@mr_stucifer Russia needs to be at war with Japan for Allied units to go into the Pacific side of Russian territories.
AARHE 1939 map and rule files
-
OK again in the pursuit of perfection i have this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bqjw3l3tmyk
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=5floyjbsysv
this includes the new set up sheets.
-
OK, I’ll find time to read through this properly before further comment.
But sorry, I still don’t understand which Chinese controlled territories are included in Hopei. As far as I can see ALL of this area (as defined on the map) was firmly under Japanese occupation.
Tibet IC is hard to buy; this must be about the least industrialised place on earth bar the polar ice caps.
Unless you have the famous book Heavy weapons production in Lhasa 1936-1945.
-
The latest player aids should be what we posted at house rules forum.
My harddisk has problems at the moment. If you wait a bit I can dig out stuff.Its probably a bit rushed to post the whole works of AARHE 1939 at BGG right now anyway.
_Standard map with setup icons neutral army and the works
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_standard_with_setup.pngBattleboards
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_battleboard_dogfight.png
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_battleboard_landcombat.png
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_battleboard_navalcombat.pngHit Allocation
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070420_AARHE_hit_allocation_aid.pngPlayer aids
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_player_Germany_Italy.jpg
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_player_Japan_UnitedKingdom.jpg
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_player_UnitedStates_USSR.jpgDevelop Weapons
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_technology.pngDiplomacy
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070811_AARHE_neutrals.pngVictory City
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070425_AARHE_victory_city_aid.png_ -
But sorry, I still don’t understand which Chinese controlled territories are included in Hopei.
yeah I mentioned it before but if there is time touch up the Chinese territory borders
like move Tibet south and shrunk himalayas -
I am still confused about sz 14 15 and the little sea in sz 16
can you attack Balkans from sz 14 ?
I think you should not
I think the little sea must disappear, and sz 15 cover all water east of Greece.
-
yeah I mentioned it before but if there is time touch up the Chinese territory borders
like move Tibet south and shrunk HimalayasThis was done. (I shrunk Himalayas). Also, Japan is limited to capturing only one territory in China per turn. So that saves the Chinese Territory IC for at least 3 turns. Otherwise they will be only able to build infantry as per normal rules. If the Factory was in Chunking it would fall on J2. Id just like to see a little more flexibility for the Chinese player. A factory is only in this case a center for accumulating equipment away from the combat zone. You cant have everything in a highly abstracted game to spec because then you involve all sorts of exceptions and it bogs down things. This is the best compromise.
Playtest it. It can always be changed but my placement is based on playing it out.
I am still confused about sz 14 15 and the little sea in sz 16
can you attack Balkans from sz 14 ?
Its clearly delineated where each zone is adjacent from. AS you will read in the rules invasions in mountains are possible, but at a limited rate of 2 land units from each SZ.
for example: Norway can be technically invaded by 3 SZ for a total of 6 land units, but note the cost of invasions is 1 IPC for each unit involved… so it would cost 6 IPC to even get to attack and this would take 6 turns to get back the ‘investment’ … thus the model is quite realistic and Norway will not be bothered.
Plus defending units get a +1 defense modifier, and defending artillery fire first.Its hidden brilliance IMO.
In France the invasion will be much more important ( being a huge battle rather then a million tiny invasions throughout the game)
-
My take on China is to scrap their factory and let them place infantry in any Chinese held Chinese territory (this can include the likes of Manchuria if liberated). As long as all the inland territories are mountainous this gives Japan a real headache as Chinese infantry can spring up anywhere, whereas if China can only produce at a factory it becomes a pretty obvious Japanese strategy to take it out.
This reflects reality in so far as occupying the whole of China just wasn’t economically worthwhile for Japan, as the natives would just retreat further into the interior and still be able to fight back, albeit only with infantry and Allied supplied equipment. -
Shouldn’t Eire be more towards the Axis side. To my knowledge Ireland hated the UK. To my knowledge they would have helped Germany in an operation sea lion battle.
Other than that, from what I have seen it looks pretty good to me.
-
My take on China is to scrap their factory and let them place infantry in any Chinese held Chinese territory (this can include the likes of Manchuria if liberated).
+++Please read the rules. This is already the case under AARHE. The factory allows building non- infantry units
As long as all the inland territories are mountainous this gives Japan a real headache as Chinese infantry can spring up anywhere, whereas if China can only produce at a factory it becomes a pretty obvious Japanese strategy to take it out.
