AARHE 1939 map and rule files

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.

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???

flash start looking at the rules. I’m sure you’ll have something to comment on.

Lets work on any rule glitches. The newest map changes are very small details and don’t require our attention just yet.

WOW thats a large list! I guess the duty starts here-

Index would be nice. I like to let people know the main part is actually only 20 pages.
+++++OK I will index it like an old SPI game  (example Movement 1.0, 1.1,1.2,1.3 etc)

Why is the frontpage at the back?
++++ thats not much of an issue anybody can just place that page on the front. It does not even have a page number.

Page 1. Its not version 1.3 when we’ve already released 2.0 and 3.0. Probably call it 3.1.
++++++ It may be more accurate to address it as 1.3 like LHTR 1.1,1.2 and 1.3. The previous counts were not correct and its better to restart on the right foot then to repeat past mistakes.

Page 2. Before I made it that victory conditions were vaccessed in real-time so Allies can’t win with a suicide attack.
+++++++Please explain this more.

Page 4. Mechansim to save money is removed. Its important in some situations.
+++++ its too complicated and leads to some tedious situations playability is issue

Page 4. Cruiser used to take 2 turns to build. Is that still so?
+++++ not anymore. This gives the cruiser more vitality especially for Germany/Italy who are usually stuck with some kind of fleet crisis due to the allies.

Page 4. Convoy. I like would to rehash why we didn’t use a convoy zone system previously in AARHE. Both a supply-side and demand-side convoy zone becomes stupid when supplies ain’t even going through the area. If you want to simpify the old system we can work out ways.
++++++ that system is really tedious. Its too difficult to even grasp from the viewpoint of any newcomer to this variant any idea what that was. I must have read that thing 20 times and nothing got any clearer
its not adding anything fun to the game at all.

Page 5. Upkeep. You shouldn’t be able to delay upkeep payment and definitely not delay indefinitely and further definitely not delay without combat restrictions. Make it they can’t move and simply become destroyed on contact. 2nd turn without upkeep it becomes destroyed.
+++++++++ ok that is fine. no delay. actually i will reword it so its impossible for these units to have a chance to enter desert unless you already have the money

Page 7. You want canal treatment for Baltic Sea? Remember to update the map.
+++++ no it clearly says something about no entrance unless the allies control western germany

Page 7. I don’t see why strategic movement should be unaffected by special passage.
+++++++++please explain “special passage”

Page 7. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact is an obvious addition. But we didn’t have it before and there was probaly a good reason?
+++++ not thinking outside the box was the reason

Page 7. I don’t agree with the new Conquest rule. You lose your capital you lose that bit of income. There need not be further penalty. It could be part of a planned retreat anyway.
++++++ conquest takes place when you lose ALL your factories. if you lose your capital you must lost something more than ‘another city ho hum’ you lose the centralized structure of government and the disarray is equal to a lost production above and beyond the territory value.

Page 8. Those 1939 rules should not be under “Phase 3: Combat Move” section. In fact think its better to group all 1939 rules together in a section explaining the map in optional rules (like before with “italy map”). As you’ve put it, this is a template for various AARHE maps. Things are gonna get messy real quick with new maps. Also, 1939 rules include a string of W@W like arbitary attempts to recreate history. Not the style of AARHE at all IMO. We also don’t want the page length savings to be taken up. You wanted to shorten the thing.
++++++ ok well get this structure fixed. the W@W stuff is very minimal and its very hard to recreate 1939 history because a small idea in this section can have huge effects on the final outcome. The goal was to get the axis at least to a similar point to where they would be in a 1942 scenario

Page 10. Jet Supremacy. So jet can make targetted attack against air units now. Is the old ability of “skipping dogfight” still go?
++++++ yes that thing is totally junk. Jets used their speed to the bombers, while they still needed to deal with interceptors they were excellent at killing bombers… like subs.

