Here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32236/oztea-s-1939-global-setup?page=1
I don’t think it says either way, which is why I have all these questions.
AARHE Historical Map
-
Well we have national VC but its optional rules. If you want me to make a special version just for you i can? just how would you like it?
-
We might have to think of other ways besides adding territories.
I mean we don’t want to change setup. So more territories might not solve the problem.Ideas, for the 5 territories in China region
Guerilla
*you need two hits to take down a US land unitUS Aid incentives
*US may call up X INF for 1 IPC each, they only last til end of combatChinese resistance
*territory becomes to US control if unoccupied -
Guerilla
*you need two hits to take down a US land unitUS Aid incentives
*US may call up X INF for 1 IPC each, they only last til end of combatChinese resistance
*territory becomes to US control if unoccupiedYes in the map those are not really US infantry but chinese infantry under control of the US player. The US only had the flying tigers and advisors in china.i could go with this: If your using national victory conditions then allow the US player to place 1-2 ( not sure which) chinese infantry (costing 2 IPC each) in each chinese controlled territory per turn.
I really like the idea that you must garrison the territory is you want to control it. Id say to gain the IPC you need to garrison with a land piece.
In fact i like the idea of garrison for all enemy controlled territory, but i feel this will hurt the axis too much. what you think?
-
@Imperious:
If your using national victory conditions then allow the US player to place 1-2 ( not sure which) chinese infantry (costing 2 IPC each) in each chinese controlled territory per turn.
Thats sort of already in place. US income in China basically must be spent in China due to IPC path rules.
So “China” and “Sinkiang” basically gain 1 INF per US turn if Japan does not attack it.
But 1st turn Japan will almost always take China. Leaving only Sinkiang.I really like the idea that you must garrison the territory is you want to control it. Id say to gain the IPC you need to garrison with a land piece.
In fact i like the idea of garrison for all enemy controlled territory, but i feel this will hurt the axis too much. what you think?Hell yeah. Hurt axis too much. If anything it can only be applied to VC.
Maybe make it you don’t gain income (not even US) from the 5 territories in the China region unless you have at least one land unit there.
-
ok thats fine on both accounts. no changes then.
-
Ok no changes for China then?
-
I plan on making NA’s for them it will all come out in the wash. Lets go back to UK NA’s i have edited them and await comments and additional ideas.
-
Switzerland + Norway –-> mountainous
Yeah we have Burma Road UK NA now.
We’ll have something with US too of course. -
TODO list is now
*Switzerland + Norway –-> mountainous
*new destroyer cost -
Look at the new map file for phase 3 (proposed) it has mountain for switzerland…i will add norway.
ID rather add some transparent textures for mountains rather than text. ILL post a pic soon.
-
Look at the new map file for phase 3 (proposed) it has mountain for switzerland…i will add norway.
Hehe I didn’t realise. I only got the 2007-02-13 version.
In the future,
can you put a date next to new URLs?ID rather add some transparent textures for mountains rather than text. ILL post a pic soon.
I think textures for mountainous would look messy
especially now we have setup iconsMiniature terrain: Gibraltar, Wake Island, Midway Island, Malta.
I used miniature. But its not quite right.
Whats a better or more correct word?
Tiny territory? -
Which one did you update?
The proposed changes with setup icons (last file in the post) is still 2007-02-13it would be easier if you do it like the rules thread
people know when each file was uploaded -
so where is new map?
the first 4 maps filenames were unchanged so I thought it shouldn’t be those -
Phase three map with proposed changes:
Phase three map with unit icons with proposed changes
-
theres the one I downloaded already
Switzerland isn’t mountainous there yet
anyway doesn’t matter
I was thinking there is an update -
Crete
why we have Malta but not Crete? -
Crete
why we have Malta but not Crete?Crete was invaded before spring of 1942 and it posed no problems after occupation. germany controlled it till the end of the war
Malta was a thorn in Italys side. Its air base was used to sink Italian transports and harass shipping and provided coverage to british convoys traveling to suez canal. It was also a fortress that was considered very difficult if not impossible to crack. Its a much greater strategic point for UK and against the italians.
other than that it woul clutter the map with too many medd islands :mrgreen:
-
oh I see
so we can say its part of the territory Balkans
like Cyrus is part of the territory Turkey -
Create was part of greece ( german occupation)
Cyprus was british owned but played no part in the war.
Rhodes is Italian occupied.
-
Hey Guys/Gals,
Sorry to barge into you conversation. Quick noob question and I’ll let you go. What is AARHE?
Sorry again to interupt,
Lost Tribe 04
Suggested Topics
