Does anyone happen to have any red xeno game pieces that they would like to sell?
AARHE 1939 map and rule files
-
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?
-
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.)well spain can only be invaded by two sides, but don’t think the same side would try it because in each case one of these SZ are in the influence of either Axis or Allies. I think the rule is simple and universal. what do you propose that is also a universal easy to use rule?
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.Italy needs to be mountainous because losing that factory end the war for them, and it forces the allies to attack southern Italy which is mountain free. They have to now decide that Italy will be a multy turn affair like it was in the war.
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.That pattern is a desert pattern for sand dunes. So what should Sahara become? Impassable with some exceptions or what?
Colours
Why is Russia no longer Redish brown? Now we have so many greyish colours.Its still brown and it looks better with the milton bradley russian pieces which is what Russia should be colored. Their is NOTHING reddish about real Russian uniforms. The national color is an earthy brown which is the soil of Russia. Those ugly revised russians show up better with this color. Only Germany and Italy are shades or grey. should i recolor Italy that grey green?
I 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.I will recolor Taiwan to Chinese control. The Himalaya are a huge mountain area. It cant be ‘slimmed’ down because its that large.
Iceland mountainous
It should do something. Unless its unlikely to be invaded. We added Iceland in the first place for…?People complained so i added it. I guess its also a base for planes ( DAS missions) using ASW to hunt subs passing thru the area.
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.USA does not get invaded unless:
-
the game is already over and the allies are just being stubborn ( crap and giggles approach to play)
-
the American player is really stupid and didn’t see a huge Japanese navy ready to invade the west coast
their is no reality to invading the Americas, but the American player needs to be able to cover easily both sides and their needs to remain less territories. Also, America is deliberately made small so whats the point of 3-4 more American territories???
Just take even one of the Soviet Territories and stick it in USA. Its like the same size. The whole point is the territories need to be roughly the same size unless it directly leads to some ‘must have’ historical or playability feature. Tell me what should be done and why.
-
-
Or should these modifiers be cumulative, i.e. +2 to defenders in Japan?
Modifiers are only possibly cumulative under the NA’s allowing for the normal combat modifier and possible a one time event making it a +2 or -2.
-
Well here we go again…
http://www.mediafire.com/?3a9ucbvcyw9
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=9bco2mv4ltj
also fixed Italian color, mountains for Iceland, Taiwan recolored ( like it mattered), Sahara reconfigured as well as North Africa. Also redid Switzerland (neutral color)
I really don’t see any problem with Himalayas. Its fine.
-
2 per SZ mountainous landing
I have no better rule yet.
But what do you think my suggestion to change the 2 per SZ limit from “ALL you can use” to “all you can use in the FIRST cycle”?Italy mountainous
We’ll look into modelling the reasons. (What was it?)
Hopefully we can remove this hack later.Sahara
Well that would be funny cos you gave the pattern to Himalayas too. I thought its was a pattern for impassible or something.
I am fine wth white for impassible.Anyway, you’ve reconfigured North Africa.
North Africa
So what is it going to be now?
You can go through Sahara Desert but pay money?
And I don’t fully understand the dotted line yet.Colours
Ok if its based on WWII uniform then lets stick to it.
See if any other forces need revising.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/all-forces.htmAfter than, we could see if neutral can use a different colour. Preferrably something distinct from powers just not a bright colour.
China
You are confusing between Hainan and Taiwan.
You’ve recoloured Hainan thats good. But fixing the China/FIC border would make it look not as awkward.Drawning Taiwan is just for detailing. Since similar size islands like Hainan, Sri Lanka and Falklands are drawn.
I guess whether Tibet should be moved south depends whether we like Tibet/Novosibirsk crossing.
Tibet IC is also a hack. Maybe China shouldn’t have an IC.
Pacific
You’ve yet to expand Pacific.
Its all very weird considering we’ll artifically inflatened the Bering Strait.North America
I think its not as bad as OOB. With AARHE dynamics and neutrality attacking US is unlikely but not impossible.
SZ 10 is huge and could be split. Wondering is Western US should still have access to SZ 54. -
2 per SZ mountainous landing
I have no better rule yet.
But what do you think my suggestion to change the 2 per SZ limit from “ALL you can use” to “all you can use in the FIRST cycle”?++++++So you land 2 infantry during the first cycle out of 14 land units and you lose 2 infantry… whats the difference? 12 new land units attack in the second round and clean up. The only time you should be able to land more than 2 is when you actually control the territory. I could think that 2 units per cycle for every cycle would be good…
North Africa
So what is it going to be now?
You can go through Sahara Desert but pay money?
And I don’t fully understand the dotted line yet.++++++ No only by use the the NA can you move thru, but if you do you still pay desert upkeep cost. otherwise you cannot move into. I suspect a rule allowing for ONE unit per turn ( not enough resources available to support large armies)
Colours
Ok if its based on WWII uniform then lets stick to it.
See if any other forces need revising.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/all-forces.htmAfter than, we could see if neutral can use a different colour. Preferrably something distinct from powers just not a bright colour.
+++++ i will look into it.
China
You are confusing between Hainan and Taiwan.
You’ve recoloured Hainan thats good. But fixing the China/FIC border would make it look not as awkward.Drawning Taiwan is just for detailing. Since similar size islands like Hainan, Sri Lanka and Falklands are drawn.
I guess whether Tibet should be moved south depends whether we like Tibet/Novosibirsk crossing.
Tibet IC is also a hack. Maybe China shouldn’t have an IC.
++++The idea is to allow some flexibility in Chinese purchases. Its boring if you can only build infantry
Pacific
You’ve yet to expand Pacific.
Its all very weird considering we’ll artifically inflatened the Bering Strait.+++++++ Expand?? how i stretched it 6 inches. more islands would make it like every sea zone has one… too many.
North America
I think its not as bad as OOB. With AARHE dynamics and neutrality attacking US is unlikely but not impossible.
SZ 10 is huge and could be split. Wondering is Western US should still have access to SZ 54.++++++++Splitting sea zones is much better than splitting up US
Suggested Topics
