AARHE 1939 map and rule files

*Problem with 2 per SZ is that Axis and Allies map isn’t drawn prefectly for that

Norway has 4 SZs. SZ 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Spain only has 2 SZs. 12 and 13.
(India only has 1 SZ. Though it is not mountainous.)

+++++ Yes in the case of Norway you even notice that the allies landed on many points on this nation, in part because of its limited capacity to receive large groups of men and material. Spain was only considered by Hitler for invasion ( Isabella) and no sea invasion was contemplated due also to tides and terrain.

*Vichy France looks mountainous to me.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/europe_physical_map.jpg

+++++ the Allies didn’t have any trouble landing and if mountains were prominent then they would not make much progress. The most mountains are on the Franco- Italian border and buttressing the Swiss border both are which are not much of a factor. Their is a ridge of high mountains that separate the Vichy territory roughly in half, but both sides present large corridors that run north south which is the direction of travel.

*Sahara, put in “(Impassable)” just like Himalayas…or get rid of it in Himalayas

+++++ you told be to get rid of that… ill put it back in

*Switzerland, why is it white? no other neutral country is white…but I think white is better for neutral (we already have UK and Russia as grey/tan)

+++++ I will recolor it. White is not a good color for a map…too plain. The light beige is something better.
White should be the “cannot enter” zones because black is ugly for maps.

*Himalaya/Tibet, is border tuning up still on the table? seems you haven’t moved it south yet

++++++ move south? I reduced it as was asked. Now India looks larger considering i added Iran/Iraq
“is border tuning up still on the table?”---- what does this mean?

*Iceland is probably mountainous

+++++ considered but thought the font would have to be really small… the question was “Is it really important to do this… does it add to the game?”  I could add it. sure.

*Just realise we forgot to add US and Canada territories. Would be more consistent. Probably 2 more Canada and 3 more US. Then the north part of Canada would be Snowy.

+++++ HUH??? hell no… USA is perfect. Canada ( eastern) could be separated, but id like to keep the shuck shuck in play for the allies. If too many territories it slows them down. Also, American railway system was second to none and less territories allows (modeling) of quicker movement. Another reason why the Soviets stayed more or less the same… due to her eastern territories tied together by the Trans-Siberian railway. The bottom line is to make new territories IF THEY ADD TO BETTER PLAY… this was the idea behind revised from the Milton Bradley edition. They made changes only to improve the playability of the map and NOT just to add willy nilly this and that for only realisms sake.

A historical edition MUST still remain very playable… we cant just keep ADDING if it does not actually ADD to the game.

2 per SZ mountainous landing
Are you saying with all that coastline its still twice hard to hard in Spain then Norway?
Maybe the limit shouldn’t be per SZ.

And I reckon the limit should not be ALL you can use. But rather all you can use in FIRST cycle.
If you survive first cycle you’ve secured the coast.
(Similar to exisiting amphibious assault requirement of suriving first cycle with infantry only.)

well spain can only be invaded by two sides, but don’t think the same side would try it because in each case one of these SZ are in the influence of either Axis or Allies. I think the rule is simple and universal. what do you propose that is also a universal easy to use rule?

With your reasoning I could see why Bulguria is mountainous but not Romania even though Romania is more mountainous.
But if we use that method then Argentina and Italy whouldn’t be mountainous.

Italy needs to be mountainous because losing that factory end the war for them, and it forces the allies to attack southern Italy which is mountain free. They have to now decide that Italy will be a multy turn affair like it was in the war.

Sahara
I think when I ask to remove “Impassible” back then I meant it is desert not impassible. But now Sahara is actually impassible.

White for impassible
Yeah I think thats at least better than the funny pattern.

That pattern is a desert pattern for sand dunes. So what should Sahara become? Impassable with some exceptions or what?

Colours
Why is Russia no longer Redish brown? Now we have so many greyish colours.

Its still brown and it looks better with the milton bradley russian pieces which is what Russia should be colored. Their is NOTHING reddish about real Russian uniforms. The national color is an earthy brown which is the soil of Russia. Those ugly revised russians show up better with this color. Only Germany and Italy are shades or grey. should i recolor Italy that grey green?

I am thinking Himalaya could be flattened. Then Tibet move a bit south. Kwangtung/FIC border also looks weird with Hainan belonging to FIC.
Could draw (not new territory) Taiwan in for Kwangtung.

I will recolor Taiwan to Chinese control. The Himalaya are a huge mountain area. It cant be ‘slimmed’ down because its that large.

Iceland mountainous
It should do something. Unless its unlikely to be invaded. We added Iceland in the first place for…?

People complained so i added it. I guess its also a base for planes ( DAS missions) using ASW to hunt subs passing thru the area.

New North American territories
Better play is subjective.
Easier to land in US is better play right?
And for consistency the answer is obivous.
I think it should add to the game.

USA does not get invaded unless:

1. the game is already over and the allies are just being stubborn ( crap and giggles approach to play)

2. the American player is really stupid and didn’t see a huge Japanese navy ready to invade the west coast

their is no reality to invading the Americas, but the American player needs to be able to cover easily both sides and their needs to remain less territories. Also, America is deliberately made small so whats the point of 3-4 more American territories???

