Oh. I won’t edit the file then.
Can’t both edit the file.
You edit and give changelog.
Page 1. “AARHE 1.3”
If you have the Illustrator files that were used with the same backround as the current 1.3 rules format ( e.g the watermark) then those are the ones i need. I don’t need those old ones for the earlier versions.
Oh. Exactly what files are these?
Have I even seen them?
Page 5. Variable IC costs
If you want to disallow IC in territory without VC seems reasonable.
Just double check cos the new map has more territories. Not saying anything wrong with FIC but eg. FIC is now broken up into 3 territories and majority of its income (2 of 3) is in a territory without a VC.
Page 6. Variable infantry costs
I sort of understand what your saying. your groupings dont make sence to me:
You wanted Germany and Russia to have cheap infantry, and cheaper foreign infantry.
–-> group Germany+Russia together
Old system models democractic nations, increased infantry costs with further units.
—> group US+UK together
Germany+Russia
Japan+Italy
US+UK
I think the fewer Infantry at 2 ipc the better. It should not be offered to others because thats why we have NA’s .
Right. Only Germany and USSR. Others don’t get 2 IPC infantry. Japan has NA for fanatism.
Ok. One step at a time.
You’ve mentioned is Germany and USSR raises foreign troops.
So connected VC discount.
Germany+Russia $2 @ Capital; $3 @ Connected VC; $4 @ Other VC
Japan+Italy $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
US+UK $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
Looks very simple. My “democracy” concern not yet added.
Any other concerns?
yes the cap is not related to VC number. its too complicated. Its only limited by IPC value which is like the old system. Factories allow builds of non- infantry, and VC allow builds of Infantry, sometimes both of these are in the same territory and sometimes they are not.
“1 VCP per infantry” model population.
IPC values varies great and can’t really be used to cap infantry (if you remove it you’ll introducing other limits like you did anyway.) in LHTR Germany often build 10 INF at Germany. In AARHE we do not.
Don’t remove them because of 1939 map.
You’ll fix 1939 but make 1942 unrealistic.
Individual rules shall be realistic, else it’ll come back and bite us.
(Doesn’t matter if 1939 don’t end up like 1942 most of the time.
If Axis was lucky historically then let it be.
What is the point of 1939 map? Give it another victory condition if you want.)
Page 8. Conquest
ok then what is the new wording. type it and ill cut/copy/ paste it
If you got all that I said…
new wording would simply be you lose your capital you lsoe 50% income next turn. No mention about IC.
Page 17. Land reinforcement
Your other concern of cheating the system was actually a good thing
As I mentioned cross continent trips are no longer ridiculously long like 6 turns.
As long as you combatted you can’t move. So not so much “cheating”.
Page 18. Ground interdiction
The SBR thing is not alot of bank for the buck roll one die after surviving ID rolls and fighter escorts only to watch your 15 ipc bomber get shot down…
Oh I see.
Just clean it a bit so you don’t repeat all that about ID rolls and escorts in both SBR and GI.
Under GI heading, simply say you get to roll for GI after SBR rolls.
Other things are like you could make it ID can prevent SBR roll. But escort dogfight can’t. But escort dogfight can prevent GI roll.
no under my new system the last part is deleated. it does not do this. NCM is uneffected
Oh no I don’t mean GI stops NCM. I mean GI stops land reinforcement.
Page 5. Variable IC costs
If you want to disallow IC in territory without VC seems reasonable.
Just double check cos the new map has more territories. Not saying anything wrong with FIC but eg. FIC is now broken up into 3 territories and majority of its income (2 of 3) is in a territory without a VC.
=====you can build a IC in any territory but it costs 15 IPC. Nothing has changed on that.
Page 6. Variable infantry costs
Quote
I sort of understand what your saying. your groupings dont make sence to me:
You wanted Germany and Russia to have cheap infantry, and cheaper foreign infantry.
–-> group Germany+Russia together
Old system models democratic nations, increased infantry costs with further units.
