AARHE: Map files

I have found 2 changes to the map that enhance the game play - thought I would share.

Darfur - Minor Aligned with Ottoman Empire (1) IPC.  This new territory sits between French Equatorial Africa and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, with Belgian Congo keeping a border on AES.  This change provides more action in Africa, without it just becoming a big waste of space by turn 3 or 4 and an IPC pump for the British.

Sea zone 31 - A new sea zone that splits SZ17 in half.  SZ31 borders SZ16 to the west, SZ17 to north, SZ19 to the east, and Libya/Egypt to the south.  All of Greece borders the new SZ31 and SZ20.  This change provides much more freedom of movement of any CP ships that leave their home ports from mine rolls.  From the Allied powers standpoint - protects from an AH early thrust into the Black Sea or Eastern Med.

TUV counting, making sure the allies start with a clear numbers, tuv, and income advantage to compensate for the drastic positional advantage. Axis quickly catch up in income and the ICs shift to the axis within the first 3 rounds.

More importantly the axis now have to make decisions instead of having one best move to do.

Even more importantly the allies have something to look forward to potentially within the first 3 rounds which typically saw a whole lot of nothing, which is a big reason people do not play this map.

Still favors the axis to win. I like to play the axis so I am a little biased, I just hate to see the game won before it even begun.

The Factories (As well as some of the Mnor Axis Units) came from “The War Game” (which is a great game).

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)

@oldsalty:

Bierwagan:

How would you have played your example if it were a bomber instead of a ftr?

Moin OldSalty!

I haven’t had a lone bomber defending a territory yet.  But, it wouldn’t really change anything.  Air units only get full attack strength when coupled with ground forces on a 1-to-1 basis.

@AAHRE:

Air Supremacy
When only one side has air units at the beginning of
combat cycle, air units fight with normal combat values
when matched 1-to-1 with a friendly land unit. Excess
air units fight at combat value of 1.

So, the bomber would have Air Supremacy but would only get a parting shot at 1 (n.b., bombers don’t get to select targets it is just carpet bombing) – then it would have to withdraw due to:

@AAHRE:

Land Combat: Retreat Decision
At the end of a land combat cycle, if only one side has
land units the other side must retreat.

TTP (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) insight for the day!
This becomes tactically significant later on in the game when you don’t have many ground units left.  I’ve seen people attack what looks like a solid defense in Berlin by tying up all the airplanes in the sky.  Then all you have to do is blast away the few defenders on the ground and “voila!” the vaunted Luftwaffe is forced to retreat because they have no land units, giving you the country and victory!

This really causes you to re-evaluate defense on the ground.  You have to watch UK as well because normally it’s just used as a non-mobile aircraft carrier – but NO MORE!

It’s all about balance… and aircover!  IL & Tekkyy have done a wondermus job of levelling the playing field and making it a real slobberknocker of a tactical puzzle.

Enjoy the day!

Hi tekky and Imperious Leader,

thanks very much for the quick clarifications! I’ll post if other things pop up during gameplay  :-)

Regards,
sponge

yep