Page 11. “If at any time one side has only air units remaining in battle they must be retreated to
a friendly territory within ½ flight range.” I think attacking air units retreat with normal range. Defending air units retreat within 1 space previously. Define “1/2 flight range”.
+++++++ this creates a problem borne out in play testing for other games. The range is too great allowing for “always on” DAS. The idea would be to be able to create holes in the fighter screen so a player has to choose where he picks his battles and cant defend everywhere at the same time. Otherwise the DAS effect is too great.

Page 11. Anti air is EVERY cycle. Don’t think we should give all territories 1 ID.
++++ sorry but thats not accurate. AA flak batteries were positioned in zones/belts where the bombers came in close. If i attack with fighters these cannot be shot down in great quantity because they are moving really fast, while bombers performing a SBR need to move really slow to have an accurate drop of bombs. AA guns must be only one round or the whole idea of flak makes no sence. Only 10% of total air loses were due to flak artillery. “Always ON” AA would totally disrupt that.

Page 12. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment is limited to one hit every four attacking land units (which probably should be changed to count INF and Airborne only). Not one SB roll every four attacking land units.
++++ yes to be more accurate because only infantry types can land on the first round. I will add

page 13. Destroyer negating submarine opening-fire on a 1-to-1 basis is a great rule for OOB. But it breaks the AARHE sequence.
+++++ then thats fine. I don’t see how it breaks the sequence however.

Page 14. Naval anti-air is very different to land combat. Naval anti-air is more powerful due to no terrain over and no emergency landing. Naval anti-air is not pre-emptive because the target IS the anti-air. No flak guns shots popping up at the unexpected places.
+++++ how it works is if the enemy has no CAP or air units then the enemy air has a distinct advantage, Naval AA rolls are very weak and the ONLY thing to fight planes… which is what it should be… if on sea you have no fighters you are sitting ducks… The only compensation is to allow the ships to gain preemptive hits and CA/ DD screens of targeted attacks IMO

Page 14. ASW was last at 3 to search and 3 to hit. (25%) vs. Submarine’s 2 to hit (33%).
++++ It was lowered by one to give the sub owners a “happy time” until technology can help bring up ASW

Page 15. “Naval units’ hits in main-round must be allocated on naval units first before air units can be allocated.” They already performed anti air earlier. I don’t think main rounds hits should be able to hit air units.
++++++ looking at this. your mostly correct.yep

Page 16. Naval Combat: Amphibious Assault. All hostile naval units that submerged or break-off do not prevent the land combat portion.
++++ yes and thats what it says. they have no further effect on the invasion.

Page 16. Defensive Air Support Mission. If combat is over before they arrive WHICH territory can then relocate to?
++++++ these DAS missions are performed in that same first turn. Thus combat would not be over. After they fly back to where they came from.

Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
+++++ actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.

Page 16. Escorts. Lots more work defining it.
++++ ok how should it read? we can get the same words out of AA Europe because its the same exact idea

Page 16. Ground Interdiction. What happens if enemy has air units remaining in the territory? What happens when the bomber is attacked in enemy’s turn? Ground interdiction was the way it was for various reasons. I wanted to expand air missions before but there is much work involving air units.
++++++it says they fly back home they cannot attack without land units in support.

Page 17. Strait Interdiction. No longer need value column in the table. 2 dice if you hold both territories right?  ++++ not really. Gibraltar does not require both sides. Why don’t we need ‘value’ column?

Page 17. The Strategic Redeployment might not be a good model. Maybe better to draw rail lines.
++++++ oh no. this is a really good idea to avoid marking up the map. I considered this with the map but it looked horrible. Remember bombers can reduce the SR capacity.

Page 18. “Built naval units are placed adjacent to either an Industrial Complex or a controlled Victory City.” What do you mean Victory City?++++ yes exactly

Page 19. Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Should list modifiers not specific numbers. All air units? All same value?  +++++ please explain not clear

Page 22. Neutral Military Deployment. Would be more realistic if 1939 had 1939 values? Did Spain and Turkey have such a large force in 1939?
++++++ its best if we keep them strong, because the axis didn’t really have the capacity to take out large neutrals and its consistent for memory on the set up. A few different pieces will not ADD to the game.

Page 23. Appendix. Carrier was attack 1 defence 1.