—> group US+UK together
Germany+Russia
Japan+Italy
US+UK
======= this makes some sence but what DIFFERENCE is the 3 groups going to have? what is cost in each catagory?
Quote
I think the fewer Infantry at 2 ipc the better. It should not be offered to others because thats why we have NA’s .
Right. Only Germany and USSR. Others don’t get 2 IPC infantry. Japan has NA for fanatism.
Ok. One step at a time.
You’ve mentioned is Germany and USSR raises foreign troops.
So connected VC discount.
Germany+Russia $2 @ Capital; $3 @ Connected VC; $4 @ Other VC
Japan+Italy $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
US+UK $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
=====the last two categories have the same values. why group them if they are the same?
Looks very simple. My “democracy” concern not yet added.
========== please post it here using cut copy past from original document before and after.
Quote
yes the cap is not related to VC number. its too complicated. Its only limited by IPC value which is like the old system. Factories allow builds of non- infantry, and VC allow builds of Infantry, sometimes both of these are in the same territory and sometimes they are not.
“1 VCP per infantry” model population.
IPC values varies great and can’t really be used to cap infantry (if you remove it you’ll introducing other limits like you did anyway.) in LHTR Germany often build 10 INF at Germany. In AARHE we do not.
Don’t remove them because of 1939 map.
You’ll fix 1939 but make 1942 unrealistic.
Individual rules shall be realistic, else it’ll come back and bite us.
=============== this is a good point what do you propose. post it exactly as it should be written.
Page 8. Conquest
Quote
ok then what is the new wording. type it and ill cut/copy/ paste it
If you got all that I said…
new wording would simply be you lose your capital you lsoe 50% income next turn. No mention about IC.
============== ok i will leave it like that. fine
Page 17. Land reinforcement
Your other concern of cheating the system was actually a good thing
As I mentioned cross continent trips are no longer ridiculously long like 6 turns.
As long as you combatted you can’t move. So not so much “cheating”.
========= does this mean you still support ‘reinforcement’?
Page 18. Ground interdiction
Quote
The SBR thing is not alot of bank for the buck roll one die after surviving ID rolls and fighter escorts only to watch your 15 ipc bomber get shot down…
Oh I see.
Just clean it a bit so you don’t repeat all that about ID rolls and escorts in both SBR and GI.
Under GI heading, simply say you get to roll for GI after SBR rolls.
Other things are like you could make it ID can prevent SBR roll. But escort dogfight can’t. But escort dogfight can prevent GI roll.
=============== i can make it more clear. sometimes it good to repeat a rule because it may apply in more than one instance
Quote
no under my new system the last part is deleated. it does not do this. NCM is uneffected
Oh no I don’t mean GI stops NCM. I mean GI stops land reinforcement.
GI does not stop any NCM that movement is normal movement and not rail etc. GI is meant to stop the more ‘strategic movement abilities’ hence rail lines, ship transport, etc.
You have a copy of the rules lets try a new system of covering these things:
you list the problems and post them right here example:
Variable Infantry Costs
Regular Infantry units are constructed at victory cities. Airborne Infantry are constructed in your home capital. Other units are constructed at your Industrial Complex.
Germany and USSR Infantry*
Your Capital Victory City…… 2
Connected Victory City to Capital*… 3
Unconnected Victory City… 4
Japan, United States, United Kingdom and Italy Infantry**
Your Capital Victory City… 2
Victory City, 1st built… 3
Victory City, 2+… 4
Unconnected Victory City… 4
*connected to Capital via contiguous land territories controlled by you or friendly nations.
Capital Infantry costs at 2 IPC are limited to 8 total infantry.
** Capital Infantry costs at 2 IPC are limited to 4 total infantry.
Conquest
When you lose your capital you lose 50% of your income for the next turn, while the enemy only receives the territories value in return. You may still fight on in the hopes of eventually capturing your capital or having your partners do it for you. You may still build as long as you have at least one factory under your control. You cannot build a factory if you do not have at least one under your control. Neutrals are conquered when their home territory is enemy occupied. Neutral forces cannot leave their home territory.
are these ok? post and edit how they should read according to your view.
all other topics are to be handled in a similar fashion. This process needs more structure as you have pointed out.
when we agree I just copy and paste in the new original. Good?
