AARHE 1939 map and rule files

SZ 49?

This makes Philippines equidistant to Japan as from Marianas and Okinawa, so possibly divide diagonally and move Okinawa to the north of SZ 49, with Iwo Jima taking it’s place?  In fact Iwo Jima could even be in SZ 60 on this map.  If you remember the main reason for taking this lump of rock was to give US fighters a base from which to escort bombers (based in the Marianas) on their way to attack the Japanese mainland.

[attachment deleted by admin]

@Imperious:

ok heres the fix. anything else?

yes, standing questions…

mountainous landing
Is “2 per SZ per cycle, until 1 or more of the 2 units survive” ok?

North Africa
Remove Tunsia? Map getting hugely disportionate with everywhere broken up except North America.

China
National Advantage instead of Tibet IC? eg. China can build ART (artillery) without IC.

Pacific
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands
Aleutian seems significant enough to be added to SZ 63. It’ll also make the 3 SZ Bering Strait look better.

North America
Why did AARHE give Western US access to SZ 54?
Should it be removed?

I have no problem with Tunisia.  It may be considered as mountainous, a last holdout for the Axis in Africa?

I’ll post a PNG version for the next update.

Mountainous landing
Well I am thinking once 1 or more of the 2 units survive you’ve secured a position on the coastline so other units can land.

If the restriction lasts through out the entire combat then it would seem to make the whole combat is on the coastline?
Similarly, the normal amphibious assault advantages lasts for first turn only.
The mountainous +1 bonus models the defender advantage for the “inland part” of the combat.

Otherwise, whats the theory behind your solution?

North Africa
Fine. Don’t add VC though. VC is meant to mean big population centres for infantry raising and cheaper IC.

http://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/africa.jpg (Morocco looks mountainous too.)

Western US
I still don’t understand. Why a line through the baja? Did the borders change between WWII and now?
http://www.world-atlas.us/north-america-map.gif (Its one clean line across north of the baja?)

Remote in gameplay yes but OOB didn’t have it and so it can be a joke that we introduced it.
And it does make ships built at Western US can get to Eastern US faster.

Eastern US
SZ 67 duplicate. (Greenland also 67.)

That should be all, at least for now.

Next we’ll scrutinize the rules file.

By the way, I looked at real map again and Northern Italy as mountainous is about right.

Welcome back, Yope.

Look at the latest map and you’ll see that this has been rectified as a result of my continual hectoring on the issue.

Naming the territory is a mute point; strictly speaking Rio de Oro was a part of Spanish Sahara, but not the whole, so technically you could use either name.

I’ll try to get round to it; working on a new top secret movie-tie-in version of Magnum Force.  Stand by!

I am waiting for an update and do another PNG export.

You said you used the latest (August) file. I make comments assuming so. Anyway if my comment don’t make sense cross check with the latest file.

There seems to be lots of changes. I can’t distinguish between errors and changes.

Various broken sentences (from cut and paste?) here and there. I guess you were rushed and will polish this later. A pity since you’ve posted on boardgamegeek prematurely.

I think good to put date on top right corner of first page for versioning.

Watermark could be dimmed to make it easier to read.

Index would be nice. I like to let people know the main part is actually only 20 pages.

Why is the frontpage at the back?

Page 1. Its not version 1.3 when we’ve already released 2.0 and 3.0. Probably call it 3.1.

Page 2. Before I made it that victory conditions were vaccessed in real-time so Allies can’t win with a suicide attack.

Page 4. Mechansim to save money is removed. Its important in some situations.

Page 4. Cruiser used to take 2 turns to build. Is that still so?

Page 4. Convoy. I like would to rehash why we didn’t use a convoy zone system previously in AARHE. Both a supply-side and demand-side convoy zone becomes stupid when supplies ain’t even going through the area. If you want to simpify the old system we can work out ways.

Page 5. Upkeep. You shouldn’t be able to delay upkeep payment and definitely not delay indefinitely and further definitely not delay without combat restrictions. Make it they can’t move and simply become destroyed on contact. 2nd turn without upkeep it becomes destroyed.

Page 7. You want canal treatment for Baltic Sea? Remember to update the map.

Page 7. I don’t see why strategic movement should be unaffected by special passage.

Page 7. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact is an obvious addition. But we didn’t have it before and there was probaly a good reason?

