Posts made by oldsalty

3@2 4@3
:dice 3d6 4d6

aaa 3@2 5@3

I think IL was thinking about purchasing Development rolls.  There is nothing in the 1939 rules regarding any diplomacy varience.  I also checked the 02-09-08 release date of version 4.0 (long version) and nothing was there.  Unless this was discussed and decided in another topic string.

I agree IL, as it evens out the playing field and makes the game as realistic as playable.  Our group dicided early on that each individual Axis or Allied nation whould only benefit from their own diplomatic rolls.

Each nation has its sphere of influence.  Germany/Italy can influence neutrals in Europe and Africa.  Japan can only influence Asian nations.  USSR can only influence nations adjacent to her territories UK can influence any neutral adjacent to her colonies.  USA can influence N and S America.  Exceptions: If you have what they call a “dog in the fight”  say Americans somehow invaded and control Saudi Arabia… they can begin to influence adjacent neutrals.

To me, this is a new interpretation.  (Correct me if I’m wrong.)  Not a bad one as it serves the historical side but is it also playable?  I think it is and plan on incorperating it into play for our group.

However, if you are going to limit nations diplomacy to only specific territories, you have got to put that in writing.

PS  Will someone please tell me have to enter a quote in a box :?

IL.  Awesome set up.  I need to ask three questions re: your map pics:

1.  Where did you get the “buttons” your pieces are glued to?  I can’t find anything thats close.  I even thought about painting pennies or nickels (US 1 cent or 5 cent pieces) to glue my pieces on. Would be cheaper than buying anything i’ve seen.

2.  Where did you get your pieces from.  And what size are they?  They look like 1/72 or 15 mm.  Having trouble finding good quality but inexpensive artillery, tanks, planes and ships.

3.  What size did you blow your map to?

Bierwagan, have you seen the 1939 map IL has created?  Not sure if anyone else was involved in that project or not as it has several obvious changes from AARHE’s 1941-42 map.

Our group actually likes the 1939 map better as many of the territories have been divided up to reflect the time and added play.  To our group, it offers  much greater strategic play options as several countries now have to occupy the territories given to them in the 1942 version.  We just started using it and first look we thought it may be somewhat allied sided.  This promted the discussion above re: oil reserves.  Plus, Japan, Germany and Italy start at a much lower IPC total than US, UK, France and China.

However, US doesn’t enter the war until turn 5 unless attacked.  There are other restrictions limiting the initial starting IPCs for the allies.  If you haven’t seen the links to the map and 1939 suppliment rules to AARHE Rules version 4.0 go here:

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/  This is IL’s link

Actually what our group is doing to our navy planes and Carriers is putting a very small strip of magnetic tape you can buy in a roll and cut to size.  One side is adhesive but we add glue to avoid any edge curling.  It doesn’t take much - especially a washer type magnet - because all you are doing is keeping the plane from falling off.

We put a small strip down the belly of the plane.  And we put a small patch on the top of the carrier.  Its totally hidden when the planes are on it.  Saves the work and trouble of drilling and iserting mag wire or metal down the centers.

Just goes to show you IL…the more things change (70+ years) the more things stay the same.

Anyway, I like the proposed ruling alot so let me see if I have it straight.  1939.  UK gets its oil from Iraq.  UK is able to protect its oil reserve by military force if necessary.  They can occupy Iraq if political diplomacy goes to the axis at a -3, where I assume UK’s oil flow would stop.  If occupied by Axis or Russia, UK can liberate Iraq which would automatically make it a +5 ally.  I think our group may include Iran as an oil producer as well as that will give UK a fighting chance and Germany/Italy/and Russia something to consider strategically.

We will let you know how this plays out.  Many thanks.

adding an oil resource to Iran or Iraq for UK on the 1939 map may pose a conflict with existing rules.  Both have oil wells on them already.  Unless you are going to change them from neutral to UK territory UK can not be the aggressor and take them by force (per your rules stating the US and UK  are non-aggressive.  If you are going to give UK control at the start, I suggest Iraq which borders Trans-Jorden which is already UK controlled.