Also, i feel i need to place the VC city values on the map and second make a list and new set ups for 1942 scenario so this map can be used for either. I then need a new list of who controls what starting in 1939 and any possible changes. I leave this up to you to work on. I would use the older setups as a guide for 1942, but the new territories may prove some changes on setup. Also, you will need to add the new units into the set up.
Perhaps you can take that old file with the icons a post your proposal before a proper set up sheet is made. I can even make the actual setups and edit OVER the 1.3 files since i lost the original files.
Starting Victory Cities (1942 Scenario):
GERMANY (18)
Berlin (6)
Rome (5)
Paris (2)
Warsaw (2)
Bucharest (2)
Kiev (1)
ITALY (7)
Rome (5)
Bucharest (2)
JAPAN (15)
Tokyo (6)
Hsinking (2)
Singapore (2)
Kuching (2)
Hong Kong (1)
Batavia (1)
Manila (1)
SOVIET UNION (18)
Moscow (6)
Stalingrad (4)
Leningrad (3)
Novosibirsk (2)
Archangel (1)
Almaty (1)
Vladivostok (1)
UNITED KINGDOM (12)
London (5)
Toronto (2)
Cairo (1)
Calcutta (1)
Sydney (1)
Tehran (1)
Cape Town (1)
UNITED STATES (14)
Washington (5)
Los Angeles (4)
Chicago (2)
Chungking (1)
Ürümqi (1)
Rio de Janeiro (1)
NEUTRAL (4)
Madrid (2)
Ankara (2)
The 1939 Axis can’t raise as much troops problem
I don’t have exact solution yet.
Axis at 1939 has to overcome odds.
We might give Axis the “double attack” opening that some house rules did.
We might have different victory conditions for the 1939 map.
I require your knowledge of the 1939 situation.
Victory condition is quite important. Other variants like AARe deal it via bid system. AARHE has more options. 1 of 3 available game mode is bid system The other two isn’t.
Page 17. Land reinforcement
Yes I still want reinforcement.
Was just posting because you mentioned fine but has concern about “cheating”.
My strong feelings towards reinforcement stems from defender retreat. Defender retreat is important. Now, in turns we need this “reinforcement” rule. If troops under attack can retreat in passive turn, idling troops can relocate in passive turn.
This would be the text.
Special Combat: Reinforcements
During your enemies' turn your land and naval units may relocate (move) to adjacent friendly territories or adjacent friendly sea zones. Reinforcements are declared after all combats are declared and before resolving any combats. These units fight from 2nd cycle of combat. If combat is over and lost before they arrived they must retreat back to original space. Land and naval units under attack may not relocate.
By the way, DAS and reinforcement used to be same paragraph.
You left over a word (“Reinforcements”) behind in the middle of the DAS paragraphy.
Change the word “Reinforcements…” to “DAS…”
Page 18. Ground interdiction
GI does not stop any NCM that movement is normal movement and not rail
Yeah. What I meant is…
GI mission affects rail/SR next (enemy’s) turn right?
If you concern that my reinforcement rule is too much freedom,
then we let GI mission also interrupt my reinforcement rule.
Variable Infantry Costs - Explanation
Ok I have it a bit different.
Go back to where I was up to…
Germany+Russia $2 @ Capital; $3 @ Connected VC; $4 @ Other VC
Japan+Italy $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
US+UK $3 @ Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
Add democracy and it becomes…
Germany+Russia $2 @ Home Capital; $3 @ Connected VC; $4 @ Other VC
Japan+Italy $3 @ Home Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
US+UK 1st $2, 2nd $3, further units $4 @ Home Capital; $4 @ All Other VC
We said to only give Germany and Russia 2 IPC infantry.
Besides Germany and Russia, other nations didn’t recruit much foreigners.
No need to say Germany/USSR can’t raise more 8 2 IPC infantry. They can’t.
Our VCP system (population model) prevented it.