Page 7. I don’t agree with the new Conquest rule. You lose your capital you lose that bit of income. There need not be further penalty. It could be part of a planned retreat anyway.

Page 8. Those 1939 rules should not be under “Phase 3: Combat Move” section. In fact think its better to group all 1939 rules together in a section explaining the map in optional rules (like before with “italy map”). As you’ve put it, this is a template for various AARHE maps. Things are gonna get messy real quick with new maps. Also, 1939 rules include a string of W@W like arbitary attempts to recreate history. Not the style of AARHE at all IMO. We also don’t want the page length savings to be taken up. You wanted to shorten the thing.

Page 10. Jet Supremacy. So jet can make targetted attack against air units now. Is the old ability of “skipping dogfight” still go?

Page 11. “If at any time one side has only air units remaining in battle they must be retreated to
a friendly territory within ½ flight range.” I think attacking air units retreat with normal range. Defending air units retreat within 1 space previously. Define “1/2 flight range”.

Page 11. Anti air is EVERY cycle. Don’t think we should give all territories 1 ID.

Page 12. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment is limited to one hit every four attacking land units (which probably should be changed to count INF and Airborne only). Not one SB roll every four attacking land units.

page 13. Destroyer negating submarine opening-fire on a 1-to-1 basis is a great rule for OOB. But it breaks the AARHE sequence.

Page 14. Naval anti-air is very different to land combat. Naval anti-air is more powerful due to no terrain over and no emergency landing. Naval anti-air is not pre-emptive because the target IS the anti-air. No flak guns shots popping up at the unexpected places.

Page 14. ASW was last at 3 to search and 3 to hit. (25%) vs. Submarine’s 2 to hit (33%).

Page 15. “Naval units’ hits in main-round must be allocated on naval units first before air units can be allocated.” They already performed anti air earlier. I don’t think main rounds hits should be able to hit air units.

Page 16. Naval Combat: Amphibious Assault. All hostile naval units that submerged or break-off do not prevent the land combat portion.

Page 16. Defensive Air Support Mission. If combat is over before they arrive WHICH territory can then relocate to?

Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.

Page 16. Escorts. Lots more work defining it.

Page 16. Ground Interdiction. What happens if enemy has air units remaining in the territory? What happens when the bomber is attacked in enemy’s turn? Ground interdiction was the way it was for various reasons. I wanted to expand air missions before but there is much work involving air units.

Page 17. Strait Interdiction. No longer need value column in the table. 2 dice if you hold both territories right?

Page 17. The Strategic Redeployment might not be a good model. Maybe better to draw rail lines.

Page 18. “Built naval units are placed adjacent to either an Industrial Complex or a controlled Victory City.” What do you mean Victory City?

Page 19. Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Should list modifiers not specific numbers. All air units? All same value?

Page 22. Neutral Military Deployment. Would be more realistic if 1939 had 1939 values? Did Spain and Turkey have such a large force in 1939?

Page 23. Appendix. Carrier was attack 1 defence 1.

@Imperious:

+++++OK I will index it like an old SPI game  (example Movement 1.0, 1.1,1.2,1.3 etc)

The 1.1 1.2 might make it seem long.
What I mean is I want them to know its just 20 pages from the index…that is reader knows in the first few pages.

++++ thats not much of an issue anybody can just place that page on the front. It does not even have a page number.

Doesn’t hurt to move it to the front right? Looks better.

++++++ It may be more accurate to address it as 1.3 like LHTR 1.1,1.2 and 1.3. The previous counts were not correct and its better to restart on the right foot then to repeat past mistakes.

You saying we shouldn’t jump the number too quickly?

Or you mean to call 1.3 just because its LHTR 1.3.
That we can’t do cos how are we going to do versioning?

Page 2. Before I made it that victory conditions were vaccessed in real-time so Allies can’t win with a suicide attack.
+++++++Please explain this more.

Because Allies goes after Axis. Axis don’t have chance to respond to unreasonable/un-hold-able suicide attack by Allies.
If its accessed in real-time you can put a different argument and make both teams defend against such method to victory.

Page 4. Mechansim to save money is removed. Its important in some situations.
+++++ its too complicated and leads to some tedious situations playability is issue

But its useful for naval construction. Whats the playability issues? Even SBR rule catered for it.

+++++ not anymore. This gives the cruiser more vitality especially for Germany/Italy who are usually stuck with some kind of fleet crisis due to the allies.

