Map
Toronto, Cape Town and Honolulu position needs touch up.
+++++ i don’t know how far off my Honolulu is but it cant be more than 1 MM, because its a small island. ill check them
Setup
Will you post the latest illustrator file and add setup icons?
====== no thats why i made real set up sheets…i do have a nice file of free icons made by triple A people. perhaps you can add them in if you want a quick set up sheet. That last “set up sheet with icons” was a general idea that i used to begin the process of the set up. check out my set ups.
Judging from the last file you have setup icons ~2007-10-02…
Spain and Turkey had no army.
And IC everywhere.
===== that was just a preliminary thing. nothing final
Rules
So I gave the 1939 rules back to you.
Have you made a final pass yet?
======== i got them,i looked at them but no carefully. I would consider them done except not final until the setup is proofed.
Map
Was Benelux around in 1939?
VC
Honululu is not on the main island :lol:
Google maps showing location
http://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=honoluluds3.png
Setup
Setups…so how we are we doing this?
Since 2007-10-02 information is too preliminary,
you should to post something new (map form or table form) so I can comment.
Only thing so far is to get rid all those new ICs. Tibet? Honolulu? :wink:
Neutral
I feel neutral army in 1939 should be slightly reduced from 1942 level.
1942 Spain (4 IPC): 5 x infantry + artillery + tank + plane
1942 Turkey (3 IPC): 4 x infantry + artillery + tank
1942 Sweden (2 IPC): 3 x infantry + artillery
Map
Was Benelux around in 1939?
++++++++++++ i cant have Belgium and Holland. they are too small. Benelux is fine.
VC
Honululu is not on the main island cheesy
Google maps showing location
http://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=honoluluds3.png
=========== yes right. I should know because i have been to Honolulu twice. its the second island, with the other called “the big island”
Setup
Setups…so how we are we doing this?
Since 2007-10-02 information is too preliminary,
you should to post something new (map form or table form) so I can comment.
Only thing so far is to get rid all those new ICs. Tibet? Honolulu? wink
===============throw that away… use the ones i posted for 1939.I am not making NEW ones
Neutral
I feel neutral army in 1939 should be slightly reduced from 1942 level.
1942 Spain (4 IPC): 5 x infantry + artillery + tank + plane
1942 Turkey (3 IPC): 4 x infantry + artillery + tank
1942 Sweden (2 IPC): 3 x infantry + artillery
+++++ then it complicates the game and adds nothing. What is the difference in a couple of units?
Otherwise people would attack on the last turn before the ‘extras’ show up to avoid dealing with them latter.
what do you propose?
BTW spain should have fleet units: destroyer and transport
Turkey should have a destroyer too.
actually spain had a destroyer and transport… its fine
heres the file with setups ( i ones i keep harping on but seem elusive.)
and no i don’t want to figure out why some pages print before others. I am basically fed up with that. If you can fix it then fine. People can always sort them out in whatever order they prefer.
i will edit the map again.
link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?6eazimb322j
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=tjyx1umovbx
don’t ask why it comes out “america set up” It does not matter, except that its got the information and its correct.
also Generals come out as 90 MB WTF!. I don’t understand whats this bullcrap, but its always something. (0 MB is like 3 times the amount as the freeking map and yet it takes 2 seconds to save, while the map takes 3 minutes to save each time.
freeking aggravating to say the least.
generals in PDF
http://www.mediafire.com/?4xzzxfn4dz9
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=qaoom2xfz29
http://www.mediafire.com/?fiarumm0mud
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=yexb0byaz1w
http://www.mediafire.com/?0e301f1gy1i
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=sybnbfbzzbx
i cant have Belgium and Holland. they are too small. Benelux is fine.
In that case you should just call it by its region name. “Low”.
Being “historical edition” and all…people are gonna bring these things up. :wink:
Otherwise people would attack on the last turn before the ‘extras’ show up to avoid dealing with them latter.
Yeah I guess. As long as Spain and Turkey had no major mobilization between 1939 and 1942 thats fine.
Turkey should have a destroyer too.
Ok I’ll add it to the rules file and the OOB map.
heres the file with setups ( i ones i keep harping on but seem elusive.)
Ok good Honululu, South Africa and Australia IC gone.
India IC remains though?
Yes its elusive in table format. Will see it better on a map.
USSR: 3 new ICs (Karelia, Ukraine and Kazakh), is that fine? Is that really a transport (rather than submarine) at SZ 4?
Germany: Its interesting units are spread between East/West German yet income is all in East Germany.
US: IC and units are in “Western United States” while Los Angeles is in an empty “Southwest USA”.
Units: SPA artillery row isn’t actually used.
France: Can Germany actually take France?