Berlin and Moscow are 6 VCP
Variable Infantry Costs - Text
Variable Infantry Costs
Regular Infantry units are constructed at victory cities. Airborne Infantry are constructed in your home capital. Other units are constructed at your Industrial Complex.
Germany and USSR Infantry
Your Capital Victory City…… 2
Connected Victory City to Capital*… 3
Unconnected Victory City… 4
Japan and Italy Infantry
Your Capital Victory City… 3
Other Victory City… 4
United States and United Kingdom Infantry
Your Capital Victory City, 1st built… 2
Your Capital Victory City, 2nd built… 3
Your Capital Victory City, 3+… 4
Other Victory City… 4
*connected to Capital via contiguous land territories controlled by you or friendly nations.
Conquest - explanation
Can be shortened like this. Game play without capital is already covered in game intro. (skip tech phase and stuff). This little thing in combat move is just a reminder.
So what I was saying before would be like this…
Conquest - Text
When you lose your capital you lose 50% of your income for the next turn, while the enemy only receives the territories value in return. You may still build at industrial complexes or victory cities. You cannot build a factory until your capital is liberated. Neutrals are conquered when their home territory is enemy occupied. Neutral forces cannot leave their home territory.
@Imperious:
Also, i feel i need to place the VC city values on the map and second make a list and new set ups for 1942 scenario so this map can be used for either.
Yeah I actually had VC values on my “OOB” map.I even also put in strait interdiction.
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png
I work on OOB map to update
*Spain is now mountainous
*Baltic Sea now has canal entrance instead of strait interdiction
And you work on “1939” map.
I am not sure about playing “OOB” scenario on “1939” map. You would have to mark territories in a weird way to remind them Burma+FIC+BritishMalaya is actually one territory lol.
I then need a new list of who controls what starting in 1939 and any possible changes. I leave this up to you to work on. I would use the older setups as a guide for 1942, but the new territories may prove some changes on setup. Also, you will need to add the new units into the set up.
Perhaps you can take that old file with the icons a post your proposal before a proper set up sheet is made. I can even make the actual setups and edit OVER the 1.3 files since i lost the original files.
“1939” map is new. It doesn’t require “OOB” style balance. Hence no need to build 1939 setup from 1942 setup.
By the way I don’t have the historic knowledge.
this will take time to digest. like one hour which i dont have right now. :cry:
Variable Infantry Costs - Text
Variable Infantry Costs
Regular Infantry units are constructed at victory cities. Airborne Infantry are constructed in your home capital. Other units are constructed at your Industrial Complex.Germany and USSR Infantry
Your Capital Victory City…… 2
Connected Victory City to Capital*… 3
Unconnected Victory City… 4Japan and Italy Infantry
Your Capital Victory City… 3
Other Victory City… 4United States and United Kingdom Infantry
Your Capital Victory City, 1st built… 2
Your Capital Victory City, 2nd built… 3
Your Capital Victory City, 3+… 4
Other Victory City… 4*connected to Capital via contiguous land territories controlled by you or friendly nations.
ok this is great. Ill add it.
“1939” map is new. It doesn’t require “OOB” style balance. Hence no need to build 1939 setup from 1942 setup.
By the way I don’t have the historic knowledge.
Yes but how if we are playing non-historical Victory conditions do we assess the starting Victory cities? So you keep the same values and locations>? Also, it would be great to have a 1941-42 setup because to merely extrapolate the info on this new map from phase 1/2 maps is a chore and secondly, because the new map has alot of new territories.
Conquest - Text
When you lose your capital you lose 50% of your income for the next turn, while the enemy only receives the territories value in return. You may still build at industrial complexes or victory cities. You cannot build a factory until your capital is liberated. Neutrals are conquered when their home territory is enemy occupied. Neutral forces cannot leave their home territory.
This too will be added.
GI mission affects rail/SR next (enemy’s) turn right?
If you concern that my reinforcement rule is too much freedom,
then we let GI mission also interrupt my reinforcement rule.
