AARHE: Map files

@Argothair:

Should it take more turns, in general, to move a basic unit by land, by sea, or by air? Why?

For whatever it’s worth, sea transporation and land transportation and air transportation in the real world exist on a continuum in which speed is inversely proportional to tonnage.  Shipping by sea is (and has been since ancient times) the cheapest way to move vast quantities of goods over great distances, giant supertankers being a good example of this principle, but it has the disadvantage of being slow and (for obvious reasons) of being limited to oceans and seas and coastlines and certain rivers.  Shipping by air is the fastest method, but it’s expensive and it involves much smaller payloads; it also has limitations imposed by landing strip requirements.  Helicopters are more flexible in this regard than fixed-wing aircraft, but they have terrible fuel consumption, a short range, high maintenance costs and small payload capacities.  Transporation by land is roughly half-way between those two extremes.  Of the two land options, rail shipping is in many ways superior because combines fairly high speed with low fuel consumption and large payload capacity, but it’s limited to places where rail lines exist.  Trucking is more versatile because there are more roads in more places than rail lines, and in a pinch some trucks can operate off-road, but they’re not as efficient at moving tonnage than trains.

But how would you know how many IPC Ottomans would have if you didn’t do any study on the economic capabilities of the other nations relating to 31 IPC? How would you know how many infantry they would have in each area if you didn’t study where they even had armies in 1914?

You need to just draw a map with territory borders that allows good player options and is realistic. Don’t redo 1914, that’s garbage. This is redesign, not use what you got

This is not checkers my friend.

@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

yeah its the intentional
the strategic situation is different between 39 and 42
China was isolated from help due to losing coastal areas

oh no
I did very misleading typo  :cry:

“after all combat moves are declared”
should read
“after all non-combat moves are declared”

only air units have the mobility to reinforced rapidly (before combat)

IL, recall land units’ ability to reinforce BEFORE combat led to legendary exploitation and complex rules after rules to fix

So, DD & SS are separated out from the rest combat and this warfare is accomplished first.  Then Air Combat.  Then fleet warfare.

yes and its on your naval combat sequence player aid.  sub interaction,then survivors allocate air units and they fight concurrently with ongoing naval actions.

ok

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”