OK.

++++++ that system is really tedious. Its too difficult to even grasp from the viewpoint of any newcomer to this variant any idea what that was. I must have read that thing 20 times and nothing got any clearer
its not adding anything fun to the game at all.

I hope you were NOT reading the version that requires writing things down. The latest version requires no writing down.

Lets work something out. Anything but forcing a particular route of convoy. Its important for AARHE as we don’t just build at ICs.

+++++++++ ok that is fine. no delay. actually i will reword it so its impossible for these units to have a chance to enter desert unless you already have the money

Yeah I guess particularly important for amphibious assault.

Page 7. You want canal treatment for Baltic Sea? Remember to update the map.
+++++ no it clearly says something about no entrance unless the allies control western germany

I am fine not able to go into Baltic without contorl of Denmark. I just don’t see the difference between that and canal treatment.

Page 7. I don’t see why strategic movement should be unaffected by special passage.
+++++++++please explain “special passage”

Actually its ok now. Strategic movement is a new term and I got confused.

Page 7. Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression pact is an obvious addition. But we didn’t have it before and there was probaly a good reason?
+++++ not thinking outside the box was the reason

I wouldn’t call not copying over the common non-agression pact as “not thinking outside the box”. You know how I feel. I don’t like forcing history but realistic modelling. Anyway its not bad a deal since we don’t allow non-Allies Soviet. Though it might make a difference for “historical victory” game mode.

Page 7. I don’t agree with the new Conquest rule. You lose your capital you lose that bit of income. There need not be further penalty. It could be part of a planned retreat anyway.
++++++ conquest takes place when you lose ALL your factories. if you lose your capital you must lost something more than ‘another city ho hum’ you lose the centralized structure of government and the disarray is equal to a lost production above and beyond the territory value.

I think you should fight on without IC. You could have a sizeable force (without may include plenty of armor) and maybe the enemy made a suicide attack. We have various game modes let them do their job.

And fine we’ll go with 50% for now.

++++++ ok well get this structure fixed. the W@W stuff is very minimal and its very hard to recreate 1939 history because a small idea in this section can have huge effects on the final outcome. The goal was to get the axis at least to a similar point to where they would be in a 1942 scenario

Yeah better structure would be good.
Again make the Axis likely to be in similar situation in 1942 but don’t force it to happen or else whats the point of 1939 scenario.

++++++ yes that thing is totally junk. Jets used their speed to the bombers, while they still needed to deal with interceptors they were excellent at killing bombers… like subs.

OK.

Page 11. “If at any time one side has only air units remaining in battle they must be retreated to
a friendly territory within ½ flight range.” I think attacking air units retreat with normal range. Defending air units retreat within 1 space previously. Define “1/2 flight range”.
+++++++ this creates a problem borne out in play testing for other games. The range is too great allowing for “always on” DAS. The idea would be to be able to create holes in the fighter screen so a player has to choose where he picks his battles and cant defend everywhere at the same time. Otherwise the DAS effect is too great.

This is how it was.

Attacking air units retreat normally. ie. 1/2 of movement points so 2 for normal fighter. Hence don’t change that sentence. Talk about it in DAS or defender retreat.

Now what you care about is DAS. DAS still doesn’t let you fight in more than one space.
Defending air units (which includes DAS) don’t retreat base on their flight range. They can only retreat 1 space away.

The only thing is that DAS can reach 2 space away.

Page 11. Anti air is EVERY cycle. Don’t think we should give all territories 1 ID.
++++ sorry but thats not accurate. AA flak batteries were positioned in zones/belts where the bombers came in close. If i attack with fighters these cannot be shot down in great quantity because they are moving really fast, while bombers performing a SBR need to move really slow to have an accurate drop of bombs. AA guns must be only one round or the whole idea of flak makes no sence. Only 10% of total air loses were due to flak artillery. “Always ON” AA would totally disrupt that.

Bombers moving slowly and fighters moving fast is not addressed by old rules nor your new rules. You can do something if you want. (eg. Make it AA don’t need to perform search roll for SBR)

AA in non-combat move. You want to get rid of it then thats fine. LHTR does it that way too.

You want to remove flying-over AA fire. Thats fine too. Just say they are at long distance flight height.

