Some of what you stated is being done in phase two and three. AS an optional rule under p3 we will come up with a system allowing for national unit values, however i don’t believe this will be possible under a d6 system. Allowing only 6 possible “chits” of value is not gonna cut it. A d12 system will be offered.
In the games terms Larry Harris views the turns as segments of 4-6 month time frame… not one month so the contention is really to go with one of the two time schedules i had posted in another thread namely 4 or 6 month turns.
Under phase two neutrals will have value and armies and we will present some diplomacy rules to “sway” neutrals into allied or axis camps. The possibility of minor axis nations will be addressed.
WE feel ( our team) does not support changes on the map… we don’t want to lose the audience… except we will add Italy as a 6th nation and recolor existing territories that apply. WE considered changing islands ( adding more) but it again will make it something different from the presented aesthetic of the game.
We intend on adding new units under optional rules in p2.
Id like to see what ideas you came up with on the unit values…
Is it realistic to assume that USSR had a strogner economic value than what the starting map shows? I heard somehwere that the two biggest allied powers were USA and USSR, or was that an foolish source of info?
Assuming you mean historically, well, Russia basically threw a ton of unarmed men at Germany. So they spent and lost the most men. But not really for great return. It depends on how you want to interpiet that. But, also, Russia was economically a mess. Corupt communism and all.
Umm, historically, I think the russian t-34 was the most produced tank in the world during the course of the war, and Russia overall produced more tanks than Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
So Russia was doing a lot more than just throwing “a ton of unarmed men at Germany”. So, to answer your question Biofury, yes Russia should have more IPCs “realistically”. But that would throw game balance out the window.
PS - the minefield is a neat idea.
PS - the minefield is a neat idea.
The idea of mines (land or naval) comes up now and then.
But you don’t have a whole armor or destroyer division destroyed or disabled by mines. :lol:
At most it would be modelled by a -1 modifier for attacking ARM/DD for the first combat cycle.
A d12 system will be offered.
People can then emulate with d6. The income system can also be tuned without troubling gameplay . Last time I played we left the IPC papers aside and just wrote down what you have.
A&A Pacific and Europe managed to expand upon the standard A&A map without losing it’s audiance. Increasing activity and complexity at the fronts would, IMO add to the fun of the game. By modifying the map you could revitalise fronts that up to know have been disregarded in standard play. Adding new battlegrounds encourages the creation of new strategies, and the more paths there are the more strategies for each path there will be. For example; by adding Italy to the game as planned, you refocus the goals of both Germany and Italy. One change has created the availability of many new strategies - why not make more?
@ncscswitch:
A minefield? That’s interesting … I may have to try that someday!
In fairness, there should be some other changes to go along with this (rules that are not in the Hasbro version of the game)
1. Panama Canal cannot be used by Axis if Allies hold Panama, and vice versa.
2. Suez Canal likewise, with NEITHER side being able to use it if Axis holds one side and Allies hold the other.
I thought those were canal rules already??
Also, yea, I agree, bombers should have to fly over Eastern Europe, Southern Europe or France to get to Germany and every AA gun should be allowed to fire that has bombers flying over it or around it. (ie: Britian sends 1 bomber to SBR germany. France gets a shot AND Germany gets a shot. France then gets another shot on the return trip.)
Tell ya one thing, SBRs would be alot more realistic and would require more then 2-3 bombers from the allies to reduce Germany to a smoldering wasteland!
Is it realistic to assume that USSR had a strogner economic value than what the starting map shows? I heard somehwere that the two biggest allied powers were USA and USSR, or was that an foolish source of info?
Assuming you mean historically, well, Russia basically threw a ton of unarmed men at Germany. So they spent and lost the most men. But not really for great return. It depends on how you want to interpiet that. But, also, Russia was economically a mess. Corupt communism and all.
Anyway, I like the minefield idea a whole lot.
Just give Russia 2 IPC infantry. 1 Infantry at 1 IPC (aka a uniform) and 1 Infantry at 3 IPCs (A uniform AND a gun). smile
I think that most of the Neutral zones could be done away with. Most of them can be gone around using the same amount of movement as going through. The exceptions are (and these should be kept) Sahara, Hymilia (sp), and Afghanistan.