It effects the enemy on his next turn ( e.g. the turn after yours)
GI should interrupt reinforcement….
To do this The active player performing GI allocates a plane to stop reinforcements by flying over the target territory and using the old D-day system verbatim… works for Ins and Outs. check it out.
This further separates bombing missions and now i think it should be separate mission allowing bombers now to perform 2 missions per turn as active player.
Bombers can do 2 of the following:
SBR
Interdiction
Transport
Airborne
ASW search- not attacks
Ground Combat
now 15 ipc is really worth it considering fighters are 10 and naval fighters 8
I work on OOB map to update
*Spain is now mountainous
*Baltic Sea now has canal entrance instead of strait interdictionAnd you work on “1939” map.
Ok thats fine, but id like to make 1939 congruent to the other maps. So in 1939 i need to make the red lines?
Also, what about Maginot line/ Siegfried line ? how to handle that? print something on map or rules ?
also, fortress at Gibraltar, Malaya, and Malta are needed to also have some unique ability to repel invaders by sea. What do we do?
http://www.mediafire.com/?brhxnt4yxmf
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=xqbpywevcms
ok i made more effort. I totally redid Africa and it really looks realistic. I have to work on Egypt a bit however to make it fit.
I also stretched pacific and shrunk Atlantic and the proportions look much better.
I made the changes to the text but don’t really need to post update until more changes are made.
Please post a PNG of the new Africa so Flash can have a look
SBR GI
Seems not quite settled on whether SBR and GI are separate.
The decision will affect the other ideas.
Ground Interdiction
D-Day interdiction rule needs a few tweaks. D-Day is tactical level after all.
1. No possiblity of killing land units in interdiction
If you want to kill land units you attack the land units. (which by the way prevents the lands units from reinforcing others, according to my posted reinforcement rule)
2. Less dice
Each land unit rolling 1 dice for each bomber can be quite tedious.
This is also unrealistic.
I am thinking each bomber roll 1 die.
Could do it like the SR/rail damage.
Dice value equals to number of reinforcements lands unit prevented.
(By the way the reinforcement rule I posted requires the units are NOT being attacked themselves.
Gets rid of a few complex situations.)
Two missions
I don’t think bombers need a bump up in ability/value.
They get to
*SBR
*transport
*ASW search before technology
all of which fighters can’t do.
I’ve always avoided breaking the “units can only combat in one space” rule.
Issues related to combat order is very complex, as you know.
I want to know how much do you desire letting air units do multiple things same turn?
I want to know how much do you desire letting air units do multiple things same turn?
I am against it actually, But i would hate to have a bomber wasted for the possibility of not allowing the defender to reinforce one attack. AS you know we have two forms of GI:
Ground Interdiction Mission (GI)
2)Additionally, GI missions can alternatively be used to block the reinforcements, retreats or any movement into or out of a territory. Any time any enemy land unit decides to move into or out from the target territory ones D6 roll. A result of 1 destroys the unit, while 2-3 forces the unit from moving until the following movement phase.
so perhaps we combine both as one mission?
Also reinforcement has to offset to the attacker. The defender may deliberately allocate a huge reserve to end all attack at one round.
In war the reserves were a small fraction of the army, with most of the forces already committed. I think perhaps 1-3 units can reinforce per adjacent territory. This reinforcement thing ends all those battles as follows:
attacker: 3 infantry 2 planes vs. –-3 infantry… this will take 2-3 round to complete, but the defender forces the issue and ends combat after one round by his big stick. The attacker is left with static warfare and the game has less action IMO>
Reinforcement should also allow the attacker to bring in an equal number of units… but this may turn into huge battles or not. what you think?
I am thinking each bomber roll 1 die.
Could do it like the SR/rail damage.
Dice value equals to number of reinforcements lands unit prevented.
I think this may work. ok its symmetrical and easy to remember. Ill add it.
2007-11-02 PNG version
http://www.mediafire.com/?excmdsid2c9
I could do high quality 300dpi PNG export via Photoshop/ImageReady.
But photoshop misses things when importing the illustrator file.
