AARHE Player's Set Up Aids - IL… Need Your Help

taamvan,

Excellent analysis on the differences between G40/G42 vs Oztea’s 41. I think in some ways, the 41 setup has “almost” fully realized the potential of the Global board. I like how it initially looks. It makes think of coming into a high level situation brief on in-progress ops. I imagine a table top board would seem very busy at first (I’ve only seen it on triplea, even there it’s cluttered). But like all axis and allies board games, they clean up real quick along the frontiers. Â

I did notice how this setup forces the Axis to stick to realistic solid objectives; but dangles out some “mirages” like Cairo.  I’m of the opposite opinion. I think I’d even evacuate the german tank and 1 infantry on turn 1. Rarely I see people really invest in Cairo and going for the middle east, but on the forums some people talk about it. I’m never good at that.

I don’t know which way the game leans axis or allies. I’ll have to play it out a few more times before I’ll have a definite opinion. Do you remember which sides won at your club? Regardless, it seems very balanced and the US could get real aggressive anywhere it wants immediately. The US does start out with an Army, but Germany has a sizeable European garrison for defense and a nice navy in the Baltic for reinforcing Finland. Russia starts with a destroyer/sub combo in the artic, so they have a chance to kill a german sub in sz 125 and can therefore almost be guaranteed to collect their 5 IPC bonus for a few turns. Also, over time, the allies gain a few more IPCs as the French territories get occupied by allies. Russia might be tempted to stack it’s much larger mobile army at Amur on round 2, but I think it better to move it to Europe.

@Black_Elk:

That’s a clean map Ryuzaki_Lawlie!

The color selection is ideal. Though the black impassibles still jump out at me

From a design standpoint the only things that catch my eye are the two round sea zones surrounding Japan and Hawaii.

It feel like you need one in the Atlantic to balance things out aesthetically. Have you considered the possibility of one surrounding the British Isles?

Or maybe Iceland? Or maybe both?

I still think Mercator is a bit tight in Europe, a little stretching there might be ideal, even if it was just along the vertical axis. I think the map would still read fine, but you’d get a few more pixel for units into those key European spots. Also if you were willing to shrink South America slightly you could almost curve off a 10th of the map height at the bottom of the screen (which is notorious for players forgetting units in the south sea hehe) without really needing to change Africa/Australia of the pacific. Basically a slight bend would go a long way, even if using Mercator for the baseline.

Oh and I think the possession colors for Dutch Borneo and British Sarawak and North Borneo should be reversed.

My only suggestions :)

Nice work man. That would be a fun map to form the basis of a 1939 game, or any year from 39 on.

I like that you have not yet imposed on the map any extraneous information such as IPC values or VC. This means the map is adaptive for many purposes. I like the general division of territories. Only that the projection is a bit large at the poles for my tastes. If we could shrink them up slightly I think the map would be ideal. Its really more about screen dimension for me when it comes to the Big World Map that Wandering Head made. These days most screens are very long relative to their height, so standard Mercator always seems blown out a bit in tripleA to me, especially at the south end, and of course Europe is always tight. I wish the center picker for tripleA was better at housing units to smaller scales. Its a little better than it used to be, especially with the guiding lines, but still Europe loves to clutter up haha.
:-D

Again though, great design direction!

I’ll probably shift the continents (turning their general direction), and stretch out northern Africa and Europe, will probably require North America to get a bit skinny, but I think the big benefit from this, is that potentially more European spaces can be added. This will allow me to add more to the Mediterranean however (and it really needs the space), perhaps round out where Rome is. Africa, I think needs a bit more work. South America possibly as well, but I sort of need an idea of which cities can be considered major not only there, but elsewhere. Vladivostok will defiantly get added in with it’s own space.

I picked black for impassables, since it tells me that there is nothing there, no play space, it’s simply temporary, and they are there for the designer’s benefit.

I’m not sure where else to put a rounded Sea Zone, I’m considering more though.

Ok then, I have created an example document I could use. Tell me if this is about the same as what you were suggesting.

Phase 5: Collection phase
In this phase, you earn production, railroad capacity, increase research, check national moral/unity, and add manpower.

IPCs: look up your power�s national production level (indicated by your control marker) on the National Production Chart. This is the amount of IPC income you have generated. Collect that number of IPCs from the bank by having the banker add it to the total number of IPCs in your powers treasury.

If your capital is under an enemy power�s control, you can�t collect income.

Convoys: any convoy that resides in the port of an original regional territory you control, you may remove it and collect 2 additional IPCs for every convoy removed in this manner.

