not load up memory in .ai files?
@Imperious:
yes thats true, but the icons are needed. I can remove duplicates
not sure if you are doing this
but this is what you did before (instead of using layers)
you selected all items of a particular type (eg. setup icons) and drag it into the icon tray
explain how to do layers that does not load up memory in .ai files?
does using layers add to extra .ai file size .ai?
I wasn’t aware
I just loved how I can toggle on/off a particular layer
*for releasing versions with/without setup icons, income icons, etc
*for ease of editing, you only unlock the layers you are editing, very easy to select items
*display correctly, since you choose the order the layers…you never have the wrong thing going over another thing, like setup icons going over territory names or something
http://www.mediafire.com/?m1jy4wwlynj
phase 2 map with convoy centers. I think if any further changes would be another island group in Pacific, but thats it. Id consider this the final pending comments.
Note: the convoy centers list the territory that they are attached too, so if control changes you just place your token over the printed token and your new supply line is now suspect to attacks by subs.
printed rules should be consistent with these new centers.
@Imperious:
It makes no sence whatsoever to have a technology the better coordinates Artillery fire for Infantry at double the efficiency, unless we are talking modern warfare with guided missile/projectile technology. Its really like they made this Technology out of thin air with no correspondence to the actual war. It would be a much better thing to allow tanks a boost with planes present in battle and acknowledge that battlefield doctrine of warfare, than to assign this bogus mystery technology that didn’t exist.
Twice the effectinvess does seem quite a bit, but then if you compare American artillery and German artillery - it could be said to be twice as effective. Forgetting that US artillery was mobilsed and German guns were mostly horse drawn, the US introduced forward observers - better co-ordinating their batteries to front-line units. Guns could respond to fire missions much quicker than German batteries, and generally the US were pretty much using a modern system of combining guns and infantry - look at the number of germans killed by artillery compared to other means in the Bulge and you get an idea of just how advanced the US was at this system. The calibre of the guns was not strictly relevant, what matters is rate of fire, accuracy and speed of response - how much weight of fire you can dump on an area in a five minute interval is key.
The Soviets also took a similar approach, and by the end of WW2, almost half the Red army combat strength was artillery - one could argue that the MRLS system they had constitutues that combined fire-power. Certainly the Germans couldn’t match that level of fire power. Now, whether in the Russian case this is better represented by simply buying more guns or adding a new tech to represent doctrine changes is a debate.
But I did see sense in the technoglogy itself, and I recommend an article in the ‘Bitter Woods’ rule book which compares German and American artillery fire control systems.
But then this is Axis and Allies, so in a way it doesn’t have to be so tied to history - you have to invest in technology boosts, so it could represent all that funky stuff the Germans were developign such as SAMs and guided anti-ship missiles.
That said - your idea of boosting tanks and planes is a better way forward, and more in the character of Axis and Allies.
Yes of course they had differences on many levels, but the technology of artillery boosting more men at double rate would indicate something like guided missiles ala desert storm.
In AA nobody measures German tanks any batter than Japanese tanks, Or Italian infantry the same as Americans… to then mark the comparative difference of better US fire control system and mechanization and assign double impact for THAT , while neglecting more obvious qualitative differences of the units themselves. Is not realistic at all. I feel they just got stumped for an idea and wanted a safe technology that could not get exploited and sacrificed realism.
Certainly they could have addressed other technologies like improved ASW which was must more decisive to the war, than marked differences of some minor advantages in artillery. Besides the 88 was one of the most effective weapons in the war. It was a triple threat to be used for all kinds of suited missions.
