AARHE Historical Map

@barnee said in Submarine Movement and Customized Map:

@gen-manstein

someone should roof a game store with sheets of AnA lol

I probably have enough maps to do my ceiling in the fort.

The link below mostly deals with the effectiveness of Japanese torpedoes.  But the opening paragraphs have a description of the pre-war Japanese strategy, before they decided to do Pearl Harbor.  It’s interesting reading.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Edit:  Sorry.  Looking at that article again, it doesn’t give as much detail about the big picture strategy as I remembered.  I was confusing it with another article.  But the gist of their original strategy was to grab the Philippines and wait for the inevitable American counter-attack.  Subs and aircraft carriers were seen as harassment units to whittle down the US as much as possible before the surface units engaged.  From there, the article in the link above covers how the surface engagement was supposed to go.

The background on the torpedoes was that the Japanese had the best on the planet.  Every other navy’s torpedoes had a range of 3-8 miles, depending on the speed setting.  The Japanese Type-93 had a range of about 22 miles on slow setting (which was as fast as the fast setting on most other torpedoes), and a range of about 11 miles on fast setting (which was REALLY fast – like 52 knots or so).  Using compressed oxygen instead of compressed air as an oxidizer for the fuel also caused them to have a less visible wake.  To top it all off, they also had a heavier warhead than other torpedoes.  The Japanese successfully kept the existence of this weapon secret until several months into the war, and built a lot of their naval strategy around it.

Interesting addition of Communist Chinese forces.

@oldsalty:

OK.  Cost of the IC is not an issue.  Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15.    Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?

They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then).  I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.

yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15

“4 x IPC  income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both

*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build

Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism?  Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.

no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out

AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible

simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it

unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map

but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism

yep

Ok that explaination makes more sence. Can you reword it in such a manner that it captures both the examples and the language of your description?

ok

replace
“its income cannot be spent in other territories.
That income and only that income can be spent in its IC or VC during purchase units phase this turn.
That income is forfeited if not spent this turn.”

with
“The blockaded territory’s income can only be spent in its own VC or IC. Income from other territories may not be spent in the blockaded territory’s VC or IC.
If the blockade territory’s income is not spent this turn it is forfeited.”