Railroad capacity: check how much railroad capacity you currently have and your maximum railroad capacity. Now collect railroad capacity until you reach your maximum.

Increase research: add research to each field of research equal to the amount of research you currently have in that sector. Also check if you have completed any piece of research.

Check national moral/unity: check how many IPCs you have collected in this phase. Now check the amount of IPCs you started the game with. Now use a calculator and put in:

(Starting amount of IPCs) � (current national unity by percentage) =

If the final outcome is lower than the amount of IPCs you just collected, then your nation has officially surrendered and you must now follow standard surrendering rules. (P.?)

Adding man power: increase the man power of territories you own (not contested) and increase the man power their by the amount referenced in the man power chart.

also beware that this file doesnt understand the concept of original ownership.
If Germany captures Tobruk it should revert to Italian control, not become German.

Id really like to know if there is a way to fix this outside of edit mode.

Seems to me that some of the Japanese NAs are very powerful, like Yamato Class Battleships, Paper Planes and Banzai attacks. With this, Japan would be unstoppable, on the mainland and at sea. Even the extra 40 IPCs for the US wouldn’t be enough, and I would know since that’s how I play, and that’s how I’ve played from the beginning. Tone them down or replace them and/or give the Allies a bid (20-30 IPCs) and it’ll be more fair.

Nonetheless, I still love the ideas, even if I have seen them around the forums. I also love the ability to pick which ones you want to use.

Thanks for your imput.

I included the critical strike on grounded aircraft to give the attacker reason to get involved in a dogfight seeing how deffending aircraft hit @4. The critical strike is @1 and for the first round only, I believe attackers shouldn’t get a disadvantage for being agressive. Without the critical strike, players ask themselves why should I attack with my valuable aircraft and get all the odds against me.

I don’t enjoy changing the attack and defend capabilities of any units, I believe the game is difficult enough without trying to calculate all the different changes for any given senerio. for example: Fighters attack @3 except when escorting and except in dogfights and except on carriers and except….ect.ect.ect. (you get my point).

I am still tweeking the merchant convoy rules when transporting supply chips however, this is a major aspect of my rules and it must be handled with care to balance the game. On one hand, the allies have enough to do, what with keeping up with with the axis agression during the first 4 rounds and on the other hand it is too much of a factor to just ignore the importance of the merchant shipping lanes. For example: if I were the supreame commander for Germany during the war, I would never have shiffted towards bombing London or even think about opperation Sea Lion when they were so close to starving the little Island. Non the less the rule is still a work in progress… any Ideas?

I might think about a rule for the Gibralter however, I don’t want to limit the Italian fleet entering the Black Sea. That would only limit them to Africa and I want the Italian player to have options.

As for my Tech charts, I believe that if your going to have the kind of game ender like a nuke just for historic reasons, I would prefer to limit it to one Nation (U.S) and still leave it to chance of getting that advantage. As for Nations limited to thier own charts, I have found in my games that players really think hard about what Nation they wish to play at the begining of the game because they want to play with some charts but don’t want to be up against others. One aspect that I have found very important is giving each nation one free chance per turn to get a tech, this way techs are always a factor in the game while still rewarding others for buying extra chances.

I have a book where I have cut and pasted the Axis and Allies rules into a word document and have added my own rules to make everything more compleate to the newbies I play with. It took alot of work and I think it looks nice, I could e-mail you a copy if you like and that way you can edit it to your own house rules, the good thing is that most of the work is done for you. Just send me a personal message with your email address… I think you would like it.

I got to say that the introduction of the National Objectives concept, was a stroke of genius imho.
Now, the game, through the NO Bonus Incentives, push the players towards their historical aims.

Anyhow, as with any setup, I think that even with the NO setup, AA50 might go stale over time.
Also, not ALL historical strategies are being encouraged by the OOB NOs. What about the German Sub strat, for example? It is not shown in any NOs at least.

Therefore, I thought of the Variable NO concept. It runs like this :

We create a list of, say, 5-10 NO’s per Nation (not possible to create even THAT many for a nation like China, for example). Before the game starts, every nation rolls randomly to see what NO’s they get.

1 NO: China
2 NO’s each: Italy and Soviet Union
3 NO’s each: Germany, Japan, UK and US

I like the thought of China having their own NO/NOs, but of course, they could be incorporated into the US one.

What’s your thought? Or maybe you got some NO’s of your own?

Yep thats correct… but once Moscow is fallen its possible for western allies to move into Soviet territories because after all communism has fallen and Stalin is dead.

see its quite simple rule