Oh and the PDFs are editable in illustrator. So we can remove the “1.3” bit.
generals in PDF
Yeah these are much higher resolution. Much clearer.
Yes its elusive in table format. Will see it better on a map.
USSR: 3 new ICs (Karelia, Ukraine and Kazakh), is that fine?
===yes
Is that really a transport (rather than submarine) at SZ 4?
====yes soviets didn’t have enough subs in 1939 to be represented, however they of course had a merchant fleet, so it may allow for limited invasions on neutrals, or latter as convoy ships. IN Milton Bradley edition they had a transport.
Germany: Its interesting units are spread between East/West German yet income is all in East Germany.
====== again that dotted line is not a movement boundary but a control boundary to allow co-habitation of opposing forces and purposes of victory. For the German player this “line” is not a separate territory. The same goes for Poland where Germans and Russians share the territory. If one side takes Poland it counts as one territory for movement. But when Germany attacks Russia in east Poland its separate.
its that simple.
US: IC and units are in “Western United States” while Los Angeles is in an empty “Southwest USA”.
====Yes that has to be changed because i added latter USA territories. I leave it up to you to make adjustments, but they will be minor.
Units: SPA artillery row isn’t actually used.
==== not made in 1939 because Germans first used them against Soviets, because it was the first time they met armor that had anything to it. The frogs had garbage as well as the rest. But its not a technology.
France: Can Germany actually take France?
======== Yes indeed. German income and air units will trump France, On turn 1 Germany can take out Poland and Norway and Benelux easily. On turn 2 everything attacks france and they got a third turn to try it if it does not go well.
by turn 4 they should be into Africa and Yugoslavia, Greece etc…
perhaps do a test. with the dice using the setup for 1939 and potential German conquests.
USSR: 3 new ICs (Karelia, Ukraine and Kazakh), is that fine?
===yes
What about India IC?
again that dotted line is not a movement boundary but a control boundary to allow co-habitation of opposing forces and purposes of victory. For the German player this “line” is not a separate territory. The same goes for Poland where Germans and Russians share the territory. If one side takes Poland it counts as one territory for movement. But when Germany attacks Russia in east Poland its separate
its that simple.
Yeah its sort of simple. But have to define funny bits.
You kind of sorted out movement. Now you have to define combat.
Does both sides defend together? optional or must?
German defenders could retreat/wtihdraw and occupy one side?
Units: SPA artillery row isn’t actually used.
==== not made in 1939 because Germans first used them against Soviets, because it was the first time they met armor that had anything to it. The frogs had garbage as well as the rest. But its not a technology.
Seems complex.
You have to explain it to me.
Heavy Tank vs. Elite Armor
Heavy Artillery vs. Self-Propelled Artillery
Unit vs. Tech
1942 vs. 1939
Quote
USSR: 3 new ICs (Karelia, Ukraine and Kazakh), is that fine?
===yes
What about India IC?
==== not for 39. plus it would give Brits ability to get too much in Africa to counter Italy. However they should have a factory in Canada (eastern)
Quote
again that dotted line is not a movement boundary but a control boundary to allow co-habitation of opposing forces and purposes of victory. For the German player this “line” is not a separate territory. The same goes for Poland where Germans and Russians share the territory. If one side takes Poland it counts as one territory for movement. But when Germany attacks Russia in east Poland its separate
its that simple.Yeah its sort of simple. But have to define funny bits.
You kind of sorted out movement. Now you have to define combat.
=========On combat Germans defend as one territory.They can retreat to either side and still keep the IPC. Then the enemy will eventually occupy the other half and the final dance begins. thats it.
Yes they can occupy either side as long as Germans control all of Germany it does not require separate movement and combat. Note: all of Germany does not have anything to do with southern Germany.
check the NA on Bavaria for any inconsistencies.
Quote
Units: SPA artillery row isn’t actually used.==== not made in 1939 because Germans first used them against Soviets, because it was the first time they met armor that had anything to it. The frogs had garbage as well as the rest. But its not a technology.
Seems complex.
You have to explain it to me.
======= ?? SPA were used to pierce heavy plated armor and french didn’t have any. Germany and Soviets needed mobile artillery platforms to address the fluid combat conditions, armor divisions had complete BN’s of these. At Kursk it was the featured weapon ( Elephant) and the operation Citadel was postponed only to get a few more brigades on line for these
Heavy Tank vs. Elite Armor
==== KV1 and Tiger Tanks/ SS Panzer Grenadiers/ Shock armies/Guard Armor
Heavy Artillery vs. Self-Propelled Artillery
======== non-mobile, slow / built on tank chassis (used in armor combat, also considered Katyuskas and rocket artillery
==== not for 39. plus it would give Brits ability to get too much in Africa to counter Italy. However they should have a factory in Canada (eastern)
Ok you’ll just remember to get rid of India IC next time you edit the table or map.