*income icon
*capital icon
*VC icon
*oil icon
It still grabs the flag though. Can you deal with all those icons like flags? It might work then.
Saving to PDF in illstrator also misses those icons.
Africa
Last time you broke up Africa (Tunsia, Morroco, etc) the map was ALREADY inconsistent in scale.
(To catch us we need to break up US.)
Now, we didn’t break up US yet and you further added…
…Guinea, Sierra Loeone, Liberia, Gold Coast, British Somaliland, etc.
You might have added them due to historic events.
But I really think its too broken up.
Gameplay wise, there isn’t THAT much action in Africa.
Denmark Strait
id like to make 1939 congruent to the other maps. So in 1939 i need to make the red lines?
Yeah add red lines if you want canal treatment for Denmark Strait.
But, can submarines go in or get out of Baltic Sea without control of both Norway and Germany?
If submarines are allowed do to that, then might have to put Denmark Strait back to “Strait Interdiction” instead of canal treatment. Just give it higher value than Gibraltar and English Channel. Maybe 3.
Maginot line
Also, what about Maginot line/ Siegfried line ? how to handle that? print something on map or rules ?
Well, we don’t have rule for Maginot line at this point. What do you want to do?
“small” terrain and fortress
For my prints, I mark “small” terrain the same style as desert/mountainous/snowy.
So to remind the restriction of 2 units occupying.
These are Gibraltar, Wake, Midway, Malta, Crete, and Iwo Jima.
In fact, might be realistic to limit it to 1 unit occupying.
In that case the number of attacking units firing at the same time would also be reduced to 1.
Regarding Gibraltar, Malaya, Malta “fortress” …
Because players don’t have the ability of fortifying other small territories like Crete or Iwo Jima I think its not a right system.
We could use mountainous terrain to give them a bonus. Gibraltar and Malta would get mountainous. Malaya left alone.
Alaska/Bering
With Pacific stretch North Pacific looks even more weird.
See what you can do about it.
http://www.geoatlas.com/downloads/world/bump/bering.jpg
@Imperious:
I am thinking each bomber roll 1 die.
Could do it like the SR/rail damage.
Dice value equals to number of reinforcements lands unit prevented.I think this may work. ok its symmetrical and easy to remember. Ill add it.
Its not clear to not have two things called “ground interdiction”.
And its quite reason to call rail damage “strategic”.
So I would standardise SBR to include rail damage.
“Ground interdiction” mission is separate to SBR mission.
Another important thing is that “auto success ID search” is only reasonable for strategic attacks.
Air missions
*all defending DAS aircraft do not defend against air missions
SBR
*ID fires with auto search success
*escort dogfight
*remove casualties
*one die per bomber for IPC damage
*one die per bomber for rail damage
Ground Interdiction
*ID fires with normal search
*escort dogfight
*remove casualties
*one dice per bomber for number of reinforcements related to the territory prevented
Reinforcement - explanation
Your concerns as well as other complexities I’ve thoroughly thought out back then.
Cheat death, multi move, etc…as well as making sure no unreasonable restrictions when compared to related AARHE rules.
The current rule was simplified when I had to re-encourage you to allow reinforcements.
But I could address concerns…
*only excess units can relocate
*only 50% rounded down number of units can relocate
*retreat limitations to prevent multiple movements
Reinforcement - text
Special Combat: Reinforcements
During your enemies’ turn your land and naval units may relocate (move) to adjacent friendly territories or adjacent friendly sea zones. Reinforcements are declared after all combats are declared and before resolving any combats. These units fight from 2nd cycle in combats. If combat was lost in 1st cycle, they must retreat. If combat was won in 1st cycle, they may not retreat. Reinforcement land units can only retreat to original territory.
In a territory you may only relocate up to 50% of land units. In a space under attack you may only relocate land and naval units if you have or will have defending units in excess to attacking units.
Africa
Last time you broke up Africa (Tunsia, Morroco, etc) the map was ALREADY inconsistent in scale.
(To catch us we need to break up US.)