Just take even one of the Soviet Territories and stick it in USA. Its like the same size. The whole point is the territories need to be roughly the same size unless it directly leads to some ‘must have’ historical or playability feature.  Tell me what should be done and why.

Or should these modifiers be cumulative, i.e. +2 to defenders in Japan?

Modifiers are only possibly cumulative under the NA’s allowing for the normal combat modifier and possible a one time event making it a +2 or -2.

Well here we go again…

http://www.mediafire.com/?3a9ucbvcyw9

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=9bco2mv4ltj

also fixed Italian color, mountains for Iceland, Taiwan recolored ( like it mattered), Sahara reconfigured as well as North Africa. Also redid Switzerland (neutral color)

I really don’t see any problem with Himalayas. Its fine.

2 per SZ mountainous landing
I have no better rule yet.
But what do you think my suggestion to change the 2 per SZ limit from “ALL you can use” to “all you can use in the FIRST cycle”?

++++++So you land 2 infantry during the first cycle out of 14 land units and you lose 2 infantry… whats the difference? 12 new land units attack in the second round and clean up. The only time you should be able to land more than 2 is when you actually control the territory. I could think that 2 units per cycle for every cycle would be good…

North Africa
So what is it going to be now?
You can go through Sahara Desert but pay money?
And I don’t fully understand the dotted line yet.

++++++ No only by use the the NA can you move thru, but if you do you still pay desert upkeep cost. otherwise you cannot move into. I suspect a rule allowing for ONE unit per turn ( not enough resources available to support large armies)

Colours
Ok if its based on WWII uniform then lets stick to it.
See if any other forces need revising.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/all-forces.htm

After than, we could see if neutral can use a different colour. Preferrably something distinct from powers just not a bright colour.

+++++ i will look into it.

China
You are confusing between Hainan and Taiwan.
You’ve recoloured Hainan thats good. But fixing the China/FIC border would make it look not as awkward.

Drawning Taiwan is just for detailing. Since similar size islands like Hainan, Sri Lanka and Falklands are drawn.

I guess whether Tibet should be moved south depends whether we like Tibet/Novosibirsk crossing.

Tibet IC is also a hack. Maybe China shouldn’t have an IC.

++++The idea is to allow some flexibility in Chinese purchases. Its boring if you can only build infantry

Pacific
You’ve yet to expand Pacific.
Its all very weird considering we’ll artifically inflatened the Bering Strait.

+++++++ Expand?? how i stretched it 6 inches. more islands would make it like every sea zone has one… too many.

North America
I think its not as bad as OOB. With AARHE dynamics and neutrality attacking US is unlikely but not impossible.
SZ 10 is huge and could be split. Wondering is Western US should still have access to SZ 54.

++++++++Splitting sea zones is much better than splitting up US

ok i made a new sz and split sz 10, also added Taiwan and Hanian

I would suggest extending the desert shading to cover the north of Mauretania and French Soudan; also the whole of the Niger/Algeria border for clarity.

was considered… BUT the problem was it would now take an extra turn to get to the other side if i did that. it would take 3 turns to go south even with the NA . I guess i could draw it lower.

I think i need to recolor Portugal due to the new Italian color. I think the Italian pieces will be the puke green British that came with a few sets of revised.

I am more asking for 1 more SZ.
Its the same distance from Japan to WUS and from EUS to France right now.

SZ 57 and 56 will become 3 zones. Japan to west coast will take 4 spaces rather than 3, Midway to japan will become 3 as well.

Ok we now have this:  2 new sea zones and redrawn Sahara, recolored Portugal w/ colonies.

anything else?

http://www.mediafire.com/?3fx2tjttlvy

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=zzm9mu0jxzt

Thats a great idea! I will make that change.

http://www.mediafire.com/?43bj1z1dwxh

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=s34t95zswl3

ok heres the fix. anything else?

mountainous landing
Is “2 per SZ per cycle, until 1 or more of the 2 units survive” ok?

++++++2 per SZ per cycle, until territory is taken. at no point during the fighting do the invaders all of a sudden get their full landed units to attack the defender. Thats the whole point for this mountain thing.

North Africa
Remove Tunsia? Map getting hugely disportionate with everywhere broken up except North America.

++++++ Tunisia should be kept. Also, the City of Tunis was very important ( perhaps a VC?) Id like to make it a mountain region. American should not even be on the map. its wasted space for this game, but its ‘reality’ is just symbolic for a location to place units. Their is like zero chance for America to fall unless the game is already over and its being played out for fun… ‘just to see what happens’

China
National Advantage instead of Tibet IC? eg. China can build ART (artillery) without IC.

+++++ yes i think so . Good. What should it read?

Pacific
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands
Aleutian seems significant enough to be added to SZ 63. It’ll also make the 3 SZ Bering Strait look better.

++++++. Another winning idea. Ill do it.

North America
Why did AARHE give Western US access to SZ 54?
Should it be removed?

I looked at this… The problem is:

1. its gonna look really weird to have a line inside of baja Calif. to break that up. Its just one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease.

2. this area is really remote and it wont matter because the axis wont be dealing with it.