On combat Germans defend as one territory.They can retreat to either side and still keep the IPC. Then the enemy will eventually occupy the other half and the final dance begins. thats it.
Ok put all that in the file. Remember you’re handling the 1939 rule + map.
Heavy Tank vs. Elite Armor
==== KV1 and Tiger Tanks/ SS Panzer Grenadiers/ Shock armies/Guard Armor
Sorry didn’t mean that.
I mean like you made some special thing about 1939 scenario not using the techs or units or you changed the name of the tech/unit…
Main rules file no longer explains these exceptions and you’ll have to make a note in the 1939 rules file.
The main rules file has “heavy tank” and “SPA” as names for both the tech and the optional units.
Do you want me to change SPA back to “Heavy artillery” in the main rules file?
Sorry didn’t mean that.
I mean like you made some special thing about 1939 scenario not using the techs or units or you changed the name of the tech/unit…
==== huh? no i didn’t do anything of the sort.
Main rules file no longer explains these exceptions and you’ll have to make a note in the 1939 rules file.
The main rules file has “heavy tank” and “SPA” as names for both the tech and the optional units.
Do you want me to change SPA back to “Heavy artillery” in the main rules file?
=== SPA and heavy artillery are basically both into one unit. For the Japanese, Italian and British its H Artillery.
Heavy tank is another thing altogether.
ok thats fine then tech and unit names remain as heavy tank and self-propelled artillery
so are there any changes from the rules?
Also, do you see any issues for the 1939 setup and the new territories?
remember Burma and some others were added ( i.e Canada/USA)
no changes to the main rules regarding the two tech and the two units
for 1939 rules its up to you (I only faintly recall you wrote something for 1939 that heavy tank tech is not in use for 1939 scenario)
Also, do you see any issues for the 1939 setup and the new territories?
I was hoping you would post a new 1939 map (with setup icons) so its easier to see
you thinking of using new prettier icons yeah?
ok heres the map file with icons… I didn’t add neutrals. I will another time.
I made minor changes to reflect the additional territories since the 39 setup was done so it works. proof it and offer comments or make changes.
I suspect i will have to redo everyone of those 1939 setup sheets due to changes and edits… :| :-(
I suspect i will have to redo everyone of those 1939 setup sheets due to changes and edits…
Yeah thats what I felt too. You’ll just feel uncomfortable if you freeze them.
Those pdfs are editable in illustrator so it’ll be alright.
Reminder that it’ might be easier for you track the files if the filename had a date.
Icons: New pretty icons. Though wondering about its “legibility”.
Air units: Nnot too clear between fighter, naval fighter and dive bomber. Orientation and use of strips not consistent between nations?
UK: Is it realistic to have IC in India instead of Australia?
Japan: Manchuko is 1 IPC + IC. Kirin is 2 IPC. Is that ok?
Turkey: Since it strait interdiction not canal, shouldn’t have the double red line.
Possibly new icons to represent the strait interdiction for Turkey, Gibraltar, English Channel.
Denmark: You may want to put double red line there since it uses canal rules.
Flags: Not consistent size.
Icons: New pretty icons. Though wondering about its “legibility”.
Air units: Nnot too clear between fighter, naval fighter and dive bomber. Orientation and use of strips not consistent between nations?
+++== fighters with stripes on land are dive bombers, On sea are naval fighters
UK: Is it realistic to have IC in India instead of Australia?
+++++++ Well it saves UK from building one latter in the game. Australia IC is a non supporting IC and too far from africa. UK needs it where it is.
Japan: Manchuko is 1 IPC + IC. Kirin is 2 IPC. Is that ok?
++++++++++ Manchuko is not protected,too low IPC, and out of the action, plus Kirin has the capital. why you want this?
Turkey: Since it strait interdiction not canal, shouldn’t have the double red line.
Possibly new icons to represent the strait interdiction for Turkey, Gibraltar, English Channel.
===========ok no canal. no new icons too many already
Denmark: You may want to put double red line there since it uses canal rules.
============== ok fine ill remove
Flags: Not consistent size.
=========== the flags are sized for aesthetics and ‘room’ if i made them all small the others would suffer, but ill make them a tad smaller for conformity. Note: theirs a German destroyer representing the Graf Spee off of Africa. It will most likely attack one of the transports and force the UK player to send the destroyer south to engage.
I propose we allow a special rule that this Graf Spee can dock one turn in any south American ‘port’ and avoid being attacked for one turn. Sort of a special historical rule for only the first 1-2 turns. I would like the graf spee to have a little fun before it gets sunk by UK.
+++== fighters with stripes on land are dive bombers, On sea are naval fighters
Thats not going to be any good.
eg. The striped fighter at Haiwaii Island territory is meant to be naval fighter not dive bomber right?