But don’t change AA fire back to first cycle. We’ve already tuned the numbers. Personally I didn’t see AA being powerful at all. Its 2.8% chance per ID. We can reduce the no. of implicit ID and you get rid of search roll for SBR. Then less fighter loss more bomber loss which is what you want.

Page 12. Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment is limited to one hit every four attacking land units (which probably should be changed to count INF and Airborne only). Not one SB roll every four attacking land units.
++++ yes to be more accurate because only infantry types can land on the first round. I will add

Note its hits that are limited not rolls.

page 13. Destroyer negating submarine opening-fire on a 1-to-1 basis is a great rule for OOB. But it breaks the AARHE sequence.
+++++ then thats fine. I don’t see how it breaks the sequence however.

In AARHE submarines always fire in opening-fire. Destroyers takes hits for capital ships and then chases with ASW. Destroyers then fire in main round.

In OOB destroyers don’t get to fire twice. Negating the opening-fire works out similar to screening and ASW.

The idea is air and submarines attack first. Casualties don’t get to fight in main round (gun battle).

Page 14. Naval anti-air is very different to land combat. Naval anti-air is more powerful due to no terrain over and no emergency landing. Naval anti-air is not pre-emptive because the target IS the anti-air. No flak guns shots popping up at the unexpected places.
+++++ how it works is if the enemy has no CAP or air units then the enemy air has a distinct advantage, Naval AA rolls are very weak and the ONLY thing to fight planes… which is what it should be… if on sea you have no fighters you are sitting ducks… The only compensation is to allow the ships to gain preemptive hits and CA/ DD screens of targeted attacks IMO

You are confusing me. The rule and justification is sort of based on what you said back then.

Anyway. Start again. Is naval AA is weak or strong compared to ground AA?
If weak then we bring back the search roll and done. Then we don’t have to use preemptive as compensation.

Page 14. ASW was last at 3 to search and 3 to hit. (25%) vs. Submarine’s 2 to hit (33%).
++++ It was lowered by one to give the sub owners a “happy time” until technology can help bring up ASW

Actually I think its still quite “happy” at 25% vs. 33%.
And how long you want this happy time? UK starts with 1 of 3 progress boxes. (1942). UK can put 2 develop weapons rolls on ASW per turn. (1 free + 1 purchasable.) Thats 6 turns on average.

Page 15. “Naval units’ hits in main-round must be allocated on naval units first before air units can be allocated.” They already performed anti air earlier. I don’t think main rounds hits should be able to hit air units.
++++++ looking at this. your mostly correct.yep

Page 16. Naval Combat: Amphibious Assault. All hostile naval units that submerged or break-off do not prevent the land combat portion.
++++ yes and thats what it says. they have no further effect on the invasion.

OK.

Page 16. Defensive Air Support Mission. If combat is over before they arrive WHICH territory can then relocate to?
++++++ these DAS missions are performed in that same first turn. Thus combat would not be over. After they fly back to where they came from.

No worries. Technically return flight is in non-combat in LHTR.

Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
+++++ actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.

Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
Air units might dogfight first.

So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.

Page 16. Escorts. Lots more work defining it.
++++ ok how should it read? we can get the same words out of AA Europe because its the same exact idea

OK get and we’ll go from there.

Page 16. Ground Interdiction. What happens if enemy has air units remaining in the territory? What happens when the bomber is attacked in enemy’s turn? Ground interdiction was the way it was for various reasons. I wanted to expand air missions before but there is much work involving air units.
++++++it says they fly back home they cannot attack without land units in support.

The thing is interdiction used to be during YOUR turn. Now its during ENEMY’s turn? Yet normal movement isn’t affected.
I think it should be during YOUR turn. Fly back home this same turn.

Page 17. Strait Interdiction. No longer need value column in the table. 2 dice if you hold both territories right?  ++++ not really. Gibraltar does not require both sides. Why don’t we need ‘value’ column?

Cos its always “1” now. Previously we had Denmark which was “2”. Now its just “1”.

Page 17. The Strategic Redeployment might not be a good model. Maybe better to draw rail lines.
++++++ oh no. this is a really good idea to avoid marking up the map. I considered this with the map but it looked horrible. Remember bombers can reduce the SR capacity.

Yeah more map marking is not nice. But I feel just a number “8” would be weird.
Traffic in western europe shouldn’t reduce capacity in eastern europe?

Page 18. “Built naval units are placed adjacent to either an Industrial Complex or a controlled Victory City.” What do you mean Victory City?++++ yes exactly

So you can just build naval units at VC now? Repairing at VC makes sense. But building?

