AARHE 1939 map and rule files

[tekkyy]

@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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[tekkyy]

+++++++++== 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.

[tekkyy]

@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.

[Imperious Leader]

SBR and GI mission
So what do you think of my suggested structure?

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

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.

[Imperious Leader]

http://www.mediafire.com/?2jbwxemamwt

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=nztgc6v2ygn

map update: didn’t add the fortress yet. that will be next time.

[tekkyy]

map
that was supposed to be “improve” not “approve”

I am saying its great you improved the continental lines and stuff
but not too keen about having many small territories in Africa

Africa

US is now split, making it inline with Europe and China in scale
and the old Africa at 20 territories after Morocco and Tunsia

the new Africa at 28 territories is not inline

Africa at 28 erritories also don’t fit in standard A&A structure
you would have to increase unit costs about 3X and make all units build in multiple turns…model each round being one month only or something

aircraft carrier
its not logical
the hull we’ve already covered by making it 2-hit
combat value is about fighting power, w’ve given it “AA guns”
carrier doesn’t have batteries and stuff

IPC
8 TP move2 0/0
8 SS move2 2/2
10 DD move3 2/2
15 CA move3 3/3
16 CV move3 1/1 (or your 1/2)
20 BB move2 4/4

To me there is nothing wrong with costs.
Comparison between CA and CV.
For +1 IPC you swapped away +2/+2 in combat value and slightly stronger anti-air…for capacity to carry 2 FTRs.
ASW is irrelevant as your new structure do not allow DD or CA to do both normal combat and ASW.

But you think its too expensive, then make CV 15 IPC?

[Imperious Leader]

I am not sure about naval movement changes except perhaps cruiser at 3 because its got a huge range hence its namesake.

Ok carriers take 2 hits and defend at 1…fine.

Map reflects new changes, but Almaty was replaced with Astrakhan which was one of hitlers original objectives for barbarossa

Archangel to Astrakhan… Astrakhan is in the same place as Almaty anyway and Almaty had no impact on anybody.

Honolulu was added as VC because chicago is not worth 2 VC, but a key naval base in pacific was.

All rules and map changes were made.

http://www.mediafire.com/?2f24fbaybzu

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=tiuywxuzjjo

I will remove or change something in Africa… but it wont look correct if i just remove nations that exist. Perhaps we make them “impassible” due to neutrality or something… nothing but a pretty place you cant use. I hate giving more land to the french.

well fix it latter.

Rules:

http://www.mediafire.com/?432cycxzmtv

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=7dymwftkgym

[tekkyy]

Map
Have you figured out the difference between flag icons and IPC icons?
(which I am guessing is why flag icons get exported but IPC icons don’t…solving this can be useful as we could be able to release the map as PDF or 300dpi high-res via photoshop)

Africa
I am thinking it wouldn’t look incorrect. Each territory is a region not a country anyway.
See what we can do on this.

Victory City
A lot VC locations are geographically inexact.
If you are lazy you can browse locations form this, where I made best of the map according to certain recgonisable references to real map.
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png
Alternatively, you can continue your quest of making things look better. lines. Last thing was Africa. Central Asia next hehe. Capsian sea and stuff hehe.

[tekkyy]

AARHE 1.3
You haven’t show me the stuff that was making us stuck with naming it “1.3”.
What are they?
National player aids?
In the future probably best not to have version number on artwork.

Operations manual
Are you putting the front page back in?

Index
Regarding a new index we discussed earlier. Just something simple like…

Game Sequence…2
Phase 1: Collect Income…4
Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments…5
Phase 3: Combat Move…6
Phase 4: Conduct Combat…9
Phase 5: Non-combat Move…17
Phase 6: Mobilize New Units…18
Phase 7: Develop Weapons…19
Phase 8: Diplomacy…21
Appendix: 1939 map…22
Appendix: Units… 26
Appendix: New Units…27
Appendix: National Advantages… 28
Appendix: Historical Victory Conditions…43

Honolulu
Look, we used VC to model population centres.
With it you can raise INF and build cheaper IC.

I think we’ve only broken the rule once, for Cairo.

Haiwaii is already important in AARHE, Pacific war modelled correctly via rules such as
*no stacking in tiny islands
*realistic 50-50 air movement

If you want Honolulu VC for naval repair. Then give it a value of 0.
I mean, do you really want INF popping out of it? To me Haiwaii is nothing more than an outpost.