Bierwagan:

How would you have played your example if it were a bomber instead of a ftr?

Thanks IL.  Your comments make sense.  I will pass on adding another oil field to the mid east and trying to have UK occupy plus protect it.  I agree, they will have their hands full with Germany and Japan.  We need to get some games under us before we start looking at adding variences to the game.

Rolling 10d6:
(1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6)

Thanks IL.  I figured out the answer as soon as I posted it.  I guess my fingers are typing faster than my brain is working.  I actually think its making sense now.

I don’t see a 1 to 1 comparison between Japan’s reliance on Borneo’s oil which needs to be occupied by turn 7 and possibly captured by the US or Germany’s/Italy’s reliance on Romania (assuming they can’t get to the mid east oil in time) which can be taken by the Soviets - both of which would have significant impact on unit cost and mobility and UK’s exemption from ever losing their oil because they may lose a few IPC from German U-Boats.

Seems somewhat one sided.  Am I missing something?  Am I using too much logic over historical reality?

Not being agrumentative.  Just trying to fully understand the fine points of the game.

Having a new group to this game, we find the map and rules exactly what we are looking for with our style of play.  Good work group.

However, the air combat section is making for some exciting agruements with us.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on May 03, 2008, 11:06:28 pm
but at standard combat values, not aerial, so it would be at a 4 rather than one.

from tekky: But the excess air hit rule still holds. So its at 1.
Btw aerial combat value for defending fighter is not 1 neither.

Based on the above, if its some what debateable between the developers, have mercy on us poor folks.  If the above example is a ftr defends on 1, when during a land or air combat does it defend on a 4?

“Damn the debates, full speed ahead”  it still is the best version out there!

IL:

and now Japan… Japan started the war to keep oil flowing since USA cut it off. I guess we need to add something for them like “Japan must capture one oil center by turn 7 or face effects of oil shortage”  I would place this turn by the turn after which USA is activated under 1939 rules in the event Japan does not attack. That buys Japan only one turn to avoid the USA and or avoid taking oil. As you know if USA is not attacked by Japan on turn 6, they can start war on turn 7.

Is this “Official”?  Reason is this generated a lot of good discussion by our newly formed group who are about to play our frst 1939 version game and are just debating a few of the rules.  This appears to be realistic to the actual events and will force Japan (AND PROVIDE A FAIR CHANCE) to occupy and fortify not only Borneo and the Indies (for the oil) but also the Philippines (to protect US attacks against the islands and also Japan.  It also appears that the US would concentrate here as any disruption to the oil will cause Japan to slowly bleed out given they lose movement and unit cost on turn 3.  It is unlikely? that Japan would be able to occupy oil centers in Kazakh S.S.R. or middle east before before US occupation (depending on how aggressive the US player is).

OK Raz, here you go.  I found the Neutral Set Up card as well.  Download it below.  I think I remember DH saying it might need a little work though.

Neutral
http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=c0yctsctgnk&thumb=4

Any thoughts to a 1939 version?  Once I learn how to use AI CS2 I will start on my own version.

Death:

Is there a 1939 version of this map and player aides?

Bierwagen:

Thanks for clearing up the concept.  Makes a lot of sense which is why I like this version of AA.

Which begs the same question then about bombers.  The focus on bombers in the manual is mainly SBR and GI which again makes total sense.  But I don’t find any concepts about fire against ground troops with air superiority.  My logic, limited as it may be, tells me that most of the actual missions were for SBR and GI but I have to assume bombers played a limited active role against ground units.  What is the actual or proposed ruling?

Here is the Soviet card link.  Small price for the downloads and work you did.  Do you have a 1939 version?  Tried downloading your 1942 file into AICS2 but could not get it to work.  First time using AI so I need to spend some time on the learning curve.

Kudos for your comments on the convoys.  I was trying to apply the box to AAP rules.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=xbzejmzhjgm&thumb=4