AARHE: Map files

[Imperious Leader]

ok great!

[tekkyy]

updated with latest AARHE terrains

2008-02-06 pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/?exmzoomwfnl

[Imperious Leader]

I should have this done ( the one with the IPC icons by tomorrow)

I am working on a waterloo game and it takes up my time.

[tekkyy]

which map? if are you talking about the 1939 map my should talk about it in the 1939 thread
my intention was to separate them since AARHE sort of more house rule and AARHE 1939 is sort of more variant

[Imperious Leader]

No the map with the icons fixed so it has the new layout. i guess thats would be 1939, but perhaps i need to fix the phase 1-2 maps as well? Can you do this? This is really getting on me as i have alot of work to finish.

Waterloo
Leipzig
Sturm Europa ( see BGG)
War for Independence

[tekkyy]

yeah I’ll do the standard map
the 1942 Italy map I plan to remake later

yes you deal with the 1939 map
(remember to use the new layered file)

[Imperious Leader]

Ok thanks. post when ready.

[tekkyy]

ok I’ve added the new VC icons to the standard map

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/20080303_AARHE_standard_with_setup.pdf
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/20080303_AARHE_standard_with_setup_100dpi.png
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/20080303_AARHE_standard_with_setup_300dpi.png

latest maps in this folder

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/maps/

[Black Fox]

Gents

I came across this web site http://www.history-on-cdrom.com/  It has a lot of useful information.  There are a lot of silhouettes and drawing that can be used for maps and charts.  Unfortunately, they’re not free.  However, it’s still worth a look.

[Imperious Leader]

Thats interesting stuff, but i cant rip the images because these are scanned pages so i get the whole page rather than the one tank. They have military fonts for download already. they are free.

[Bierwagen]

VICTORY CITY CHART doesn’t have marker spots on it for:

- Hongkong
  - Astrakhan

Is this intentional?

http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/player_aids/20070425_AARHE_victory_city.png

• Bierwagen

[Bierwagen]

I printed out and was constructing a new map and I notice the VC’s with 0 value in them (e.g., Dakar, Tobruk, Honolulu).

Is their purpose just to represent 1 free ID?

You can’t build infantry there, and you can’t use them for victory conditions so I thought I’d ask.

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

VICTORY CITY CHART doesn’t have marker spots on it for:

- Hongkong
  - Astrakhan

Is this intentional?

these are in the rules. Ill check and update the player aid.

I printed out and was constructing a new map and I notice the VC’s with 0 value in them (e.g., Dakar, Tobruk, Honolulu).

Is their purpose just to represent 1 free ID?

You can’t build infantry there, and you can’t use them for victory conditions so I thought I’d ask.

[tekkyy]

Astrakhan replaces the older VC at Kazakh, it was Almaty I think

Hongkong replaces Shanghai (this came about from the 1939 map…Shanghai fell already in 1939)

but Hong Kong is not as resourceful as Shanghai and the battle of Hong Kong was relatively minor compared to battle of Shanghai

so on my todo list I actually want to put it back to Shanghai for the standard 1942 map

another thing is that the national player aids do not show the newer simpler combat sequence

yeah thats right you can’t deploy infantry at 0-value VCs
but besides the implicit ID unit, you also get to repair your damaged battleship/cruiser there

[Bierwagen]

Ah yes, the repairing of BB, CA, and CVs at the 0 point VC – good call thanks.  I keep forgetting about that requirement.  Lots of new if/then clauses to remember.

Thanks on the SS clarification.  We’re a little slow down here where the information superhighway meets the gravel road.  So, the interpretation that was being promoted was 1 more SS than any AWS capability (e.g., 1 sub vs. a fleet with no Cruiser or Destroyer gets the +1 bonus).  This seemed a bit over powered.  So, I was looking to tighten it up so there wasn’t any wiggle room for argument.

I hate submarines now!  But, that is how it should be.

-Bierwagen

[Bierwagen]

Thanks for the insight on the name changes – Since I already printed it out as a magnet chart, I’ll just stencil it in.  Thought I was missing something critical when I couldn’t make the VCP chart mesh up with the board.

