AARHE Historical Map

Did some real brief digging around on the wiki and found this…

The last part seems to confirm those speculations in Reason 2 Marc mentioned aboved. Though I think there might still be enough in here to justify a starting Strat B for the Russians.

The fact that the Russians are unlikely to ever be able to afford another one would put a ceiling on it, and give a nod to the fact that the Soviet strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 were dwarfed by those of the Western Allies. The logic there I guess would be that Britain and America can readily expand their bomber arsenal through purchasing, whereas the Soviets are basically stuck using what they start out with, or risk just getting crushed in the land war haha.

Anyhow, here’s quick copy paster…

"Soviet strategic bombing
See also: Shuttle bombing and Operation Frantic
The first Soviet offensive bomber campaign was directed against the Romanian oilfields in the summer of 1941.[185] In response to a German raid on Moscow on the night of 21�22 July 1941, Soviet Naval Aviation launched a series of seven raids against Germany, primarily Berlin, between the night of 7�8 August and 3�4 September. These attacks were undertaken by between four and fifteen aircraft�beginning on 11 August the new Tupolev TB-7�from the island of Saaremaa, base of the 1st Torpedo Air Regiment.[185] (At least one raid of the 81st Air Division took off from Pushkin.) Besides thirty tonnes of bombs, they also dropped leaflets with Joseph Stalin’s defiant speech of 3 July. The Soviets sent a total of 549 long-range bombers over German territory in all of 1941.[185]

In March 1942 the strategic bombing arm of the Soviet Union was reorganized as the Long Range Air Force (ADD). It raided Berlin from 26�29 August and again on the night of 9�10 September with 212 planes.[185] It raided Helsinki for the first time on 24 August, Budapest on 4�5 and 9�10 September and Bucharest on 13�14 September. The German-occupied Polish cities of Krakow and Warsaw were not exempt, but the bombers concentrated primarily on military targets.[185] There were 1,114 sorties over Germany in 1942. In March 1943 there was a strategic shift: in preparation for the Kursk Offensive, the bombers were directed against the German railroads behind the front.[185] In April the Long Range Air Force expanded to eight air corps and eleven independent divisions containing 700 planes. After the Kursk preparations, the Soviets turned their attention to administrative and industrial targets in East Prussia in April. With 920 aircraft taking part, they dropped 700 tonnes of bombs there. The largest Soviet bomb of the war, an 11,000-pound weapon, was dropped on Konigsberg during one of these raids.[185]

Throughout 1943, the Soviets attempted to give the impression of cooperation between their bombers and those of the West.[185] In February 1944 they again shifted priority, this time towards terror bombing, with the goal of knocking Finland and Hungary out of the war.[185] Helsinki was struck by 733 bombers on the night of 6�7 February, by 367 on the 15�16th and 850 on the 25�26th. A total of 2,386 tonnes of bombs were dropped.[185] Budapest was hit four straight nights from 13�20 September with a total of 8,000 tonnes by 1,129 bombers. The Soviets flew 4,466 sorties into enemy territory in the year 1944. In December the Long Range Air Force was reorganized as the 18th Air Army.[185]

The main task of the 18th Air Army was to support the final offensive against Germany, but it also undertook raids against Berlin, Breslau, Danzig and Konigsberg.[185] In total, 7,158 Soviet aircraft dropped 6,700 tonnes of bombs on Germany during the war, a modest 3.1% of Soviet bomber sorties, a mere 0.5% of all Allied “strategic” sorties against German-occupied territory and a measly 0.2% of all bombs dropped on it.[185]

After the war, Marxist historians in the Soviet Union and East Germany claimed that the Soviet strategic bombing campaign was limited by moral qualms over bombing civilian centres.[185] One early bombing theorist, Vasili Chripin, whose theories influenced the Soviet Union’s first strategic bombing guidelines (1936) and the service regulations of 26 January 1940, drew back from terror bombing as advocated by Western theorists.[185] The Spanish Civil War also convinced Soviet war planners that the air force was most effective when used in close cooperation with ground forces. Nonetheless, after the war, Marshal Vasili Sokolovsky admitted that the Soviets would have gladly launched a strategic bombing offensive had they the capability.[185] In reality, the Soviets never geared aircraft production towards long-range bombers, and so never had enough to mount an effective campaign. The land-based nature of warfare on the Eastern Front also required closer cooperation between the air forces and ground troops than did, for example, the defence of Great Britain.[185]"

That note 185 heavily referenced above shows the following as its main/only source… so there’s that too I guess. Little lackluster, but you know what they say about beggers lol

Horst Boog; Derry Cook-Radmore, trans., “Part I: The Strategic Air War in Europe and Air Defence of the Reich, 1943�44”, in Germany and the Second World War, Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943�44/5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 [Stuttgart: Deutsche Veralgs-Anstalt GmbH, 2005]), 153�58.

