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.

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.

Tell me about it…

If you did make one though… wow!

@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

oldsalty, regarding India and third world I think the problem is best addressed by playing with custom income values (rather than a specific rule)

AARHE don’t adjust it as it intends to be a house rule rather than a variant
even then variant map “AARHE 1939” is not that “pure” and gave India 4 IPC hehe

buy some number chips, Imperious can probably tell you where to get that kind of stuff

you can muck around with the abattlemap map I pulled together in a hurry
download at the http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

a while back I intended to take part in TripleA to open ways for support of house rules such as AARHE

however TripleA had no intentions to provide a proper framework to support the newer axis and allies games let alone house rules

there was a possibility of great things to happen for TripleA 2.0 but I am not busy with life things

FYI TripleA supports Classics natively, after that even Revised is a bit of a hack

@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!

ok