I believe around the year 2004 I purchased two great axis and allies maps created by a gentleman by the name of Ralph Boerke from Waterloo Canada. The maps were laminated and the first one was a 1942 world map. The second one was a Europe only map. Anyways I just found both maps at my parents house. I have played the world map and loved it as Ralph included different rules for his game. The Europe only map is huge! I never played it though :(. Has anyone ever played this A&A Europe map created by Ralph? I know he was working on a pacific map also and wondered if he ever released it?
AARHE 1939 map and rule files
-
+++++++++== 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 territoriesregarding 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 betterRegarding 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 preventedThis 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 territoriesI 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.
-
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.
-
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 AfricaAfrica
US is now split, making it inline with Europe and China in scale
and the old Africa at 20 territories after Morocco and Tunsiathe 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 somethingaircraft 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 stuffIPC
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 4/4To 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?
-
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:
-
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. -
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…43Honolulu
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 movementIf 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 unitsLand 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 engagementdestroyer negate submarine opening-fire
undetected submarines should always pre-empt its target
if detected the target manuevors evades to last til main roundfriendly 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 fireproposed 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 decisionnote planes never preempt ships in this case
-
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…43will 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 movementIf 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 unitsNo. 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 engagementdestroyer negate submarine opening-fire
undetected submarines should always pre-emptive its target
if detected the target maneuvers evades to last till main roundfriendly 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 fireproposed 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 decisionnote 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.
-
made rule changes with minor modifications
working on SE Asia and split for Canada
Africa small nations are white for now ( impassible)
-
@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.pngNot 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 IPCNo. 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. -
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.pngI 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 IPCThis 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.
-
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.pngHainan
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. -
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
-
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/?1ndm2hd9r1xPage 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 planesCAP 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 -
@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). -
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 decisionwhats 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…
-
And we have the latest Military Intelligence report:
Map:
http://www.mediafire.com/?3m32qpjn1dx
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=mjm0jvwawwd
Cities rearranged, removed offending african nations, fixed Hawaii VC, fixed Kirin/ Manchukuo IPC, adjusted Japan to 14 IPC in 1939
Rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8me0qgy5zku
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=j0by1iawwnx
added 1939 VC cities list ( france also has Dakar)
BTW your spelling of Chinese Urumchi from Urumqi was the proper spelling for published western maps in this period. It may have to do with pre-communist china . Note: i didn’t spell it correctly in this post. I think the QI as opposed to Chi was some ethnic change
-
to be honest I thought my one was more exact
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 ASW search happens in a different time slot then naval attack and 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 words like pre-emptive might add to confusion instead, you remove casualties when it says so that should be simple
3. All surface naval units perform Anti-Air rolls against attacking enemy air units performing naval attack is that “all” or naval units not doing ASW?
4. Remove casualties
Mid-combat
1. Defending CAP engages enemy air units at dogfight values this is functionally nothing. Not firing not allocation then what is it for? in my one CAP choose between dogfight or ASW attack
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 you mean “all other” right, and we should stick to game terms, so probably use “All other naval units”
4. CAP engages enemy air units for each side at dogfight values
5. If no enemy CAP your planes roll against targeted enemy warships “your planes” is obviously not exact, and if “yes enemy CAP” then what? is the last item suppose to cover that?
6. Remove casualties
Retreat decision -
Rules
Page 0. Watermark http://www.mediafire.com/?1ndm2hd9r1x
Page 0. Front page
Page 4. VC list still has 1939 data. London is 5 not 4. Remove duplicate Singapore under UK.
Page 7. “German and Soviet Capital Infantry costs at 2 IPC are limited to 8 total infantry per turn.” unnecessary as Berlin and Moscow can only raise 6 per turn
Page 7. Air Movement. “Each defending air unit except Bombers in a territory function under Defensive Air Support (DAS) against overflown enemy air units in Combat Move, unless they are performing Reinforcement or Air Interdiction this turn.”
But we no longer allow AA fire towards hostile overflying air units.Page 9. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact
Have you decided to apply it to all maps?Page 9. Lend Lease
I think its time we get rid of all the “phase” names for maps. Player have no idea what they are. Even I am confused as we didn’t have a “phase 1” map and “phase 3” I thought was what we called the “italy map”.Lets call it “standard”, “Italy as 6th player” and “1939” map. Make sure each map has a section after the main rules before the appendix.
Page 10. Land Combat: Sequence
When I wrote that section it I made it simple and all air units fire in opening-fire for simplicity. Excess dogfighting hits go onto land units.Now, should excess dogfighting hits pre-empt land units? If not, then air units should fire in opening-fire only if there was air superority.
Or, maybe air units shouldn’t fire in opening-fire after all. Seeing fighter gives tank +1 on 1-to-1 basis if there was air superiority.
Page 13. Naval combat
I would waste effort updating and re-updating the text. Wait til we agree on naval combat (via discussion on naval combat sequence).Page 17. Air Missions
You can no longer perform two missions.Page 17. Reinforcements
Text not yet added. Find the latest agreement in previous post.Page 18. Strait Interdiction
Dardanelles is now listed here. So its no longer a canal?
Denmark Strait is not listed here. So submarines passage of SZ5 still require control of Norway+Germanhy?Page 20. Deployment
You’ve yet to add back each VC has its own capacity to deploy infantry/airborne.Page 20. Rockets silos.
I presume you copied this from your modern edition project.Page 28. ID
You haven’t replied yet. So we do let people build ID for rockets. Do we let people have the option to beef up defense again SBR and air.
Suggested Topics
