AARHE 1939 map and rule files

Ok a few things after 2 play tests…

Mech infantry should allow the movement boost for infantry at 1/1 basis, otherwise they are not so good as buys.

The british player needs 2 more infantry, 1 in india, 1 in trans-jordan

The Soviet Siberian deployment needs to have 1 mech infantry and 2 infantry.

The Soviets can attack Finland for one round only.( the first round)

The rules regarding first turn attack only against Baltic and Poland are perfect.

The Polish need one more infantry

The Americans need one extra destroyer south east of Hawaii. Also, the US carrier fleet should be hidden into one of three territories northeast of Hawaii, so the Japanese don’t know where it may appear. Of course they may attempt to attack the 3 sea zones north east of hawaii, but they need to have some uncertainty that was historical.

All USA forces are frozen until activation.

Japanese special attack:
The Japanese should have a two round attack on Hawaii at +1 for two rounds, while all American ships should defend with 1  AA roll each ( total of 5 hits to sink it).  Thus you have 5 Japanese fighters attacking at 4 for two rounds against 5 AA rolls.  If the Japanese decide to attack a third round, the Americans should be allowed to allocate the Carrier fleets air units and the Hawaii fighter for immediate attacks on the Japanese fleet. This would represent the historical fear of Nagumo and his wish to avoid possible air attacks.

The games i played really had nice historical progression.

Poland, Norway and Benelux fell to Germany on turn 1
Germany used its 8 SR points to redeploy its Polish army against the frogs and took out Paris on turn 2

Italy tried to attack Yugoslavia and got beaten back. It was a miserable failure.
On the second turn they failed again but made some progress.
On turn 3 they finished the job. They redeployed the forces to Libya and UK was not happy.

ON turn three Germany thought about a Jutland battle with UK navy or even a sea lion, but decided to shift her forces to the eastern front. All minor axis nations got activated on turn 3.

The Soviets were trying to protect the border getting ready for Barbarossa
On the first turn they tried hard to take Finland but failed. Snow is good for Finland.
Soviets took eastern Poland and Baltic and considered Mongolia for extra cash.

On turn two UK tried to shuck stuff from India to protect Egypt but had to attack Persia and Iraq to open the land line for SR movement. The Soviets were to help them, but the Xenophobia rules would not allow a SR to go thru because anything the Soviets attack they keep.

Japan was doing not much for J1-3, except attacking one territory of China per turn. China was doing the same, but its army was drying up fast…

UK was building fleet and more infantry for India.

ON turn 4 Germany totally smashed into Russia and killed lots of Russians. The Soviets fell back and gave up territory. ON the 5th turn ( where the OOB game starts) the German player had taken all the original OOB spots with a similar force pool as in that setup. The Russians got the Siberian Army and it came it time to push the Germans back ( out of west Russia)

However, the Germans went and took Caucasus and the Soviets retook it too.

by turn 5 Italy was at 16 IPC
Germany was at 42
Japan was at 32

UK was at 31
Soviets at 22-23 (with 25 lend lease)
USA was at 50 ( spent 25 for lend lease) net 25
China was at 4-5 + Burma road income ( but infantry cost 2 ipc)

The Italians by turn 3-6 took Egypt 3 times and the UK player pushed them out 3 times. It was a total see saw.

The British player should have built a factory in Egypt earlier and finally Italy did the job.

UK retreated south and central Africa.

On turn 5 Japan took out the US fleet and the Americans had to replace it but it was not that hard with 50 IPC.

People who learn this for the first time need to be explained this in the rules. Everything must be explained fully at least once. Straight and Canal must have a section and be explained.
Canals and waterways are really just map specific features.
I didn’t add it previously cos it can be ridiculous and not make sense.

It wouldn’t be as bad if we had double-red-line and double-green-line symbols for them as a standard.

Anyway I’ll add a Canals paragraph near the Strait Interdiction paragraph.

Still you should add symbols to the map so people won’t forget.