Alternatively, redefinite the system and decouple popluation with straetegic victory.
Then break “victory city” game mode into city victory" and “strategic victory”.

built in ID rolls:
IC’s implicitly included ID has been reduced before because at 3 it makes it too cheap. (Each ID costs 5 IPC usually.)
IC costs 5, 10 or 15 IPC. Usually 10 or 15 IPC.

Before it was reduced to 2.
With 1 ID implicit for VC.

Also I wonder if we should make ID cost 3 IPC.

Bomber

Air units in land combat
do you want this?

air superiority AIR units roll at normal combat value, fire selectively and in opening-fire
without air superiority AIR units roll at dogfighting value, fire non-selectively and in main round, excess hits allocated on land units

Land Combat: Hit Allocation
update “start of the first combat round” to “start of combat cycle”

Capturign defender retreat infantry
I notice its now “hitting on 1-2”. 33% chance. Not too high is it?

naval combat
so you made changes
but you might not have checked for its rule preciseness and how it is in practise if you don’t write a combat sequence
without it I don’t know exactly what you mean
I can’t visual what you are modelling as a typical naval engagement

destroyer negate submarine opening-fire
undetected submarines should always pre-empt its target
if detected the target manuevors evades to last til main round

friendly BB negate enemy BB opening-fire
thats like saying BB do have make use of its range when ENEMY has BB
more logically would be BB fires first and if hits are taken by destroyer it doesn’t get to fire

proposed naval combat sequence

Pre-combat
    1. DD choose screen OR ASW
    2. AIR choose target OR CAP
Opening-fire
    1. DD (ASW) and AIR (CAP) perform ASW search
    2. undetected SS fires
    3. DD (screen) and BB fires AA at those targetting it or its screen
    4. remove casualties
Mid-combat
    1. AIR (CAP) choose AIR (ASW attack) OR AIR (dogfight)
    2. BB fires, remove casualties
Main-round
    1. DD (ASW) and AIR (ASW attack) perform ASW attack on any SS
    2. detected SS fires
    3. DD (normal) fires
    4. AIR (normal) fires, at dogfight values if enemy has AIR (dogfight)
    5. AIR (dogfight) fires, at dogfight values
    6. remove casualties
Retreat decision

note planes never preempt ships in this case

[Imperious Leader]

oh boy lots of work…. :cry: :cry: :cry:

Map
Have you figured out the difference between flag icons and IPC icons?
(which I am guessing is why flag icons get exported but IPC icons don’t…solving this can be useful as we could be able to release the map as PDF or 300dpi high-res via photoshop)

the pdf destroys the oil icons as well for no apparent reason. this cant be fixed… so forget the bastard pdf. that program is a joke anyway.

Africa
I am thinking it wouldn’t look incorrect. Each territory is a region not a country anyway.
See what we can do on this.

whats wrong with just not allowing these territories to ‘count’– you cant enter them…

Victory City
A lot VC locations are geographically inexact.
If you are lazy you can browse locations form this, where I made best of the map according to certain recgonisable references to real map.
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png
Alternatively, you can continue your quest of making things look better. lines. Last thing was Africa. Central Asia next hehe. Capsian sea and stuff hehe.

On this i am afraid not much can be done. Most of these issues have to do with the ability to space away the different information and spread out this information into the space so its readable and easy when playing. If their are some huge gaffs then perhaps i can change them. looking at central Asia, but trying to avoid it actually. Caspian sea is fine!

AARHE 1.3
You haven’t show me the stuff that was making us stuck with naming it “1.3”.
What are they?
National player aids?
In the future probably best not to have version number on artwork.

No file to edit. i can write over junk but its looks lame.

Operations manual
Are you putting the front page back in?

yes forgot.

Index
Regarding a new index we discussed earlier. Just something simple like…

Game Sequence…2
Phase 1: Collect Income…4
Phase 2: Purchase Units and Developments…5
Phase 3: Combat Move…6
Phase 4: Conduct Combat…9
Phase 5: Non-combat Move…17
Phase 6: Mobilize New Units…18
Phase 7: Develop Weapons…19
Phase 8: Diplomacy…21
Appendix: 1939 map…22
Appendix: Units… 26
Appendix: New Units…27
Appendix: National Advantages… 28
Appendix: Historical Victory Conditions…43

will be added…

Honolulu
Look, we used VC to model population centres.
With it you can raise INF and build cheaper IC.

I think we’ve only broken the rule once, for Cairo.

Haiwaii is already important in AARHE, Pacific war modelled correctly via rules such as
*no stacking in tiny islands
*realistic 50-50 air movement

If you want Honolulu VC for naval repair. Then give it a value of 0.
I mean, do you really want INF popping out of it? To me Haiwaii is nothing more than an outpost.

value of zero? hmmm novel idea… can we add Tunis then? Tobruck?