Now, we didn’t break up US yet and you further added…
…Guinea, Sierra Loeone, Liberia, Gold Coast, British Somaliland, etc.
You might have added them due to historic events.
But I really think its too broken up.
Gameplay wise, there isn’t THAT much action in Africa.
+++++++++== ok what do you want to do with USA? where are the cuts to be made? make a PNG of just USA with proposed lines.
I basically said " i really hate the way Africa looks" so i made it much more accurate and Transjordan is adjacent to red sea ( flashmans issue)
Denmark Strait
Quote
id like to make 1939 congruent to the other maps. So in 1939 i need to make the red lines?
Yeah add red lines if you want canal treatment for Denmark Strait.
++++ the problem is Denmark straight is not a canal. Only Dardanelles, Suez, and Panama are real canals.
But, can submarines go in or get out of Baltic Sea without control of both Norway and Germany?
If submarines are allowed do to that, then might have to put Denmark Strait back to “Strait Interdiction” instead of canal treatment. Just give it higher value than Gibraltar and English Channel. Maybe 3.
+++++ no no units can pass Baltic… its mined, Gibraltar is mined as well, but for play balance we should allow only subs to pass it. The Italian navy should not pass unharmed unless it takes the rock.
Maginot line
Quote
Also, what about Maginot line/ Siegfried line ? how to handle that? print something on map or rules ?
Well, we don’t have rule for Maginot line at this point. What do you want to do?
++++++++++= for the first time the Germans attack france from their common border, all frogs defend at +1, also the same for the reverse?— Siegfried line? If the Germans attack from Benelux no modifier.
“small” terrain and fortress
For my prints, I mark “small” terrain the same style as desert/mountainous/snowy.
So to remind the restriction of 2 units occupying.
These are Gibraltar, Wake, Midway, Malta, Crete, and Iwo Jima.
In fact, might be realistic to limit it to 1 unit occupying.
In that case the number of attacking units firing at the same time would also be reduced to 1.
+++++++++++++ this is good idea but i would make it 2 units to match the invading possibility. What exactly is “small” terrain?
is this the ‘pattern’ used for Sahara desert?
Regarding Gibraltar, Malaya, Malta “fortress” …
Because players don’t have the ability of fortifying other small territories like Crete or Iwo Jima I think its not a right system.
We could use mountainous terrain to give them a bonus. Gibraltar and Malta would get mountainous. Malaya left alone.
+++++++ they should be written in the rules, labeling these ‘fortress’ may not work… but i can add a icon of a gun so its easy to note fortress?
Alaska/Bering
With Pacific stretch North Pacific looks even more weird.
See what you can do about it.
http://www.geoatlas.com/downloads/world/bump/bering.jpg
+++++++++ i will stretch Alaska and make it larger. I see what you mean.
Special Combat: Reinforcements
During your enemies’ turn your land and naval units may relocate (move) to adjacent friendly territories or adjacent friendly sea zones. Reinforcements are declared after all combats are declared and before resolving any combats. These units fight from 2nd cycle in combats. If combat was lost in 1st cycle, they must retreat. If combat was won in 1st cycle, they may not retreat. Reinforcement land units can only retreat to original territory.
In a territory you may only relocate up to 50% of land units. In a space under attack you may only relocate land and naval units if you have or will have defending units in excess to attacking units.
ok let me introduce a new idea. perhaps it may help us:
Co-Existing:
1. At land:
When withdrawing from combat, the attacker has the option of remaining in the territory and contesting it instead of withdrawing back to their territory. When contested, forts do not fix, and the value of the territory is halved (rounded up) for both economic worth and production. Only the original owner gets the income and can produce new units at his new reduced value.
While a territory is contested, each side may bring in reinforcements from the outside. Units are not allowed to move out of the territory to another enemy or contested area without first moving back through a friendly territory (thus units with a movement of two can use one movement point to move to a rear “friendly” space and then move into another combat situation with the second movement point). Railroads do not function in a contested area.
Either side may initiate a battle at any time later by simply declaring an attack. In this way there may be several battles over a territory, with both sides attacking, reinforcing, or retreating over several turns.
