AARHE Historical Map

@cds

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.

@Argothair:

Should it take more turns, in general, to move a basic unit by land, by sea, or by air? Why?

For whatever it’s worth, sea transporation and land transportation and air transportation in the real world exist on a continuum in which speed is inversely proportional to tonnage.  Shipping by sea is (and has been since ancient times) the cheapest way to move vast quantities of goods over great distances, giant supertankers being a good example of this principle, but it has the disadvantage of being slow and (for obvious reasons) of being limited to oceans and seas and coastlines and certain rivers.  Shipping by air is the fastest method, but it’s expensive and it involves much smaller payloads; it also has limitations imposed by landing strip requirements.  Helicopters are more flexible in this regard than fixed-wing aircraft, but they have terrible fuel consumption, a short range, high maintenance costs and small payload capacities.  Transporation by land is roughly half-way between those two extremes.  Of the two land options, rail shipping is in many ways superior because combines fairly high speed with low fuel consumption and large payload capacity, but it’s limited to places where rail lines exist.  Trucking is more versatile because there are more roads in more places than rail lines, and in a pinch some trucks can operate off-road, but they’re not as efficient at moving tonnage than trains.

But how would you know how many IPC Ottomans would have if you didn’t do any study on the economic capabilities of the other nations relating to 31 IPC? How would you know how many infantry they would have in each area if you didn’t study where they even had armies in 1914?

You need to just draw a map with territory borders that allows good player options and is realistic. Don’t redo 1914, that’s garbage. This is redesign, not use what you got

This is not checkers my friend.

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.

@oldsalty:

The way our group plays this is fighters (without attacking land units) are allowed to attack defending land units at an attack value of 1.  Fighters are then allowed only one round of attacks.

your group’s interpretion of the rule is correct

the idea is that defending land units have nothing to fight so they stay in bunkers and what not
attacking air units in excess of attacking land units can still do damage, but at a reduced rate

I think its ok, unless there is a problem I am not seeing

@Imperious:

The rules already cover the idea of planes flying over to just engage other planes. Lets look at them:

think you misunderstood oldsalty
he is not talking about counter-air

IT USED TO BE IN THE FILE UNDER COUNTER-AIR. Now the section has been changed yet again and CA is not explained.
Tekkyy??? why?

yeah I got your PM
repeating my reply for others:

the paragraph “Counter-Air” merely explains the effect unique to Counter-Air
hence it looks a bit short
rules common to all air missions are written under the paragraph “Air Missions”

Counter air is one round of air combat using air values. It allows just air to air units to hit to model the control of the sky thing.

you can already perform an attack with only air units like in OOB/LHTR
air units then engage enemy air units

what Counter-Air is, is that it stops the defender from running (via air unit relocation rule “Defensive Air Support”) from the Counter-Air attack

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.

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.”

Ok I’ll make it more precise.

I am touching up the the player aids atm.