AARHE 1939 map and rule files

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…    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.

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 interdiction

And 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

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)

1. Any Bomber(s) that were used for a SBR attack also can participate in Ground Interdiction mission. This is the only time where an air unit can perform two missions in the same turn. Each bomber must first survive ID rolls or attacks by enemy planes in the target territory and then rolls one D6 trying to roll its hit number (4 or less). If successful a number of enemy units equal to what was rolled reduce the total capacity of Strategic Redeployments. Enemy air units in the chosen territory for interdiction may participate in one round of aerial dogfight combat. The attacker may also bring escorts to protect the bombing mission. Surviving Bombers are returned to their base.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.