@Imperious:
Is 6 free lend lease enough compensation for not allowing western allied troops in russia?
Lend lease itself (12 IPC) is compensation for not allowing western Allied troops in Russia.
6 IPC free lend lease is compensation for larger Axis in Italy map. (+2 Italy, +2 Japan and +4 Germany)
+2 Japan and +2 Italy is unchanged from before.
Only change is…
Previously
US +12
Germany +10
Now
US +6
Germany +4
Ok so the only map change ( on phase 3 map) at this point will be this correct?
Germany: 10
South Germany: 2
Poland: 2
And you will change the ruleset to reflect the new lend lease rules correct?
take a look its done. look under map files.
looks good! But also put a Mountainous comment in Switzerland and Norway.
Now move on to the China territories. The Xeno WaW has 6 territories in a 1939 setup. The Revised Kwantung area is also split into 2 territories… Should we also do this in AARHE? That would mean Japan gets 1 extra territory. Then I would rather have Manchuria be cut in half, and Korea being added. China and Sinkiang both split, so it will be four territories. Will we add some IPC values? I think we should, or 4 times 1 IPC or 2,2,0,0 territories?
Well the problem is that messes up Japan alot, while we really didnt change the victory conditions of the game. If we went with nationsl victory conditions then i think it could work because japane would no longer have to attack russia to win and it would actually be a bad idea. So unless we make it a bad idea for japan then those territories have to stay as they are….however if the travel path of the 2 new territories does not cost Japan any additional spaces to reach russia via kwaungtung or FIC then i suppose i can make it work.
If you don’t change Kwantung, then the 2 extra territories won’t mess with the Japan run for Moscow (which I don’t really like… but indeed, we need other victory conditions then…) So you could add them. Adding Korea wouldn’t be a problem also, because it would not cover the whole coast…
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 unit
US Aid incentives
*US may call up X INF for 1 IPC each, they only last til end of combat
Chinese resistance
*territory becomes to US control if unoccupied
Guerilla
*you need two hits to take down a US land unit
US Aid incentives
*US may call up X INF for 1 IPC each, they only last til end of combat
Chinese resistance
*territory becomes to US control if unoccupied
Yes 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 icons
Miniature 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 2007-02-13
it 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