Regarding the orientation not consistent among nations, I am talking about nose point left or nose point right. Shou’d flip them so its consistent for all nations.
Even better to make them consistent across the board.
Or all naval units and naval fighters angle the same way.
Japan: Manchuko is 1 IPC + IC. Kirin is 2 IPC. Is that ok?
++++++++++ Manchuko is not protected,too low IPC, and out of the action, plus Kirin has the capital. why you want this?
No I am saying thats what it is NOW and wonder if you meant it.
I am thinking IC should be at Kirin instead.
+++++++ Well it saves UK from building one latter in the game. Australia IC is a non supporting IC and too far from africa. UK needs it where it is.
IMO India IC and 4 IPC India are really a bit over board just for balance or unseen balance issues. The setup hasn’t even been through heavy testing.
(Spain and Turkey are both below 4 IPC and has no IC. And then we’ve got 4 IPC East Indies and Boreno. A bit out of the world by now…)
I think a better approach is to set a better “victory city point” victory condition instead of these funny things under “balance issues”.
OOB Axis start 33 win 45
OOB Allies start 44 win 55
1939 Axis 17 win ???
1939 Allies HEAPS win ???
Oil fields
You made a rule that if you lose all your orignal oil fields your units move less.
But only USSR is prone. (US also has original oil fields but they look safe lol. The other nations do not have original oil fields.)
Romania should be important to Germany.
East Indice and Boreno should be important to Japan.
Middle East should be important to UK.
So need to tune the oil field rule.
I propose we allow a special rule that this Graf Spee can dock one turn in any south American ‘port’ and avoid being attacked for one turn. Sort of a special historical rule for only the first 1-2 turns.
This is a good idea.
I think it could be a standard rule to dock at neutrals.
Or neutrals at certain level of cooperation.
Attacking the docked unit is an attack on the neutral.
Docked units do not block the sea zone.
Quote
+++== fighters with stripes on land are dive bombers, On sea are naval fighters
Thats not going to be any good.
eg. The striped fighter at Haiwaii Island territory is meant to be naval fighter not dive bomber right?
ok i will have “fighter-bomber” and “naval fighter” under these planes… the same for cruisers
Regarding the orientation not consistent among nations, I am talking about nose point left or nose point right. Shou’d flip them so its consistent for all nations.
Even better to make them consistent across the board.
Or all naval units and naval fighters angle the same way.
==== some nations with similar colors should have them pointed in opposite directions
Quote
Japan: Manchuko is 1 IPC + IC. Kirin is 2 IPC. Is that ok?
++++++++++ Manchuko is not protected,too low IPC, and out of the action, plus Kirin has the capital. why you want this?
No I am saying thats what it is NOW and wonder if you meant it.
I am thinking IC should be at Kirin instead.
====ok ill check
Quote
+++++++ Well it saves UK from building one latter in the game. Australia IC is a non supporting IC and too far from africa. UK needs it where it is.
IMO India IC and 4 IPC India are really a bit over board just for balance or unseen balance issues. The setup hasn’t even been through heavy testing.
(Spain and Turkey are both below 4 IPC and has no IC. And then we’ve got 4 IPC East Indies and Boreno. A bit out of the world by now…)
spain and turkey have no significant oil supplies…those two pacific islands are most valuable to japan and the reason why Japan is even in the game, because they needed that oil
I think a better approach is to set a better “victory city point” victory condition instead of these funny things under “balance issues”.
OOB Axis start 33 win 45
OOB Allies start 44 win 551939 Axis 17 win Huh
1939 Allies HEAPS win Huh
====== i don’t understand this….what are you saying?
Oil fields
You made a rule that if you lose all your orignal oil fields your units move less.
But only USSR is prone. (US also has original oil fields but they look safe lol. The other nations do not have original oil fields.)Romania should be important to Germany.
East Indice and Boreno should be important to Japan.
Middle East should be important to UK.So need to tune the oil field rule.
===uk will need to capture more oil fields ( Persia) just like they did. Germany and Soviets will need to hold on to the ones they got… The middle east is important to uk because her oil is in the middle east. what is at issue?
Quote
I propose we allow a special rule that this Graf Spee can dock one turn in any south American ‘port’ and avoid being attacked for one turn. Sort of a special historical rule for only the first 1-2 turns.
This is a good idea.
I think it could be a standard rule to dock at neutrals.
Or neutrals at certain level of cooperation.Attacking the docked unit is an attack on the neutral.
Docked units do not block the sea zone.
====yes but its only a one turn thing and yes it would require at least one level of diplomacy toward that players side…so Argentina would need to be one level pro axis which i think they already are.
post how it should read… i also like the no block the sea zone thing.
