AARHE: Map files

Sounds pretty cool! I’d watch the video haha. I have a lot of old pewters from the 80s, but mine are all high fantasy, dragons and the like. My uncle had some kick ass Napoleonic era pewters, and a great set of plastic army men from the early 60s that I always pined over.

My first serious attempt at the map concept was for the computer in tripleA, a few decades ago, so pretty limited by what the thing could do at the time. It worked for a bit, but was kinda wonky and used some gimmicky ideas for the naval movement and convoys, as a way to delay the USA. It had a kind of one direction flow from the Americas to support the Entente, but the game was basically decided by what happened in Europe with the CP. I was never very satisfied, but it was a fun project cause I like the era. You can see the map down at the bottom here…

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Great_War

Then I tried to revisit the era again, but ended up not using the WW1 map abstraction concept, opting for something that just had the whole world on view and a more free form 1898-1918 vibe, so the factions could be less rigid. Basically I wanted it to include the Spanish American war, and Africa scrambles, or Boxer rebellion-y stuff with a kind of slow build into WW1. I split the Entente into Anglo-American and Franco-Russian sides, to see if I could find a way of dividing up the world and then tacked some others minors onto each team just to see how it would work. I think I had America-Britain-Portugal-Japan on one team, France-Spain-Italy-Russia on another. Germany-Austria-Ottomans-the Dutch and China on the last. Just so the spread would be evenly distributed with some fronts in each theater to tease out. I determined it as too simplistic and anachronistic though. It was basically the dilemma of the 3 faction game and being modelled more on the playscale of Risk than A&A that proved kind of intractable. The factions weren’t entirely satisfying, though I thought it kind of fun for make believe, and colonial competition. I just called it “Domination” lol. That one had a very limited unit roster, and simplified economy, but a much larger scale of territory divisions. I think it still would have worked on a 6 ft table, but only because of the limited units. Really it was just an excuse to draw a world map projection with a warp that I liked a little better than the traditional A&A map.

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Domination

I wanted something a bit closer to Mercator, but which would still give a much larger Europe. The squish-blob challenge I found was in how to manage South Asia and Africa, where the map compression becomes more extreme due to what has to happen with Europe/Med in A&A style games, so there was some abstraction, but a bit different than the earlier idea. I abandoned that one too, but Hepster picked it up again and revised it considerably for a 1914 era game using the same base projection but focused more on politics and a much more highly evolved roster/ruleset for this one…

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1063/power-of-politics-1914-a-wwi-scenario

I’m not sure if that one would work as a physical game though without a very large map. Perhaps 2x6 ft tables to make a large square with a more extreme warp in the map projection? But basically its better on a computer I’d imagine since you can map zoom and scale to micro with the imaginary sculpts. But work on it has gone a bit quiet since last year. Anyhow, it have a few of the abstraction concepts for stuff like convoys or how to handle the Bolshevik revolution (always a toughy), or things like cities through an abstracted scheme, but not so much with the playboxes ideas.

I’m definitely interested in different ways to push the map around though. I enjoyed the Classic playboxes in the first A&A map I picked up, even if they were just sort of cosmetic zooms in that one. I liked the look of it.

UPDATE: Screenshot & TripleA save game file!

Note that both the map and the saved game are missing the neutral units (including French & Dutch), because the WW2v5 map in TripleA doesn’t allow for neutral units, but this should still save you a lot of setup time if you’re interested in playtesting the 1939 scenario.

AAA screenshot 1939.png
Argo 1939.tsvg

Did some real brief digging around on the wiki and found this…

The last part seems to confirm those speculations in Reason 2 Marc mentioned aboved. Though I think there might still be enough in here to justify a starting Strat B for the Russians.

The fact that the Russians are unlikely to ever be able to afford another one would put a ceiling on it, and give a nod to the fact that the Soviet strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 were dwarfed by those of the Western Allies. The logic there I guess would be that Britain and America can readily expand their bomber arsenal through purchasing, whereas the Soviets are basically stuck using what they start out with, or risk just getting crushed in the land war haha.

Anyhow, here’s quick copy paster…

"Soviet strategic bombing
See also: Shuttle bombing and Operation Frantic
The first Soviet offensive bomber campaign was directed against the Romanian oilfields in the summer of 1941.[185] In response to a German raid on Moscow on the night of 21�22 July 1941, Soviet Naval Aviation launched a series of seven raids against Germany, primarily Berlin, between the night of 7�8 August and 3�4 September. These attacks were undertaken by between four and fifteen aircraft�beginning on 11 August the new Tupolev TB-7�from the island of Saaremaa, base of the 1st Torpedo Air Regiment.[185] (At least one raid of the 81st Air Division took off from Pushkin.) Besides thirty tonnes of bombs, they also dropped leaflets with Joseph Stalin’s defiant speech of 3 July. The Soviets sent a total of 549 long-range bombers over German territory in all of 1941.[185]

In March 1942 the strategic bombing arm of the Soviet Union was reorganized as the Long Range Air Force (ADD). It raided Berlin from 26�29 August and again on the night of 9�10 September with 212 planes.[185] It raided Helsinki for the first time on 24 August, Budapest on 4�5 and 9�10 September and Bucharest on 13�14 September. The German-occupied Polish cities of Krakow and Warsaw were not exempt, but the bombers concentrated primarily on military targets.[185] There were 1,114 sorties over Germany in 1942. In March 1943 there was a strategic shift: in preparation for the Kursk Offensive, the bombers were directed against the German railroads behind the front.[185] In April the Long Range Air Force expanded to eight air corps and eleven independent divisions containing 700 planes. After the Kursk preparations, the Soviets turned their attention to administrative and industrial targets in East Prussia in April. With 920 aircraft taking part, they dropped 700 tonnes of bombs there. The largest Soviet bomb of the war, an 11,000-pound weapon, was dropped on Konigsberg during one of these raids.[185]

Throughout 1943, the Soviets attempted to give the impression of cooperation between their bombers and those of the West.[185] In February 1944 they again shifted priority, this time towards terror bombing, with the goal of knocking Finland and Hungary out of the war.[185] Helsinki was struck by 733 bombers on the night of 6�7 February, by 367 on the 15�16th and 850 on the 25�26th. A total of 2,386 tonnes of bombs were dropped.[185] Budapest was hit four straight nights from 13�20 September with a total of 8,000 tonnes by 1,129 bombers. The Soviets flew 4,466 sorties into enemy territory in the year 1944. In December the Long Range Air Force was reorganized as the 18th Air Army.[185]

The main task of the 18th Air Army was to support the final offensive against Germany, but it also undertook raids against Berlin, Breslau, Danzig and Konigsberg.[185] In total, 7,158 Soviet aircraft dropped 6,700 tonnes of bombs on Germany during the war, a modest 3.1% of Soviet bomber sorties, a mere 0.5% of all Allied “strategic” sorties against German-occupied territory and a measly 0.2% of all bombs dropped on it.[185]

After the war, Marxist historians in the Soviet Union and East Germany claimed that the Soviet strategic bombing campaign was limited by moral qualms over bombing civilian centres.[185] One early bombing theorist, Vasili Chripin, whose theories influenced the Soviet Union’s first strategic bombing guidelines (1936) and the service regulations of 26 January 1940, drew back from terror bombing as advocated by Western theorists.[185] The Spanish Civil War also convinced Soviet war planners that the air force was most effective when used in close cooperation with ground forces. Nonetheless, after the war, Marshal Vasili Sokolovsky admitted that the Soviets would have gladly launched a strategic bombing offensive had they the capability.[185] In reality, the Soviets never geared aircraft production towards long-range bombers, and so never had enough to mount an effective campaign. The land-based nature of warfare on the Eastern Front also required closer cooperation between the air forces and ground troops than did, for example, the defence of Great Britain.[185]"

That note 185 heavily referenced above shows the following as its main/only source… so there’s that too I guess. Little lackluster, but you know what they say about beggers lol

Horst Boog; Derry Cook-Radmore, trans., “Part I: The Strategic Air War in Europe and Air Defence of the Reich, 1943�44”, in Germany and the Second World War, Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943�44/5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 [Stuttgart: Deutsche Veralgs-Anstalt GmbH, 2005]), 153�58.

I am planning on printing one of IL’s maps. I’ll probably use his smaller AA50 and size it to 48x24.

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)

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.

Yeah you’re right, finished, not finalized…

Note: This is not a complete list of all the modifications we’ve made in Phase 1. I will try to continually add to this as new ideas are posted. Please post any suggestions to the following rules at the Main Topic Board http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6470.0 or directly at one of the following related AARHE Phase 1 specific topics:

National Units http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6469.0
Unit Purchases and Mobilization http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6471.0
Income http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6473.0

Victory Cities

Every nation starts with 7 victory cities (VCs), each worth a certain number of victory city points (VCPs). Of these 7 VCs, 1 is designated as a capital (worth 5 VCPs), 1 other is designated as a major VC (worth 3 VCPs), 2 others are designated as moderate VCs (worth 2 VCPs each), and the last 3 are designated as a minor VCs (worth 1 VCP each).

The following is the list of VCs, the corresponding VCP value for that VC and the territory in which each is located. The VCs are organized by nation.

Russia:
Moscow (5)–Russia
Stalingrad (3)–Caucasus
Leningrad (2)–Karelia
Novosibirsk (2)–Novosibirsk
Archangel (1)–Archangel
Almaty (1)–Kazakh
Vladivostok (1)–Buryatia

Germany:
Berlin (5)–Germany
Rome (3)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Kiev (2)–Ukraine
Warsaw (1)–E. Europe
Oslo (1)–Norway
Kursk (1)–W. Russia

UK:
London (5)–UK
Toronto (3)–E. Canada
Calcutta (2)–India
Sydney (2)–Australia
Cairo (1)—Anglo-Egypt
Damascus (1)–Trans-Jordan
Cape Town (1)–South Africa

Japan:
Tokyo (5)—Japan
Changchun (3)–Manchuria
Shanghai (2)–Kwangtung
Singapore (2)–FIC
Manila (1)—Philippines
Guadalcanal (1)–Solomon Islands
Milne Bay (1)–New Guinea

US:
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (3)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Chongqing (2)–China
Ãœrümqi (1)–Sinkiang
Honolulu (1)–Hawaii
Sao Paulo (1)–Brazil

Infantry Unit Placement at VCs

ICs no longer build infantry units. Infantry units are assembled only in territories containing VCs. They are still purchased and mobilized at the same time as non-infantry units. In order to purchase and place any infantry in a VC, that VC must have been in your control at the start of your turn (placing an infantry unit in a VC can be considered the same as placing the infantry in the territory containing that VC).

For each of the 7 VCs that are originally owned by each nation, the maximum number of infantry that may be purchased and placed at the VC per turn is equal to the corresponding value of VCPs except for the following nation-specific exceptions:

Exception for the nations of Russia, Germany and Japan: If the VC is not connected to the capital VC thorugh a continuous line of friendly territories (not including SZs or neutral territories), then the maximum infantry placement is 1 less than the corresponding VCP value.

Exception for the Western Allies (UK and US): The maximum infantry placement for the capital VC is 3.

For each captured VC, the infantry placement limit is half of the VCP value for that captured VC (rounded down). This means that 0 infantry may be purchased and placed at a captured minor VC, 1 infantry at a captured moderate or major VC, and 2 infantry at a captured capital VC.

If any territory containing a VC is attacked before the defender’s first turn, then the defender of that VC gets to immediately purchase any number of infantry not exceeding more than the respective maximums outlined above and place them at that VC. These infantry units are purchased and placed just before the battle takes place. This rule applies only before the defender’s first turn. For example, it can apply to Russia attacking the Ukraine on Russia’s first turn but cannot apply to Germany attacking Karelia on Germany’s first turn (since Russia already had their first turn by the time Germany gets to move).Â

Non-Infantry Unit Placement at ICs

All non-infantry units are still built at ICs, however, unit placement limits at ICs have changed. The total IPC value of all non-infantry units placed per turn at any IC in a given territory may not exceed 4 times the IPC value of that territory. If a certain territory contains both a VC and an IC, then the infantry placement limits for the VC are treated independently from the non-infantry placement limits for the IC.

The cost of purchasing new ICs now depends on the territory in which the IC will be placed. Any player purchasing an IC must declare where the IC will be placed during the ‘Purchase Units’ phase. The IC is still placed during the ‘Mobilize New Units’ phase. To determine the cost of an IC in a given territory, multiply the number of IPCs for that territory by the number of VCPs within that territory and subtract this number from the base IC cost of 15. For example, an IC in India, FIC or Kwangtung now costs 15 - (3 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 9 IPCs. An IC in W. Europe or C. US now costs only 15 – (6 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 3 IPCs.  All ICs in territories not containing a VC cost 15 IPCs since 0 VCPs multiplied by any number of IPCs always results in a reduction of no IPCs from the base cost.

An IC can only be placed in a territory that was in your possession at the start of your turn. Furthermore, non-infantry units may only be placed at an IC that was there at the start of your turn. (This means once you take over a territory you have to wait 1 turn to build an IC and yet another turn to build units).

There are 2 types of ICs, initial ICs and purchased ICs. All territories containing either a capital or major VC automatically start with an iniitial IC (note that this just adds ICs to Manchuria and E. Canada). These inital ICs do not have to be represented by an IC piece on the game board since they cannot be moved or destroyed so they are always present in that territory.  All purchased ICs are represented by an IC piece and can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.

Infantry Unit Costs

Infantry purchased to be placed in that nation’s capital cost 2 IPCs each.
Infantry purchased to be placed in all other territories of that nation’s color cost 3 IPCs each.
Infantry purchased to be placed in any captured territory cost 4 IPCs each.

Victory Conditions

Just like in the AAR box rules, players agree before the start of the game which set of victory conditions they will use; Total Victory, Major Victory or Minor Victory.

Total Victory: The winning team is the first to control every territory by the end of any US player’s turn.

Major Victory: The Axis win if they control 45 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn. Likewise, the Allies win if they control 55 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn.

Minor Victory: Both sides bid the number of turns that they want the game to last if they are the Axis. The team that bids the higher number of turns gets to play as the Axis. The game will automatically end after the US player’s turn on the turn number that won the bid. The team controlling the majority of the VCPs at that time wins the game. Note: This is unlike the major victory conditions or traditional victory city rules in that the winner is not the first side to reach a certain number of VCPs, but the side who maintains control of the majority of the VCPs by a certain turn number agreed upon by both sides. This is intended to better fix the game duration and to allow for quicker games if players are pressured by a time constraint.

Changes to Fighter Movement

Fighters that begin a certain turn on an aircraft carrier must also end that turn on an aircraft carrier, unless the aircraft carrier they started the turn on is destroyed during that turn. Note: Fighters do not have to start and end the turn on the same aircraft carrier. Fighters that start the turn in a territory can always end the turn on either an aircraft carrier or in a territory.

As before, the sum of the spaces moved during the combat and non-combat move phases cannot exceed the total movement for the fighter, however, now all fighters must count 1 extra move during the combat phase whenever they conduct a SZ battle.

Fighters that don’t move in the combat move phase of a certain turn may then move in the non-combat move phase of that turn the number of spaces up to their maximum movement, land in a friendly territory, and then again move up to their maximum movement to land in another friendly territory.

Turn Sequence

1. Purchase units
2. Collect income
3. Combat Move
4. Conduct Combat
5. Place newly purchased units
6. Noncombat move
7. Develop weapons

Optional Rules

Technology

Radar: Every surface naval unit and fighter unit now detects enemy subs on a roll of 4 or less instead of just a 2 or less. Also, every AA gun (max of 3 may fire per territory) may detect enemy air units flying over the territory on a roll of 4 or less.

Rockets: You may purchase rockets at a cost of 2 IPCs each. Any number of rockets may be fired from any number of your territories, provided that every one of those territories is contiguously connected to your capital. Once a rocket is fired from a territory, it may move up to 2 spaces to reach an enemy IC. The amount of damage done to the IC is equal to the larger of 2 dice rolls. Always roll for each rocket individually (i.e always roll only 2 dice at a time). You may rocket attack any number of enemy ICs, but the max damage done to any IC is equal to the territory’s IPC value.

Super Subs= All your subs attack/ defend and interdict enemy commerce at a roll of 3 or less. Also, subs may move 3 in the non-combat move phase (Note that subs still can’t move in both the combat and non-combat move phases in the same turn).

Long-range aircraft= All your fighters move 6. All your bombers that don’t move in the combat move phase get to move 8 in the non-combat move phase of that same turn. Whenever any of your bombers get shot down you have a choice of either (a) paying 10 IPCs and losing the ability of bombing the enemy in that same turn or (b) assigning the bomber as a casualty as usual.

Jet Fighters= Your AA gun units hit enemy air units on a 1 or 2. Your fighters are detected by enemy AA gun units at half the  number they would otherwise detect them (i.e. they detect your fighters only on a 1 without radar and on a 1 or 2 with radar). Also, your fighters defend at a 5.

Heavy Bombers= Enemy AA gun units detect your bombers at half the number that they would otherwise detect them (i.e. they detect your bombers only on a 1 without radar and on a 1 or 2 with radar). Also, take the larger of 2 rolls to determine damage during tactical and strategic bombing.

Rules regarding techs:

Tech Development Re-startup fee:
If on any turn a given nation doesn’t purchase any tech rolls, then on the next turn that the nation buys at least 1 tech roll, the nation must pay an additional 5 IPCs as a re-startup penalty.

Each tech roll still costs 5 IPCs. No nation may spend more than half their IPCs in the Technology Development phase of that turn.

The tech/s you are rolling to develop are declared before you roll. If you roll the same number as the ‘target number’ associated with the tech (see above) then you develop the tech. If you roll the number that equals 7 minus the target number, then you achieved a technology breakthrough. A technology breakthrough makes it much easier to develop that specific tech later in the game. For every technology breakthrough you achieve in a certain tech category, you get 1 additional free die roll in every turn that you buy at least 1 tech roll for that same tech. For example if you achieved 2 breakthroughs in Super Subs (i.e. you previously you rolled a 4 two separate times while attempting to get Super Subs) but still have not developed Super Subs, then on the next turn that you buy a tech roll for Super Subs you get to roll a total of 3 dice to develop that tech (1 for the purchased roll + 2 free die rolls for the 2 breakthroughs). Breakthroughs may only be used in the same tech category that you obtained them in.

Diplomatic Relations

(This section still under construction)

Russian Xenophobia

Neutral Aid

Joint Strike

Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression Treaty

Lend-Lease