But then you must explain this in the rules ( a section regarding the map symbols along with these rules)

Symbols don’t mean anything unless you attach meaning to them.

Quote
Explain when somebody is gonna have money that they don’t save? What benefit would it have for them to lose it?

remember the preceding sentence
you can only save money at victory cities
so can’t leave money laying around at just any territory

OH that rule is no good at all. too much to account for and adding absolutely nothing to the game at all. Allow any saved income to be saved as reserves.

Quote
Defender needs to declare his retreat intentions first, followed by attacker. That way you cut all this out… as either player can retreat partially or in full.

“Attacker followed by defender” is a pretty much everywhere in the game.
We’ll have to think twice before changing that.

Making defender decide first is probably not realistic.
They are defending, without logistic concerns. They are not forced to make decisions before the attacker.

I will finish this latter.

Quote
But if either side rolls out for combat, they must enter the vacated territory unless they have the extra movement point left over (armor) this is equitable for both sides.

Lol. I see where this is coming from.
Defender-retreat-first gives the attacker advantage and you want to minimise that.

But, again you are forcing people to stay behind. Its not realistic. This solution starts a new problem. And I don’t even agree with defender-retreat-first yet.

The way it is currently, I just don’t think its not historical.
You are not forced to remain behind by an invisible force.
Tactical victory for A, strategic victory for B.

A bunch of infantry skirmishes with air suport and retreats. It killed the enemy but it can afford to remain behind and get surrounded by tanks, blocking retreat (AARHE capture roll).

Or, identify the unrealistic rule.
I found “minimum force to capture”. A rule we didn’t implement probably for a good reason.
You can look for others.

Quote
When you explain something that it latter referenced again in another part of the rules it must be referenced ( “for further information of ID rules see page x”)  The rule applies to ID and they must be linked. They are not separate items because both are dealing with the “ID” unit.
Of course I would reference it if it was relevant.
I am adding reference to Implicit ID to
*ID section in Land Combat
*Rocket section in Technology.

Quote
But the rules regarding air missions and what air units can do must be in the same section. Land, Sea, Air need separate sections covering movement and combat. I don’t want to have to look for 10 different rules for air. of course the exception would be technology for air. But id expect to see:

Well since you need to declare Air Missions in Combat Move I’ll add reference of “Air Mission”.

Quote
Air movement
1. land and naval based air
2. Air transport
3. Transport planes

Air combat over land
1. DAS missions
2. CA missions
3. Airborne missions
4. Air inderdiction missions
5. Jet power
6. ID ( just quick note that they roll)

Air combat over sea
1. CAP
2. Aerial Attacks
3. ASW search and combat

Then have ID in its own section and write how it works against air in each event.
its mostly in this structure already
its just that its not all lumped together
movement is mentioned in Combat Move and Non-combat Move
combat is mentioned in Conduct Combat
ID information pops up only when it affects it

Quote
Air combat over Industry ( SBR)
1. escorts
2. bombers
3. interceptors
4. ID ( just quick note that they roll)
SBR is one paragraph all up.
It does contain all 4 information.

This is now solved under defender then attacker retreat declarations.

its solved with defender then attacker retreat declarations

ok its finished… new map posted.

Oh god it never ends… ill get to it.

Heres the post i didn’t finish the other day:

People who learn this for the first time need to be explained this in the rules. Everything must be explained fully at least once. Straight and Canal must have a section and be explained.
Canals and waterways are really just map specific features.
I didn’t add it previously cos it can be ridiculous and not make sense.

It wouldn’t be as bad if we had double-red-line and double-green-line symbols for them as a standard.

Anyway I’ll add a Canals paragraph near the Strait Interdiction paragraph.

Still you should add symbols to the map so people won’t forget.

But then you must explain this in the rules ( a section regarding the map symbols along with these rules)

Symbols don’t mean anything unless you attach meaning to them.

