AARHE: Map files

As you can see CWO, Japan is more or less stationed in Saigon and the Philippines protecting there money islands they have control of after 4 turns.
Also they seem to be buying a few more bombers due to there range from airbases in Saigon and the Philippines.

This setup does change the game for Japan and the allies. Right now it is making UK spend more money in the Pacific as far as more ships.
It also has made the US buy more in Europe due to UK has no control in Africa and not spending any money in Europe side. The US right now is doing Operation Torch for support in Africa but may shift to London with troops. With the UK Pacific ship buy support, its seems to give US a little more room to focus some troops else where.

UK is not split up as for as the money goes. They start with 75 icps and can buy anywhere. If this was a split economy ( UK, Canada,  FEC, and Anzac ) it would probably make the US buy all in the Pacific because UK Pacific side would be in a world of hurt with Japan focusing everything down by thee islands.

Just thought you like to see how it was going with the territory value changes and moves.

@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

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:

On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?

They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.

Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…

Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot.  Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry.  The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)

AA scale for destroyers is approximately 1/2400, 1" equals 200 feet.  On that scale an Iowa-class battleship would be almost 4.5" long, rather than the 2.25" it actually is.  Scale for the battleships runs from about 1/3600 for the UK Royal Soveriegn to about 1/4700 for the Iowa.  The Yamato is about 1/4200 and the Bismarck is about 1/4300.  The scale for the aircraft carriers ranges from the Wasp at about 1/3500 to the Shinano at about 1/4200, as all of the carriers are the same length, 2.5".  The two cruisers are about 1/3700 scale.  The subs range from the German Type VIIC at about 1/1400 to the Japanese I-15 class at about 1/2400.

If you buy 1/3000 scale ships, which is 1" equals 250 feet, an Iowa will run about 3.5 inches, considerably larger than the destroyers in the game.

Quote from: oldsalty on September 01, 2008, 07:17:52 am
That appears to make sense from the few pieces I’ve ordered to compare size and quality.

What is the difference between 1/2400 and 1/3000 in inches?  Looks like the 1/2400 is an USA scale (based in ft/in).  Is the 1/3000 the European scale based in meters?

Side by side, would a 1/2400 piece actually be 20% smaller than a 1/3000 scale piece?

A 1/3000 scale ship will actually be about 20% smaller than a 1/2400 scale ship.

I will post the scales for the aircraft once I finish measuring them.

Thats a complete waste of time…. The only scales for small inexpensive metal ships THAT IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY IN PRODUCTION IS 1/2400 AND 1/3000…SO THE ONLY REALISTIC OPTION IS TO BUY 1/2400 SCALE WHICH ARE OFFERED FROM NAVWAR AND SKYTREX, WHILE 1/3000 SCALE IS TOO LARGE.

The scales are the same regardless representing objects 1/3000 or 1/2400 times smaller than original. Its not a Metric vs. English system.

Axis and allies uses 1/700 scale planes and 1/285 armor and 15 MM infantry ( or to convert you use HO 1/87 plastic or 1/72). These are the scales your looking for and i already posted the order sheet in another thread.

It DOES read one level of technology transferred between one SIDE per turn.

so if axis as a group obtain 4 tech slots, only one level can pass from one nation to another that turn.

Soviets don’t share or receive secrets.

1.  Where did you get the “buttons” your pieces are glued to?  I can’t find anything thats close.  I even thought about painting pennies or nickels (US 1 cent or 5 cent pieces) to glue my pieces on. Would be cheaper than buying anything i’ve seen.

Washers bought from “do-it center” Hillman fender washers– 1/8x3/4— item # 290001— box of 100 for $5 bucks…you can find them on internet and order

2.  Where did you get your pieces from.  And what size are they?  They look like 1/72 or 15 mm.  Having trouble finding good quality but inexpensive artillery, tanks, planes and ships.

Its all skytrex.com stuff  15mm infantry, 1/285 miroarmor, 1/2400 scale naval… about a buck each piece and if you place a large order shipping is free

3.  What size did you blow your map to?

60x36 from AAA flag and banner for about $155 bucks printed on 1/4 thick plastic sheets with vinyl decal applied. www.AAAflagandbanner.com  you send the link and money they print and ship.

no we don’t need LHTR, because they uses different victory conditions and has different takes because its tailored for Tournament games. Our rules superseed LHTR EXCEPT for issues that we don’t clarify, that document overrides.

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.