2. At Sea:
Fleets may co-exist in a sea. However, when a fleet attempts to move, the opposing side may make one attempt to intercept. If the roll is a 1-2 on a D6 then the fleet will have to fight the enemy ships, forfeiting all movement. Subs do not follow this and may move freely out of the space.
These are from my WW1 game. it may help us out.
+++++++++== ok what do you want to do with USA? where are the cuts to be made? make a PNG of just USA with proposed lines.
I basically said " i really hate the way Africa looks" so i made it much more accurate and Transjordan is adjacent to red sea ( flashmans issue)
approve the continent lines, fix transjordon
thats all good
just don’t add the 6-8 new territories
regarding US, was thinking just slice across horizontally, so it changes from 3 to 6 territories
++++ the problem is Denmark straight is not a canal. Only Dardanelles, Suez, and Panama are real canals.
+++++ no no units can pass Baltic… its mined, Gibraltar is mined as well, but for play balance we should allow only subs to pass it. The Italian navy should not pass unharmed unless it takes the rock.
Yeah I know Denmark is not real canal.
We either mark it as red lines for it functions just like canal.
Or we could have red lines for canals and strait interdiction.
Or we could have green lines for strait interdiction.
++++++++++= for the first time the Germans attack france from their common border, all frogs defend at +1, also the same for the reverse?–- Siegfried line? If the Germans attack from Benelux no modifier.
Yeah draw it on the map then.
Write the rule under 1939 map explanation.
+++++++++++++ this is good idea but i would make it 2 units to match the invading possibility. What exactly is “small” terrain?
So how many units can occupy? How many can fight at a time?
Couldn’t get a good name for it. First I called it “miniature” terrain. Then I called it “small” terrain.
Basically its to stop stacking in these little places.
Combined with extra cost for land units staying in transport ship.
We get realistic Pacific war. If US/Japan wants to attack each other you either do Alaska or Hawaii. Can’t put an army on Midway.
is this the ‘pattern’ used for Sahara desert?
For my print map I just put “(small)”.
But yeah giving them a pattern might be better
Regarding Gibraltar, Malaya, Malta “fortress” …
+++++++ they should be written in the rules, labeling these ‘fortress’ may not work… but i can add a icon of a gun so its easy to note fortress?
up to you, but visual reminder is good otherwise people just forget
+++++++++ i will stretch Alaska and make it larger. I see what you mean.
Yeah. Just touch up.
@Imperious:
These are from my WW1 game. it may help us out.
AARHE do have something like that already.
Naval combat break-off and newly constructed ships.
For land we just have “production interruption”.
SBR and GI mission
So what do you think of my sugguested structure?
Aircraft Carrier should be 1/1
So any other argument for 1/2 aircraft carrier?
You said hull. But thats the reason we gave it 2 hits like battleship and crusier.
SBR and GI mission
So what do you think of my suggested structure?
Air missions
*all defending DAS aircraft do not defend against air missionsSBR
*ID fires with auto search success
*escort dogfight
*remove casualties
*one die per bomber for IPC damage
*one die per bomber for rail damageGround Interdiction
*ID fires with normal search
*escort dogfight
*remove casualties
*one dice per bomber for number of reinforcements related to the territory prevented
This seems fine. Ill add it.
Aircraft Carrier should be 1/1
So any other argument for 1/2 aircraft carrier?
You said hull. But thats the reason we gave it 2 hits like battleship and crusier.
A carrier costs too much to be 1 on defense. its got to be at least like a destroyer. A one on defense is akin to a transport and thats not correct. A 3 is too much and 1 is too little. Two hits @1 is just a junk carrier. I would have this value for a jeep carrier or escort/light CVL.
approve the continent lines, fix trans-jordan
regarding US, was thinking just slice across horizontally, so it changes from 3 to 6 territories
I will do this but trans-jordan looks ok
I will add fortress at Gibratar, malta, maginot and siegfried line. Not Singapore.
If we had tobruk that would be a fortress.