Well in the revised map I’d agree with you. They could be merged and titled “neutral land”. In the normal map, some of them need to stay. Since you can possess them it’ll keep the map slighly more balanced.
@Imperious:
Some of what you stated is being done in phase two and three. AS an optional rule under p3 we will come up with a system allowing for national unit values, however i don’t believe this will be possible under a d6 system. Allowing only 6 possible “chits” of value is not gonna cut it. A d12 system will be offered.
In the games terms Larry Harris views the turns as segments of 4-6 month time frame… not one month so the contention is really to go with one of the two time schedules i had posted in another thread namely 4 or 6 month turns.
Under phase two neutrals will have value and armies and we will present some diplomacy rules to “sway” neutrals into allied or axis camps. The possibility of minor axis nations will be addressed.
WE feel ( our team) does not support changes on the map… we don’t want to lose the audience… except we will add Italy as a 6th nation and recolor existing territories that apply. WE considered changing islands ( adding more) but it again will make it something different from the presented aesthetic of the game.
We intend on adding new units under optional rules in p2.
Id like to see what ideas you came up with on the unit values…
I could scan my rule sets, if I could find them…It was all D6 based and wasn’t all that hard to work with.
Man we got all kinds of people joining in here! Its like a feeding frenzy!!! jennifer please post it when you get that ruleset.
Actually the neutrals are useful now in AARHE as you can attack them.
So in many situations you could make an easier amphibious landing if area is particularly fortifieid.
Man we got all kinds of people joining in here!
Yes Imperious Leader considers you to be a contributor to the AARHE project. :-)
all islands should be worth something to encourage U.S. pacific activity
russia should have 0 IPC value territories in siberia to discourage jap tanks in the tundra
there should be a burma territory between india and frindo to allow a viable indian uk complex
middle east should be more valuable (oil resources) to encourage activity on this front
adopt the pacific/europe sub policy (no air only attacks) to encourage u-boats
victory city conditions should require HOLDING them for an entire round not just a “quickie” capture
atlantic islands?
cruisers (3/3) and destroyers (2/2)?
more possibilities pending
Subs ionly against air only SHOULD have the opportunity to retreat and/or hide.
AF should ahve to roll a “to hit” to even DETECT the sub they are flying over, then the sub would have a defensive roll to submerge and excape before the FIG ever fired. If the FIG sees the SUB, and teh sub fails their evasion, then combat as normal (FIG rolls to hit, then sub submerges)
Rule would only apply to SUBs w/o any other ships present in the same sea zone.
about Pacific war,
an income adjustment is a bit of a hack really
the reason why we don’t have Pacific war is due to underlying problems like combat rules
only Solomon Islands should be given 1 IPC
Solomon Islands 28,450km^2
Okinawa 2,271.30 km^2
Malta 316km^2
Gibraltar 6.5km^2
Wake Island 6.5km^2
Midway ~5km^2
Caroline Island 3.76km^2
Caroline Islands are a chain of islands
Also the value of the land as a strategic base presents its economic value because if they fell it would entail loss of vital areas to bring resources to that nation. Thats not possible to account for in another manner so its done this way by adding some token value so it will be fought over and in a small way players will ‘see’ some imporatance with these locations.
yeah that figure was probably only for the main island in Caroline Islands
don’t worry I was just replying to critmonster post
from previous discussion you already know how I feel and I already know how to feel
I am fine with the phase 3 map (Caroline and Solomons get 1 IPC each) compromise rather than giving Wake and Midway income too
great
tek, thanks for replying, but i’m not sure what the point of posting land mass was. then i read leader’s post and it stated my point nicely, thanks :-)
switch, i think giving subs a “shot” when air only hits to submerge before attack would be reasonable.
The only problem I really have is how out of shape the map is. I’d like To have a realistic looking game board (probably requiring a larger board) instead of this big ugly hunk of land trying to represent europe. I saw a picture on boardgamegeek under revised that showed some guys map with a realistic looking world (only the eastern front was shown), I really liked it.
Yeah I recall seeing some photos somewhere on the internet.
Someone traced a real map.
Painted it on a huge piece of wood. A0 or A-1. :mrgreen:
