AARHE: Map files

@black_elk said in Working on a New Map 40/41: Seeking Suggestions:

perhaps with some map making type tutorials in the same way that Pact of Steel 2 taught how to create an xml and such

:+1:

A friend of mine played it years ago; he said he didn’t care for it because it was almost impossible to win as the Americans.  I guess the rulebook even says to put your best stratician as the American player…
I still think it looks fun.  If I hear anything else about the game I’ll let you know.
Thanks.

@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

No way am I opening that can of worms again!!!  :-)

I am very happy as is, just wanted a clarification.

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)

The funny thing is if you look at the 1939 map and you read about how the A50 game seems to be about you easily conclude:

Somebody must have gotten a bunch of ideas from AARHE and used some of these for the A50…which is fine. It was designed to be as complete as possible so people can rip from it and it can influence the coming pattern that emerges.

I fully support AARHE and so does Tekkyy. I have provided everything you and Bierwagen asked, and but a few more items like the setup sheets your working on and those cards for NA…we should be complete except for minor clarifications that Tekkyy is doing.

I think AARHE is way better than A50 or anything else w/o a doubt.  But if you want to as they say “turn off the brain” and play a very light treatment then A50 will also be played.

Of course you know the coming storm must erupt and renew and i must again make a phase 4 map for this new game, or at a minimum create a AARHE rules catered deliberately for A50.

The A50 already has flaws: no diplomacy, no defender retreats, not real new units, etc… these must be addressed.

Id like to make a random card system for A50 and come up with a few minor things

Id include: fighter-bombers, fortresses, mechanized infantry, heavy tanks, and dedicated airborne units.

WOW! that is very impressive. I will get to work on the background sheets. So just make at a patient pace and we will have the final product that will be even more impressive.

good job!

Absolutely! Wouldn’t that be the definition of Defensive Air Support?

GG