AARHE Historical Map

Yup! Scale was perfect for the map…the infantry are too large to fit comfortably in Belorussia or West Russia, but they fit great in France, Italy, Africa, and China! Quality is 3.5/5 stars. Some of the infantry didn’t detach cleanly from the sprue, and the modeling is slightly chunky, but overall the pieces are durable, handsome, and clearly distinguishable.

@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.

Good point kcdzim.  You gotta remember Gallo Rojo that Axis and Allies is not a WWII simulator (buy Hearts of Iron 3 if thats what you want, great game).  If the game were totally historically accurate there would be no point in playing, the Allies would win every time.  The designers have to find that balance between historical accuracy and re playability, so that any game can go either way.  Otherwise you’d have to pay people to play as the Axis while you beat up on them.  That being said, check out Oztea’s 1941 set-up.  It’s more historically accurate in my opinion.  Or check out the 1939 map and setup on historicalboardgaming.com.

No, the map of Europe is that the increase of Europe on the main game board.
During the next game, I am going to fix both cards together.
Both map will be on same height.
One table instead of two.

@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

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)