Explain when somebody is gonna have money that they don’t save? What benefit would it have for them to lose it?

remember the preceding sentence
you can only save money at victory cities
so can’t leave money laying around at just any territory

OH that rule is no good at all. too much to account for and adding absolutely nothing to the game at all. Allow any saved income to be saved as reserves. Under this you would have to account for yet another thing that does not add anything to the game.

Defender needs to declare his retreat intentions first, followed by attacker. That way you cut all this out… as either player can retreat partially or in full.

“Attacker followed by defender” is a pretty much everywhere in the game.
We’ll have to think twice before changing that.

Making defender decide first is probably not realistic.
They are defending, without logistic concerns. They are not forced to make decisions before the attacker.

The attacker is the active army. The defender is committed to fight or flee under the stress of battle. If you look at it it makes more sence, because the trick is the defender retreats and the attackers efforts are rewarded by the capture of the territory, but in game terms this will ‘trap’ good units for counterattack that would be unrealistic. For example: you attack with tanks and infantry and capture after defender retreats. The defender on his turn attacks likely from a weaken position bringing in only infantry against tanks and some planes, using the infantry as soaks to just kill off the ‘goodies’ with no intention of actually doing anything. IN the real war the only way to fight tanks is with tanks/ artillery. Infantry melted in battle against armor divisions, because its like muskets against machine guns.

Here’s a new idea: in attacks where you go after armor and you don’t have armor/artillery you should get a negative modifier for each number of tanks that outnumber your army. Example: if you attack 3 tanks with 2 infantry and 1 artillery, then say two of those rolls should have some penalty. just an idea.

Any way it fixes alot is issues to just have attacker decide what he does after the defender first declares his intentions.
Thats exactly what created the combat opportunity in the first place. It would be consistent.

But if either side rolls out for combat, they must enter the vacated territory unless they have the extra movement point left over (armor) this is equitable for both sides.

Lol. I see where this is coming from.
Defender-retreat-first gives the attacker advantage and you want to minimize that.

OK under what you already wrote the attacker has the choice to not even move into the new territory. Thats an immense advantage far beyond what i propose. Under what you wrote the defender can totally retreat, and the attacker can just leave the territory empty and allow his planes to defend from his original territory. this is static warfare and will not be fun.

The way it is currently, I just don’t think its not historical.
You are not forced to remain behind by an invisible force.
Tactical victory for A, strategic victory for B.

No victory at all. The attacker can choke on his first rolls and the defender retreats and nothing is gained except a new empty space, with the defender able to still get the IPC.

IN my view the combat is occurring already inside the defending territory., so the idea that the defender retreats and the attacker is basically also retreating from the territory… like they are scared chickens. not good.

A bunch of infantry skirmishes with air suport and retreats. It killed the enemy but it can afford to remain behind and get surrounded by tanks, blocking retreat (AARHE capture roll).

Its already in the territory by moving into it. That amounts to a free move for infantry to be able to jump out. It already went against tanks and ‘won’ and now they  “just run away to avoid capture” by these same tanks? This is not good modeling of warfare.

I agree. Co-existing rules are fine. Would that solve the problem of retreats? I hate the “empty zone of 500 sq miles battle result” where a huge battle took place and both sides vanish after combat. That looks terrible. Lets use that co-exist rule from earlier.

OK we just need to doc. file for the main rules including the NA’s.

It means nothing in terms of the German player. IN the case of both Germany and or Poland these territories allow co-existing enemies ( in Poland the Soviets occupy east Poland and the Germans occupy west. In this case the territory is two spaces until one player captures both sides.

IN Germany case its the same thing the Soviets may need this for historical victory conditions, and this allows the Germans to retreat to west Germany and still have some production. If any player owns both sides of Germany then they are not separate territories.

These are the only cases where this exists. Note it allows for quick mobilization across Germany to either front.

I reduced the opacity of the Victory cities to 40% because IMO they were too loud to the surrounding colors.

I will update file on page 1.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yc0yxc4bntp

The line is clearly in the middle. It applied to both cases already. So any movement from france to Spain is limited to 2 land units