Page 19. Advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Should list modifiers not specific numbers. All air units? All same value?  +++++ please explain not clear

Modifiers like +1. Rather than redefining base value which can be confusing.
Is it your intention for all air units to perform ASW? And all at the same effectiveness?
A simple system would be only bombers can do ASW.

Page 22. Neutral Military Deployment. Would be more realistic if 1939 had 1939 values? Did Spain and Turkey have such a large force in 1939?
++++++ its best if we keep them strong, because the axis didn’t really have the capacity to take out large neutrals and its consistent for memory on the set up. A few different pieces will not ADD to the game.

Just checking like it can be funny. 1942 neutral forces copied over. And then 1939 map has more neutrals territories and more neutral units.

Page 23. Appendix. Carrier was attack 1 defence 1.

You didn’t reply to this one.
To rehash we made CV 1/1 and AP 0/0 because the argument is escort no longer need to be explicit addition of DD and CA from AA classic.

@Imperious:

You saying we shouldn’t jump the number too quickly?
++++++ It looks like its 3 revisions. 3.1 could actually be many more than 3… 1.1,1.2.1.8,2.9,3.0,3.1 wheras 1.3 is at least the same system as LHTR

Or you mean to call 1.3 just because its LHTR 1.3.
That we can’t do cos how are we going to do versioning?
+++++++ no thats not the reason but it is to make it consistent with THAT other system

It deoesn’t have to be 3.1.
It can 4.0.

We have to expect to have to update.
When we update then your 1.3 would become 1.4. And there isn’t LHTR 1.4 anyway

LHTR 2.0 has been for months but I haven’t looked into it.
If there was a “changelog” we could quickly asset it and see if we could say “LHTR 2.0” instead at the first page.

Because Allies goes after Axis. Axis don’t have chance to respond to unreasonable/un-hold-able suicide attack by Allies.
If its accessed in real-time you can put a different argument and make both teams defend against such method to victory.
+++++++OK then how should it read??

Just say like before. “Victory conditions are assessed in real-time”. You can add that with “historic victory” game mode the conditions can be satisfied and player can reveal their mission and win the rank immediately.

But its useful for naval construction. Whats the playability issues? Even SBR rule catered for it.
++++ thats correct. good point. ok then how should it read?

Below.

Its too difficult to even grasp from the viewpoint of any newcomer to this variant any idea what that was. I must have read that thing 20 times and nothing got any clearer
its not adding anything fun to the game at all.
I hope you were NOT reading the version that requires writing things down. The latest version requires no writing down.
+++++ i was reading the last version and the wording was very convoluted. OK can you rephrase the original meaning in very simple language?

Supply line or Blockade or another name
IPC to be spent or saved must have a path from source to destination territory. You may only save IPC at a  victory city. IPC not spent nor saved is forfeited.

IPC Path
A path can consist of territories your land units may go through as well as sea zones. It can enter the sea from the source or an adjacent territory. It can use the shortest path and exit the sea only at the destination territory.

Convoy
A sea zone on a path is a convoy sea zone. Each hostile naval unit (except transport) in a convoy sea zone may perform a convoy attack roll. 1 IPC of friendly convoys in that sea zone is destroyed on a roll of 3 or less.

I am fine not able to go into Baltic without control of Denmark. I just don’t see the difference between that and canal treatment.
++++ Denmark is part of Germany. Denmark is too small to be represented. Allies need control of Germany to be able to pass into the Baltic and they cannot cross into the 5th sea zone. The only way to get to the Baltic is invade Germany by france. By then the games really over anyway and history is satisfied.

What I am saying is since you need Germany and Norway to go in and out of Baltic Sea maybe we should just treat it like canal and draw a symbol on the Denmark Strait on the map.
It would save listing out a special rule. Or even if explicitly written it’ll be just an entry under a “special passage” section listing all the canals (eg. Suez) and passes (eg. Pyrenees).

I think you should fight on without IC. You could have a sizeable force (without may include plenty of armor) and maybe the enemy made a suicide attack. We have various game modes let them do their job.
+++++ ok yes i didnt make it clear. You can still fight on but you cant build… which for all intents means your out of the game unless you retake a factory. You are still playing but are basically ‘partisans’

Can’t build anything? Not even raise infantry at VC?

We can just say factory represents heavy industry.
Thats why infantry are built at VC.

++++ ok then how should it then read?? 1) no non-combat AA guns, 2) AA fire in every round? 3)possible changes in hit ratios?  please post your idea.

Already in LHTR 1.3
*Return flight is non-combat
*Non-combat AA fire is off

So its mostly what it was before. Roll 1 to search. Roll 1 hit.
The only thing is during SBR no need to search.

Put among “Land Combat: Anti-Air rolls” something like…

Infrastructure defence fires in opening-fire of every combat cycle. Each infrastructure defence selects an enemy air unit independently. After all selections are made, each ID rolls a search die detecting its target on 1. Each ID selects an enemy air unit independently among the detected air units. After all selections are made, each ID rolls an attack die hitting its target on 1, forcing the target to retreat on 2.

Put among “Special Combat: Strategic Bombing Run” something like…

During anti-air procedure, search dice are not rolled. All hostile air units are detected.

In AARHE submarines always fire in opening-fire. Destroyers takes hits for capital ships and then chases with ASW. Destroyers then fire in main round.
In OOB destroyers don’t get to fire twice. Negating the opening-fire works out similar to screening and ASW.
The idea is air and submarines attack first. Casualties don’t get to fight in main round (gun battle).

++++OK please phrase what it should read. I’m lost on this point.

Basically air and submarine attack first with their speed or stealth.
So what they kill don’t get to fight in the main gun battle.

I am not sure what you are lost on. If you understand the above then all we need to do is remove the sentence about destroyers negating submarine’s sneak fire on a 1-to-1 basis.
Because the naval combat sequence already displays the procedure.

It should be preemptive because unlike land combat these ships are moving much faster and the plane needs to be closer and thats why the fire is preemptive, a torpedo attack requires the plane is perpendicular profile to the warship ans it must fly at a level, which gives the ship an advantage to fire at it first.

OK thats good enough. Preemptive it is.

Actually I think its still quite “happy” at 25% vs. 33%.
And how long you want this happy time? UK starts with 1 of 3 progress boxes. (1942). UK can put 2 develop weapons rolls on ASW per turn. (1 free + 1 purchasable.) Thats 6 turns on average.

+++++Yes very good point! ok then how should it then read?

I don’t know which point is the “very good point”.

If you think 25% vs. 33% is “happy time” enough then just make it roll 3 to search and roll 3 to hit.

If you think the ASW tech is too long at “6 turns on average” from 1942 then maybe give “1942 UK” 2 of 3 boxes of ASW tech.

Lets think about how they fits together
*historic first happy time
*historic second happy time
*game 1939
*game 1939-1942
*game 1942
*game post 1942

++++So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence…. BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.

OK then. Just make it short and sweet.

++++ ok wait a sec. You still fly your units during your turn and they remain in those enemy territories and stop strategic movement thru this territory. On your next turn they are returned home and can then be used for further missions. isn’t that what it reads?

Next turn? “your next turn” or just “next turn”?

If interdiction mission lets your bomber stay in enemy territory during enemy turn then you have to cater for what happens when there are enemy air units in the teritory or new enemy air units enter the territory.

That system is what they use in The War Game, but that allows many (too many) post movements. Our system has a more abstract simpler mechanism behind it.

Is Strategic Redeployment (SR) during active turn, passive turn, or both?

+++ huh? the rule is unchanged as before. you place new units in only sea zones that are adjacent to either a factory or failing that, a SZ adjacent to any VC, because in some cases a factory is not adjacent to a sea zone. what is at issue here? i am unclear.

I think its changed. Inland IC shouldn’t be able to build naval units and I think thats simple. You want inland IC to build ships?
If you do then you have to word it more than “any VC”.

++++Planes perform ASW only after the tech is acquired to allow for this. Other than that i think that bombers can conduct ASW search ( but not combat)

Ok just remember to display modifiers instead. Base values and then everything else is modifier. So ASW tech is “+1 to search and attack rolls”.

To rehash we made CV 1/1 and AP 0/0 because the argument is escort no longer need to be explicit addition of DD and CA from AA classic.

++++ this was a tough decision… the carrier must have something more than one to account for a cruiser hull platform. a 2 is reasonable, while a 3 is too much. AP is junk and even a spitball could sink a transport.

CV is already made two hits to account for cruiser hulll. Empty CV should be weak.