AARHE Historical Map

@Black_Elk:

That’s a clean map Ryuzaki_Lawlie!

The color selection is ideal. Though the black impassibles still jump out at me

From a design standpoint the only things that catch my eye are the two round sea zones surrounding Japan and Hawaii.

It feel like you need one in the Atlantic to balance things out aesthetically. Have you considered the possibility of one surrounding the British Isles?

Or maybe Iceland? Or maybe both?

I still think Mercator is a bit tight in Europe, a little stretching there might be ideal, even if it was just along the vertical axis. I think the map would still read fine, but you’d get a few more pixel for units into those key European spots. Also if you were willing to shrink South America slightly you could almost curve off a 10th of the map height at the bottom of the screen (which is notorious for players forgetting units in the south sea hehe) without really needing to change Africa/Australia of the pacific. Basically a slight bend would go a long way, even if using Mercator for the baseline.

Oh and I think the possession colors for Dutch Borneo and British Sarawak and North Borneo should be reversed.

My only suggestions :)

Nice work man. That would be a fun map to form the basis of a 1939 game, or any year from 39 on.

I like that you have not yet imposed on the map any extraneous information such as IPC values or VC. This means the map is adaptive for many purposes. I like the general division of territories. Only that the projection is a bit large at the poles for my tastes. If we could shrink them up slightly I think the map would be ideal. Its really more about screen dimension for me when it comes to the Big World Map that Wandering Head made. These days most screens are very long relative to their height, so standard Mercator always seems blown out a bit in tripleA to me, especially at the south end, and of course Europe is always tight. I wish the center picker for tripleA was better at housing units to smaller scales. Its a little better than it used to be, especially with the guiding lines, but still Europe loves to clutter up haha.
:-D

Again though, great design direction!

I’ll probably shift the continents (turning their general direction), and stretch out northern Africa and Europe, will probably require North America to get a bit skinny, but I think the big benefit from this, is that potentially more European spaces can be added. This will allow me to add more to the Mediterranean however (and it really needs the space), perhaps round out where Rome is. Africa, I think needs a bit more work. South America possibly as well, but I sort of need an idea of which cities can be considered major not only there, but elsewhere. Vladivostok will defiantly get added in with it’s own space.

I picked black for impassables, since it tells me that there is nothing there, no play space, it’s simply temporary, and they are there for the designer’s benefit.

I’m not sure where else to put a rounded Sea Zone, I’m considering more though.

@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.

@Imperious:

Ok if you want more units make it basic:

3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB

CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5

I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs  2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs for 1.25% of 12 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.

There are a few discrepancies between the 1939 map with set ups and player set up charts in the 1939 rules.

1.  France listed w 6 infantry set up charts:  4 on map
2.  UK shows only Factory in Canada and Australia on 1939 set up charts:  map adds factory in UK and India.

There may be more, this is the most obvious.  I assume the map is correct.  are there updated set ups?  The one I’m refering to is on the download dated 3-08. http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

Also, on the 1939 map, the UK starts with a factory in India.  This gives UK 4 factories.  Should the UK have a factory in India, particularly in 1939?  Did India have such capability in producting ships, planes, armor etc that early?  I’d rather see UK required to build one.

looking into this now…

oh ok.

ok good.

ok lets talk about it in the setup thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8697.0

so far only change is FTR (fighter) on CV (aircraft carrier) is NAV (naval fighter)