@Imperious:

The map should be marked for possible landing sites. It is not a fact that major landings could take place “anywhere”.
True but it is too much zoom-in tactical level geography.
Let’s suppose the amphibious assault is made in an appropriate places.
The bad or good luck of the first roll of dices in combat is making for a good or bad landing place.

First, the attacker should only be able to attack with infantry only on the first round ( and air units). This would be rolled after SB is performed.
AAA fire then Shore Bombardment are the first two steps. At a tactical level, artillery and armor have a bad moment to pass through during landing phase. The issue is to figure it all at strategical level and keep balance.
I suggested this penalty can be enough:
instead of saying all A1 for the first round of an Amph. Assault
Just say all attacking ground units get -1A to a minimum of A1, for the first round.
Hence, Artillery get A1.
But, at least Armor can get A2.
And according to this HR, even an Inf getting A2 for being paired with Art is reduced to A1.  
But, at a strategical level, the SB can give a little support to Infantry unit trying to land.
That’s why:

During the first round of an Amph. Ass.
Destroyer, on a 1:1 basis, give +1A boost to 1 Infantry unit.
Cruiser,  on a 1:1 basis, give +1A boost to 1 Infantry unit, in addition to the shore bombardment.
Battleship, on a 1:2 basis, give +1A, to up to 2 Infantry units, in addition to the shore bombardment.

So the warships heavy guns can make a difference (even Destroyer’s one), on landing round.

Second, Defending Infantry and Artillery should fire preemptively ( loses taken first do not fire in subsequent rounds)
This is a tough one, do we give it to Artillery unit only or to both units?
Here I followed Razor and also you, at the strategical level, and for balance (too much Inf vs Art), and for simplicity and also because 1914 give it only to Artillery unit. And it will be a weaker ones however:
All Artillery units get a preemptive strike (like subs) against incoming units.

Third, all remaining attacking units roll, then remaining

The attacker should be able to retreat, however all mech units are converted into infantry ( they leave the beaches with equipment…ala Dunkirk)
That one is new. It is alien to A&A system to convert 1 unit into another.
However, a retreat possibility could be interesting…
But usually the better units will survived last. This means it will probably be armor or artillery…

Instead, it can be something like this:
If amphibious assault units needs to retreat (at the beginning of the round), attacker must loose 1 Armor unit or 1 Art unit before any other 1 casualty.
Basically, attacker must loose 1 additional ground unit (the costlier and valuable one), and this unit cannot fire, then return the surviving units on landing barge (transports).
On most occasion this will mean 1 armor unit, an A3D3, 6 IPCs unit.

Thanks for this idea about amphibious assault retreat.

It can even more create an incentive for the defender, to throw an air/naval assault on transports to get ride of the surviving retreating units. Rarely see, ground troops going into the bottom of the ocean with transports units.

The Zimmerman note triggering the war IS the conclusion.

Yeah it’s a bit crude, and not really original but it was the first map I’ve made for AA, I’m hoping I’ll get better as I get more practice. :-)

if you want to be able to move through enemy submarines in non-combat move, I am ok with it

yes they can pass thru. no special dispensations.

if you want to be able to retreat into a sea zone occupied by enemy submarines, I am not sure about that (as mentioned)
if so I rather we let defender retreat into ANY adjacent sea zone

They can retreat to ANY sea zone not occupied by enemy surface warships ( so they can enter SZ with subs or transports)

From now on subs and transports don’t do anything unless its their active turn.

Of course you can send ASW units and try and kill them by hunting them down.

also,have some new ideas for subs which are extremely simple, listed under AA50 house rules.

I want to make a new AARHE version for AA50 once we fix these semantic issues and clarifications.

I have a map that’s the best map you have seen. Id say its at least as good as the new map and done in the same style. Its 98% done. adding artistic items. I will release this and alot of files in a few weeks time.

yeah a few house rules went to the details of oil costs for movement
its probably too much accounting for all but the most “hardcore”

I some sort of victor/oil city would be a neat way to do it
if one side holds X of Y oil regions for Z turns, they win

ah yeah I think love multiple victory conditions

Yep thats correct… but once Moscow is fallen its possible for western allies to move into Soviet territories because after all communism has fallen and Stalin is dead.

see its quite simple rule

the debate was never settled. i said why i didn’t think it should be liberty ships are no one rebuted. i never thought US DD’s were on the table, it was Essex CVs (cheap because rushed into production and fast) that I thought had the lead spot.