+++Both sides are limited to taking one territory per turn ( population control issues)
This reflects reality in so far as occupying the whole of China just wasn’t economically worthwhile for Japan, as the natives would just retreat further into the interior and still be able to fight back, albeit only with infantry and Allied supplied equipment.
+++ uk can send 3 IPC of aid as long as certain territories are under Chinese /uk control… via burma road.
-
forgot to mention: added Crete island and Peru mountains.
-
@Imperious:
Its hidden brilliance IMO.
IMO now that there is a cost associated with amphibious mountainous invasion we should scrap the 2 land units per SZ.
Because the first models the situation whereas the latter is an arbitrary limit.@Imperious:
+++Both sides are limited to taking one territory per turn ( population control issues)
Not sure about a limit to how many Chinese territories can be liberated per turn.
I feel the limit can be applied to Axis, USSR and UK but not US (unless Chinese forces separately represented from US).If possible I would prefer we not use the W@W style (a long string of situational rules).
-
2007-10-02 PNG version
http://www.mediafire.com/?d32ci3ckcikstill have to sort out the desert terrain
*if Sahara is impassible then word it and colour it like Himalayas
*are we doing anything to the desert upkeep rule? cos Inner Mongolia is desert -
still have to sort out the desert terrain
*if Sahara is impassible then word it and colour it like Himalayas
*are we doing anything to the desert upkeep rule? cos Inner Mongolia is desertIt is (has the same pattern) as Himalayas.
Up keep rule applies to Mongolia, except the neutral does not pay up keep.
what changes then do you want?
-
IMO now that there is a cost associated with amphibious mountainous invasion we should scrap the 2 land units per SZ.
Because the first models the situation whereas the latter is an arbitrary limit.The cost addresses a real sizable cost for undertaking these operations
and the second case is reflective of the limitations imposed by terrain.
also in clear areas this 2 Units thing is not a requirement.
I don’t see the issue. This is only about limitations on invading mountain territories of 2 units per adjacent sea zone. Norway can still be invaded by 6 land units…. once you own it you can land a lot more if you wanted.
The 2 unit rule only applies to invasions of hostile territory with mountains.
-
Shouldn’t Eire be more towards the Axis side. To my knowledge Ireland hated the UK. To my knowledge they would have helped Germany in an operation sea lion battle.
Other than that, from what I have seen it looks pretty good to me.
This is an American view, which always likes to portray the British and Irish at each other’s throats. A large number of Irishmen volunteered for the UK forces, as they had done in WWI. Attempts to create an “Irish Legion” of the S.S. came to nothing for lack of volunteers. The IRA blew up a few housewives, but that’s all.
The anti-British impression is gained from the Irish leader de Valera who refused the Allies use of Irish ports even when Churchill offered to create a united Ireland, and he famously visited the German embassy to sign a book of condolence for the death of Adolf Hitler.
-
Fixed a made more clear when ideas apply to 1939 or when they apply to 1942
The map has Crete and Peru mountains.Rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/?3bvbsmgvyxf
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=iybffxz34gy
Map:
-
*Problem with 2 per SZ is that Axis and Allies map isn’t drawn prefectly for that
Norway has 4 SZs. SZ 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Spain only has 2 SZs. 12 and 13.
(India only has 1 SZ. Though it is not mountainous.)Secondly, we give Mountainous to territories based on overall terrain on the area. Not coastline.
*Vichy France looks mountainous to me.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/europe_physical_map.jpg*Sahara, put in “(Impassble)” just like Himalayas…or get rid of it in Himalayas
*Switzerland, why is it white? no other neutral country is white…but I think white is better for neutral (we already have UK and Russia as grey/tan)
*Himalaya/Tibet, is border tuning up still on the table? seems you haven’t moved it south yet
*Iceland is probably mountainous
*Just realise we forgot to add US and Canada territories. Would be more consistent. Probably 2 more Canada and 3 more US. Then the north part of Canada would be Snowy.
-
*Problem with 2 per SZ is that Axis and Allies map isn’t drawn prefectly for that
Norway has 4 SZs. SZ 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Spain only has 2 SZs. 12 and 13.
(India only has 1 SZ. Though it is not mountainous.)+++++ Yes in the case of Norway you even notice that the allies landed on many points on this nation, in part because of its limited capacity to receive large groups of men and material. Spain was only considered by Hitler for invasion ( Isabella) and no sea invasion was contemplated due also to tides and terrain.