Alternatively, redefinite the system and decouple popluation with straetegic victory.
Then break “victory city” game mode into city victory" and “strategic victory”.

please explain this or post exactly how it should read. I have no clue whats being said here.

built in ID rolls:
IC’s implicitly included ID has been reduced before because at 3 it makes it too cheap. (Each ID costs 5 IPC usually.)
IC costs 5, 10 or 15 IPC. Usually 10 or 15 IPC.

Before it was reduced to 2.
With 1 ID implicit for VC.

Also I wonder if we should make ID cost 3 IPC.

ID rolls are free… the IPC you have will not go into wasting it on silly flak battery’s. This didn’t represent any substantial investment compared to raising an armor division or even infantry division. IPC goes to war making junk. Flak AA is a secondary associated military expenditure. Its one of the gaffs about AAR that we get rid of. Armor, Infantry, Artillery and flak batteries the last does not belong as an item in that list. You might as well add a category for ‘chow line’ with armor division.

Bomber

Air units in land combat
do you want this?

air superiority AIR units roll at normal combat value, fire selectively and in opening-fire
without air superiority AIR units roll at dogfighting value, fire non-selectively and in main round, excess hits allocated on land units

No. for Air superiority they fight at dogfighting values, against land when Air Sup. is achieved they fire at normal values… that is correct.

Land Combat: Hit Allocation
update “start of the first combat round” to “start of combat cycle”

But the previous method was more exact meaning don’t you think? I can change it but the meaning is basically the same except in the first case a player will know exactly what is meant.

Capturign defender retreat infantry
I notice its now “hitting on 1-2”. 33% chance. Not too high is it?

not at all. not having armor is a huge disadvantage to infantry. its easy to get trapped by tanks in open country.

naval combat
so you made changes
but you might not have checked for its rule preciseness and how it is in practise if you don’t write a combat sequence
without it I don’t know exactly what you mean
I can’t visual what you are modeling as a typical naval engagement

destroyer negate submarine opening-fire
undetected submarines should always pre-emptive its target
if detected the target maneuvers evades to last till main round

friendly BB negate enemy BB opening-fire
thats like saying BB do have make use of its range when ENEMY has BB
more logically would be BB fires first and if hits are taken by destroyer it doesn’t get to fire

proposed naval combat sequence

Pre-combat
    1. DD choose screen OR ASW
    2. AIR choose target OR CAP
Opening-fire
    1. DD (ASW) and AIR (CAP) perform ASW search
    2. undetected SS fires
    3. DD (screen) and BB fires AA at those targetting it or its screen
    4. remove casualties
Mid-combat
    1. AIR (CAP) choose AIR (ASW attack) OR AIR (dogfight)
    2. BB fires, remove casualties
Main-round
    1. DD (ASW) and AIR (ASW attack) perform ASW attack on any SS
    2. detected SS fires
    3. DD (normal) fires
    4. AIR (normal) fires, at dogfight values if enemy has AIR (dogfight)
    5. AIR (dogfight) fires, at dogfight values
    6. remove casualties
Retreat decision

note planes never preempt ships in this case

this is good stuff. I will add it. Planes don’t preempt ships because ships fire at longer ranges than the planes themselves, but a relative  reduced capacity, not having air power to support ( CAP) is a huge disparagement but accurate and reduces ships to sitting ducks. This is historical based modeling. lots of carriers will be purchased and naval fighters will find their way on islands for cap defense for the player who cannot afford a carrier.

[Imperious Leader]

made rule changes with minor modifications

working on SE Asia and split for Canada

Africa small nations are white for now ( impassible)

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

oh boy lots of work…. :cry: :cry: :cry:

Yes we are far from completion. As mentioned earlier I had to store aside items/ideas on to-do list on my computer.
But relax, we’ll go through them progressively.

whats wrong with just not allowing these territories to ‘count’– you cant enter them…

Because that would be likee OOB’s arbitray impassable neutrals.
You do get what I mean right? The point about each territory is a region not a country. Many countries are not represented even in heavier gameplay areas like Europe.
It was never the point to represent each country individually right? Collectively.

On this i am afraid not much can be done. Most of these issues have to do with the ability to space away the different information and spread out this information into the space so its readable and easy when playing. If their are some huge gaffs then perhaps i can change them. looking at central Asia, but trying to avoid it actually. Caspian sea is fine!