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

Ah yes, the repairing of BB, CA, and CVs at the 0 point VC – good call thanks.  I keep forgetting about that requirement.  Lots of new if/then clauses to remember.

Thanks on the SS clarification.  We’re a little slow down here where the information superhighway meets the gravel road.  So, the interpretation that was being promoted was 1 more SS than any ASW capability (e.g., 1 sub vs. a fleet with no Cruiser or Destroyer gets the +1 bonus).  This seemed a bit over powered.  So, I was looking to tighten it up so there wasn’t any wiggle room for argument.

I hate submarines now!  But, that is how it should be.

look up both of the  “Happy time” for the U-boats, and the effects on American subs to Japanese merchant shipping. W/o ASW technology, radar, sonar, naval sonar… the allies have major troubles to cope with. However, Japan also has some issues because of its island economy.

But remember subs cant hit air units and subs are not brought in as the same combat with naval surface units. Sub interactions are seperate.

[Bierwagen]

Afternoon!

Back with another fist full of questions for both LITE & AARHE 4.0.  For starters a few map clarifications:

• There appears to be an intentional amphibious assault landing into Western Europe out of SZ 13.  Is this correct?

• Can the allies enter the Northeastern portion of SZ 5 (e.g., the part in front of the canal) in order to invade Germany?

• We were curious what the intent behind the canal in Denmark is

• Can a fleet in SZ 34 repair in Cairo, or is it cut off by the canal?

• Do the VCs turn the whole country into a dock or just a specific SZ? (e.g., does Rio de Janeiro support SZs 22 & 18 or just SZ 22)

Thanks,
Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

There appears to be an intentional amphibious assault landing into Western Europe out of SZ 13.  Is this correct?

• Can the allies enter the Northeastern portion of SZ 5 (e.g., the part in front of the canal) in order to invade Germany?

• We were curious what the intent behind the canal in Denmark is

• Can a fleet in SZ 34 repair in Cairo, or is it cut off by the canal?

• Do the VCs turn the whole country into a dock or just a specific SZ? (e.g., does Rio de Janeiro support SZs 22 & 18 or just SZ 22)

1. No they must control western Europe and Norway first.
2. The Germans had mined the danish straights with both sub net and sea mines. their is no way in hell of any allied ships getting into the Baltic or any Soviet units getting out once placed there. The allies to even have a chance to get in would have to control the coast and send teams of men to clear the mines. Also Germany had guns to fire at passing enemy ships. In game terms the idea that Germany has to build a navy for the sole purpose of protecting Berlin from capture is an abomination and fantasy. Nothing even remotely like an allied invasion of the coast of the Baltic was possible due to weather, underwater currents,and many other issues. Now in game terms if Germany wants a navy its for the purpose of actually using it to sink ships and not building CV to protect Berlin et al.
3. No it must be in SZ 15 to repair.
4. The sea zone adjacent to the city is where the dock can only be made

keep up with more questions!

[tekkyy]

more info

SZ13 vs. Western Europe
SZ13 is not intended to be adjacent to Western Europe
similarly Karelia is not intended to be adjacent to SZ3
in this aspect AARHE is just as bad as the Revised map (borders not sharp enough)

SZ5
SZ5 and SZ12 are considered one sea zone
the canal/waterway icon are between the corresponding
so if you go from SZ6 to SZ5 you must engage enemy in SZ5
if you go from SZ12 to SZ13 you must engage enemy in SZ13

the situation at SZ5 is a little complicated and wasn’t draw clearly
we don’t want the revised-style SUPER SZ5 that was adjacent to 5 territories and 1 neutral
the Denmark situation
maybe there is better way to draw it that I overlooked

Canal in Denmark
the idea is that Denmark should be put in territory Germany rather than territory Western Europe,
the Denmark waterway is like Gibraltar, except with its promixty to Germany homeland it was a different kettle of fish

**repair at VC
interesting question, I didn’t think of that
I guess we don’t want inland VCs like Tehran or Toronto to repair ships
then again did Russia not have naval facilities at Black Sea?

it must be clarified (repair at sea zone adjacent to VC/IC…what is adjacent?) or people could consider ICs are built at VCs hence the same treatment as the example given at Cairo

dock at VC
does that mean we can’t dock at Turkey or Spain?**