*Vichy France looks mountainous to me.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/europe_physical_map.jpg+++++ the Allies didn’t have any trouble landing and if mountains were prominent then they would not make much progress. The most mountains are on the Franco- Italian border and buttressing the Swiss border both are which are not much of a factor. Their is a ridge of high mountains that separate the Vichy territory roughly in half, but both sides present large corridors that run north south which is the direction of travel.
*Sahara, put in “(Impassable)” just like Himalayas…or get rid of it in Himalayas
+++++ you told be to get rid of that… ill put it back in
*Switzerland, why is it white? no other neutral country is white…but I think white is better for neutral (we already have UK and Russia as grey/tan)
+++++ I will recolor it. White is not a good color for a map…too plain. The light beige is something better.
White should be the “cannot enter” zones because black is ugly for maps.*Himalaya/Tibet, is border tuning up still on the table? seems you haven’t moved it south yet
++++++ move south? I reduced it as was asked. Now India looks larger considering i added Iran/Iraq
“is border tuning up still on the table?”---- what does this mean?*Iceland is probably mountainous
+++++ considered but thought the font would have to be really small… the question was “Is it really important to do this… does it add to the game?” I could add it. sure.
*Just realise we forgot to add US and Canada territories. Would be more consistent. Probably 2 more Canada and 3 more US. Then the north part of Canada would be Snowy.
+++++ HUH??? hell no… USA is perfect. Canada ( eastern) could be separated, but id like to keep the shuck shuck in play for the allies. If too many territories it slows them down. Also, American railway system was second to none and less territories allows (modeling) of quicker movement. Another reason why the Soviets stayed more or less the same… due to her eastern territories tied together by the Trans-Siberian railway. The bottom line is to make new territories IF THEY ADD TO BETTER PLAY… this was the idea behind revised from the Milton Bradley edition. They made changes only to improve the playability of the map and NOT just to add willy nilly this and that for only realisms sake.
A historical edition MUST still remain very playable… we cant just keep ADDING if it does not actually ADD to the game.
-
2 per SZ mountainous landing
Are you saying with all that coastline its still twice hard to hard in Spain then Norway?
Maybe the limit shouldn’t be per SZ.And I reckon the limit should not be ALL you can use. But rather all you can use in FIRST cycle.
If you survive first cycle you’ve secured the coast.
(Similar to exisiting amphibious assault requirement of suriving first cycle with infantry only.)Vichy France
Actually instead of a ridge of high mountains that separate the Vichy territory roughly in half, but both sides present large corridors that run north south which is the direction of travel looks more like corridor in the middle to me.With your reasoning I could see why Bulguria is mountainous but not Romania even though Romania is more mountainous.
But if we use that method then Argentina and Italy whouldn’t be mountainous.We need to have a system.
Sahara
I think when I ask to remove “Impassible” back then I meant it is desert not impassible. But now Sahara is actually impassible.White for impassible
Yeah I think thats at least better than the funny pattern.Colours
Why is Russia no longer Redish brown? Now we have so many greyish colours.China
Oh. You already tuned it? I can’t really tell. Looks the same compared to mid september version.
our map
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1545/chinaic8.png
real map
http://www.mythinglinks.org/ChinaSatelliteMap~NatGeo~chinam.jpgI am thinking Himalaya could be flattened. Then Tibet move a bit south. Kwangtung/FIC border also looks weird with Hainan belonging to FIC.
Could draw (not new territory) Taiwan in for Kwangtung.Iceland mountainous
It should do something. Unless its unlikely to be invaded. We added Iceland in the first place for…?New North American territories
Better play is subjective.
Easier to land in US is better play right?
And for consistency the answer is obivous.
I think it should add to the game. -
My map as terrain:
http://elbowmaster.com/web1/flashman/1942/CompleteJune1942_Terrain.jpg
I made S. France and Balkans mountain, but could be either. Depends on the general scheme of the map.
Are Tibet and Mongolia mountains or desert? Or both?
I didn’t think much about terrain for islands as I have in mind the same rule i.e. +1 to defenders in mountains OR against amphibious assault, so island terrain makes no difference. Or should these modifiers be cumulative, i.e. +2 to defenders in Japan?
Suggested Topics