Seriously, 9 out of 10 are off. Just compare it with
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png

Not all are use to crowded space.
Toronto, Rio de Jenerio, Cape Town, Singapore, Hong Kong…can be easily moved.
Oh and Kuching is missing!

By its ok, in the end there are small things that I can adjust before PNG export.

No file to edit. i can write over junk but its looks lame.

So your saying its just the water mark in rules file thats holding us back?

Honolulu
value of zero? hmmm novel idea… can we add Tunis then? Tobruck?

Yeah the most signficant outposts we can represent with VC of zero.
But it would be for naval repair.
Territories like Tunsia that have 0 IPC can build anything anyway.

This didn’t represent any substantial investment compared to raising an armor division or even infantry division.

Of course of course.
We got consensus on that bit long time ago.
Hence we got rid of AA gun and replaced it with infrastructure defense.

In short I am thinking ID @ 5 IPC is unrealistically expensive and maybe the cause of the discrepancy regarding IC cost.

your ID is currently: 33% to search and then 16% to hit and 33% to force retreat
at a glance, shoud be ok to cost 3 IPC

No. for Air superiority they fight at dogfighting values, against land when Air Sup. is achieved they fire at normal values… that is correct.

This is a small thing.
I wrote the land combat sequence to have air units always fire in opening fire for simplicity.
Is that your intention?

Should dogfighting be in opeing fire or main round?

But the previous method was more exact meaning don’t you think? I can change it but the meaning is basically the same except in the first case a player will know exactly what is meant.

Wait. For this colour version you initially made AA fire in 1st cycle one.
I’ve since convinced you to go back. AA fires in all cycles. So the wording is actually different.

this is good stuff. I will add it. Planes don’t preempt ships because ships fire at longer ranges than the planes themselves, but a relative  reduced capacity, not having air power to support ( CAP) is a huge disparagement but accurate and reduces ships to sitting ducks. This is historical based modeling. lots of carriers will be purchased and naval fighters will find their way on islands for cap defense for the player who cannot afford a carrier.

Cool. It took me like 20 minutes to visual and write that naval combat sequence up.
Naval combat is complex with many elements. Make sure all bits are fine.

There are various adjustments to paragraphs to be made.
If you want, put it on hold…I’ll rewrite the naval combat section and post it so its precise and we’ll know whether do meet/agree.

[Imperious Leader]

well i already have an update for both… see what you think…

Map:

http://www.mediafire.com/?64fnd1nzdwd

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=xrqdwwmenbf

S.E> Asia fixed! Canada Fixed!  African Neutrals are white ( appeasing the aesthetics and making them impassible neutrals). Also Yunnan added to China ( 1 IPC) – taken from Kwangtung province.

Japan has Siam and took one IPC from Kirin province.

Rules:

http://www.mediafire.com/?em0e3jm2ix2

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=nbqyojgbxur

I rewrote that naval combat summary its really clear now. :roll: yea right…I know

Seriously, 9 out of 10 are off. Just compare it with
http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/20070818_AARHE_standard_with_setup.png

I will fix these…

So your saying its just the water mark in rules file thats holding us back?

its not really holding us back…. but yes we cant change it unless i we do all that work over… JUST to CHANGE THAT ONE THING.

This didn’t represent any substantial investment compared to raising an armor division or even infantry division.
Of course of course.
We got consensus on that bit long time ago.
Hence we got rid of AA gun and replaced it with infrastructure defense.

In short I am thinking ID @ 5 IPC is unrealistically expensive and maybe the cause of the discrepancy regarding IC cost.

your ID is currently: 33% to search and then 16% to hit and 33% to force retreat
at a glance, should be ok to cost 3 IPC

This is all fine… but ID is not purchasable… its built into each VC and factory territory as per rules… they never were purchasable.

Cool. It took me like 20 minutes to visual and write that naval combat sequence up.
Naval combat is complex with many elements. Make sure all bits are fine.

There are various adjustments to paragraphs to be made.
If you want, put it on hold…I’ll rewrite the naval combat section and post it so its precise and we’ll know whether do meet/agree.

Yea just check out what i did and copy/paste any changes here.

[tekkyy]

Map

Siam
At the moment everything is 1 IPC in region except FIC at 2 IPC.
Maybe it sould be Kirin thats 2 IPC instead.

Maybe take 1 IPC from FIC instead of Kirin?
Kirin would be a little industrialised by the Japanese?

VC
Yeah so besides fixing the geographic locations (to give AARHE more credit) remember to make Honolulu 0 VCP.

Africa
Making them impassible is arbitrary.
Being out of gameplay it also questions why we have them in the first place.
Its not the same as Himalayas.

