AARHE Historical Map

@cds

Here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32236/oztea-s-1939-global-setup?page=1

I don’t think it says either way, which is why I have all these questions.

Yes the Negotiations Chart and Research chart are both included in the 7.0 production chart here about halfway down the page:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34496.30

What software program do you use to edit the map?

As you can see CWO, Japan is more or less stationed in Saigon and the Philippines protecting there money islands they have control of after 4 turns.
Also they seem to be buying a few more bombers due to there range from airbases in Saigon and the Philippines.

This setup does change the game for Japan and the allies. Right now it is making UK spend more money in the Pacific as far as more ships.
It also has made the US buy more in Europe due to UK has no control in Africa and not spending any money in Europe side. The US right now is doing Operation Torch for support in Africa but may shift to London with troops. With the UK Pacific ship buy support, its seems to give US a little more room to focus some troops else where.

UK is not split up as for as the money goes. They start with 75 icps and can buy anywhere. If this was a split economy ( UK, Canada,  FEC, and Anzac ) it would probably make the US buy all in the Pacific because UK Pacific side would be in a world of hurt with Japan focusing everything down by thee islands.

Just thought you like to see how it was going with the territory value changes and moves.

Please, I need everyone opinion.
And more specifically, I’m asking people which have a lot of experience with G40 games.

Because I’m still trying to keep the OOB Carrier and develop a real Fighter unit (able to hit directly planes) within the OOB combat values of G40 Full Carrier (A6 D10 / A7 D9 / A6 D8), I’m locked within some borders. Here they are.

Do you think this can still be a viable Fighter unit?
Or is this already and ultimately doomed because it remains too powerful with a Defense @3 which hit directly enemy’s planes?

Does a reduced cost for planes, such as minus 2 IPCs, (ex.: Fg at 8 IPCs, TcB at 9 IPCs, StB at 10 IPCs) can change something about balancing this Fighter unit?
(Here, I thought about a reduced cost as a way to compensate for high attrition rates amongst planes.)

This also rise the issue about such high SBR values, does an increased risk to loose valuable 12 IPCs Strategic Bombers still worth doing SBR? Or such revamped Fighter unit imply to revised SBR, anyway?

Details below are provided to understand what I’m talking about.
I’m not really trying to promote this new unit but rather asking people about obvious flaws which can be seen from experienced players POV get used to play with a lot of units and IPCs coming along with any G40 games.

Down below are the three aircraft units combat values and cost:

FIGHTER
Attack 2 can rise to 3
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
Air Superiority Weapon bonus:+1 Attack/Defense when fighting against only enemy’s aircrafts.
This last point is an entirely new feature:
it is provided to ensure that Fighters on Carrier can still have a high defense against any Strategic Bombers Spam, such as Darkened Skies strategy.

Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack / Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit

SBR escort mission: Attack @2
Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 3 can rise to 4
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 11
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with a Fighter
Combined Arms Bonus in Tank support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
+1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank

Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
Strategical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

No Carrier Operation

Now in SBR situations, aircrafts will be fighting each others with more logical values:
Fighters: Attack 2 Defense 3
Tactical Bombers: Attack 2 Defense 0
Strategic Bombers: Attack 1 Defense 0

I would like to be able to share the Axis & Allies Community maps, charts, tokens, aids, & Variants on my website. I already have one game system with map, rules, and setups that someone asked that I share with the Community, my only stipulation is that I am able to link to it within my web site that say it used a special color tank and I have it, I will link to it, tokens, etc. (It’s business)  :-D
Please email me your file(s) and a description on what you want on the site with your email or any credit for your work if you want it. It be be put on my site for downloads. If the file is too large, I will have to link it to mediafire where they can download it from there.
Thanks

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:

On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?

They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.

Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…

Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot.  Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry.  The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)

@Imperious:

+++++ Then i feel we should use the same pattern in AARHE to fit with LHTR. The language should be similiar so as not to confuse. Please modifiy this throughout the text.

Ok.

The diplomacy modifier of -3 was too much and leads to many neutrals converting too fast.

Yeah I can imagine.
Thats hitting on 4 or less, which is 66%.
Allies has 4 dices per turn.