Ahh, R de O and Morocco finally have a border! Good stuff. 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.
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.
2 per SZ mountainous landing
Yes 2 units per cycle would be better.
Only 2 units from the SZ may participate in combat per cycle, until one or more of the 2 units survive.
(Represents securing the beach as in normal amphibious assault.)
Other amphibious assault rules still apply. Hence the 2 units cannot be ART(artillery) or ARM(tank).
North Africa
If we are going to charge IPC then probably don’t need to limit it to 1 unit.
The price was 1 IPC. Which is up to 50% cost of raising an infantry division.
I think adding Morocco is good but not sure about Tunsia. Possibly too many territories.
China
I guess China IC is not a hack considering AARHE rules. It can only produce INF and ART not ARM anyway.
But Tibet IC is a hack. There has to be a better way. National Advantage instead?
Pacific
Not really asking for more islands.
(But I guess Aleutian could be significant enough to be added.
You can put it in SZ 63 so inflatened Bering Strait is not as awakward.)
I am more asking for 1 more SZ.
Its the same distance from Japan to WUS and from EUS to France right now.
North America
What about the other question of WUS’s strange access to SZ 54?
I realised AARHE introduced it. OOB didn’t have it.
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?
SZ 49?
This makes Philippines equidistant to Japan as from Marianas and Okinawa, so possibly divide diagonally and move Okinawa to the north of SZ 49, with Iwo Jima taking it’s place? In fact Iwo Jima could even be in SZ 60 on this map. If you remember the main reason for taking this lump of rock was to give US fighters a base from which to escort bombers (based in the Marianas) on their way to attack the Japanese mainland.
[attachment deleted by admin]
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?
@Imperious:
ok heres the fix. anything else?
yes, standing questions…
mountainous landing
Is “2 per SZ per cycle, until 1 or more of the 2 units survive” ok?
North Africa
Remove Tunsia? Map getting hugely disportionate with everywhere broken up except North America.
China
National Advantage instead of Tibet IC? eg. China can build ART (artillery) without IC.
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.
North America
Why did AARHE give Western US access to SZ 54?
Should it be removed?
I have no problem with Tunisia. It may be considered as mountainous, a last holdout for the Axis in Africa?
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:
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.
this area is really remote and it wont matter because the axis wont be dealing with it.
I’ll post a PNG version for the next update.
Mountainous landing
Well I am thinking once 1 or more of the 2 units survive you’ve secured a position on the coastline so other units can land.
If the restriction lasts through out the entire combat then it would seem to make the whole combat is on the coastline?
Similarly, the normal amphibious assault advantages lasts for first turn only.
The mountainous +1 bonus models the defender advantage for the “inland part” of the combat.
Otherwise, whats the theory behind your solution?
North Africa
Fine. Don’t add VC though. VC is meant to mean big population centres for infantry raising and cheaper IC.
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/africa.jpg (Morocco looks mountainous too.)
Western US
I still don’t understand. Why a line through the baja? Did the borders change between WWII and now?
http://www.world-atlas.us/north-america-map.gif (Its one clean line across north of the baja?)
Remote in gameplay yes but OOB didn’t have it and so it can be a joke that we introduced it.
And it does make ships built at Western US can get to Eastern US faster.
Eastern US
SZ 67 duplicate. (Greenland also 67.)
Mountainous landing
Well I am thinking once 1 or more of the 2 units survive you’ve secured a position on the coastline so other units can land.
If the restriction lasts through out the entire combat then it would seem to make the whole combat is on the coastline?
Similarly, the normal amphibious assault advantages lasts for first turn only.
The mountainous +1 bonus models the defender advantage for the “inland part” of the combat.
Otherwise, whats the theory behind your solution?
++++++Mountain regions do not permit normal landing due to poor tides, small beaches and weather issues. An invasion bottled up on the beach is doomed unless the invasion gets a hold of territory to anchor the logistical supplies. The 2 units limit is a way to do this. Anything else would make it seem that all the sudden these invading units got a much larger piece of the territory to be able to land all the supporting equipment. IN Norway the brits had to land on many places to have a chance to keep a larger force unloaded, while Churchill didn’t invade the Balkans for the same reason why his Galipoli expedition also failed because not enough room to maneuver. The invaders should NEVER be allowed to land in mountains with their entire force unless the territory is secure. It also appeals to history and makes Norway something perhaps the Germans could even hold. Places Like Spain are protected if they get involved, while Italy mountains allow the same invasion route as the allies performed. Also, it protects the Caucasus from invasion because the axis had no capacity to attack in that manner.
North Africa
Fine. Don’t add VC though. VC is meant to mean big population centres for infantry raising and cheaper IC.
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/africa.jpg (Morocco looks mountainous too.)
Western US
I still don’t understand. Why a line through the baja? Did the borders change between WWII and now?
http://www.world-atlas.us/north-america-map.gif (Its one clean line across north of the baja?)
Remote in gameplay yes but OOB didn’t have it and so it can be a joke that we introduced it.
And it does make ships built at Western US can get to Eastern US faster.
Eastern US
SZ 67 duplicate. (Greenland also 67.)
++++ ok ill redraw the border and fix 67.
anything else???
That should be all, at least for now.
Next we’ll scrutinize the rules file.
By the way, I looked at real map again and Northern Italy as mountainous is about right.
Welcome back, Yope.
Look at the latest map and you’ll see that this has been rectified as a result of my continual hectoring on the issue.
Naming the territory is a mute point; strictly speaking Rio de Oro was a part of Spanish Sahara, but not the whole, so technically you could use either name.
flash start looking at the rules. I’m sure you’ll have something to comment on.
I’ll try to get round to it; working on a new top secret movie-tie-in version of Magnum Force. Stand by!
I am waiting for an update and do another PNG export.