Talking of that Flashman’s map has some impassbile thing in southern Africa. Congo Basin or something.

I don’t understand why you want to explicitly represent those small nations/regions. All other continents has nations not explicitly represented.

I am not going to be pushy about Africa. Just surprised and want to know what you are thinking.

This compares your last revision:

Africa at 28.
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6076/africa28ui3.png
Africa at 18(20).
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2463/africa20zx3.png

Hainan
Again this bit looks weird.
Due to FIC/China being too east Hainan enters up in FIC sea zone.
This is the real map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Locationfrenchindochina.PNG
Maybe FIC/China border can be slightly moved west so Hainan island is in Kwangtung sea zone.

[Imperious Leader]

Maybe take 1 IPC from FIC instead of Kirin?

make Honolulu 0 VCP

yes right.

Due to FIC/China being too east Hainan enters up in FIC sea zone.

All other continents has nations not explicitly represented.

You see i see the same issues with this place as you do with Africa. Both should go and they will.

moved west so Hainan island is in Kwangtung sea zone.

this is what should happen

[tekkyy]

Rules

ts not really holding us back…. but yes we cant change it unless i we do all that work over… JUST to CHANGE THAT ONE THING.

No worries. MSWORD stores the image. Full quality PNG at 1.73MB with version number.
http://www.mediafire.com/?1ndm2hd9r1x

Page 0. Add front page.

Page 4. VC list has 1939 data even though it says 1942. Go back to 1942 data (like London back to 5 VCP instead of 4.) And then have a 1939 table in 1939 map rules.

Page 9. Minor Axis Allies shall be moved to 1939 map rules.

Page 9. Lend-lease is free only for phase 3 map (a hack for 20 IPC Germany). Its not free under phase 2 (OOB) map.

This is all fine… but ID is not purchasable… its built into each VC and factory territory as per rules… they never were purchasable

Actually they are purchasable prior to this color version.
You wanted to make it non-purchasable before but we need it for rockets.
Also the option for people to beef up defence.

So its its fine we’ll change it to 3 IPC. * for attack and defense values.

Naval combat sequence

Ok I see you want
*undetected submarines to remain undetected and not attackable
*anti-air at fleet level
Both fine.

I don’t agree with
*defending dogfighting planes pre-empting naval attack planes

CAP planes get to do more than attack planes atm. Should be ok. Lets say CAP planes carry ammo+buoy. Attack planes carry ammo+torpedo.

Pre-Combat
   1. Destroyer/Cruiser choose screening or ASW.
   2. Air units choose naval attack or CAP.
Opening-fire
   1. ASW naval units and CAP air units perform ASW search.
   2. Undetected submarines fire.
   3. Other naval units perform AA against naval attack air units.
   4. Remove casualties.
Mid-combat
   1. CAP air units choose dogfight or ASW.
   2. Battleships fire.
   3. Remove casualties.
Main-round
   1. ASW naval and ASW air units peform ASW attack.
   2. Detected submarines fire.
   3. Other naval units fire.
   4. Naval attack air units fire, at dogfighting values if enemy dogfight air units present.
   5. Dogfight air units fire at dogfighting values.
   6. Remove casualties.
Retreat decision

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

You see i see the same issues with this place as you do with Africa. Both should go and they will.

You don’t have explicitly remove Hainan.
Remove the name, fix the FIC/China border (or drag it into Kwangtung sea zone if you can’t bothered) and it’ll become part of Kwangtung, like Falkans (Argentina) and Sri Lanka (India).

[Imperious Leader]

Pre-Combat
    1. Cruiser/ Destroyer choose to screen hits from naval combat or 
        Perform ASW search
    2. Air units are allocated to naval attacks, ASW search, or CAP
Opening-fire
    1. Naval units and allocated air units roll for ASW search
    2. If Submarines are not found they now fire pre-emptively
    3. All surface naval units perform Anti-Air rolls against attacking
        Enemy air units performing naval attack   
    4. Remove casualties
Mid-combat
    1. Defending CAP engages enemy air units at dogfight values
    2. Battleship fires pre-emptively, remove casualties
Main-round
    1. ASW Naval units and Air units attack detected subs
    2. Detected Submarines fire (not pre-emtively)
    3. All surface warships fire
    4. CAP engages enemy air units for each side at dogfight values
    5. If no enemy CAP your planes roll against targeted enemy warships
    6. Remove casualties
Retreat decision

whats wrong with this? I think its more clear and exact.

defending dogfighting planes pre-empting naval attack planes

where is this? its not part of the sequence…