I was referring to @Black_Elk 's project.
New Custom Map Project
-
I really wonder how much YG is going to pay attention to our comments here…also, apologies if I comment too much. But even if any of my “ideas” (which have been borrowed from others too) are not included, I will buy his new G40 board if its constructed and reasonably priced. I’m not rich, LOL!
I like CWO Marc’s idea just posted for the Chinese territories of relocating additional IPC values to other Chinese territories if zeroing out the regions bordering Russia…good idea.
I’m still advocating stripping Russian Pac side non-coastal territories to zero, and putting those 6 IPCs redistributed as such:
1-Leningrad
1-Urals
1-Bryansk
1-Stalingrad
1-Russia
Doing this I think takes away from having to discuss fixing an IPC imbalance. Russia gets the same and still gets to collect those additional IPCs for about the same amount of turns as if they were being gobbled up by Japan. Instead, they could get gobbled up by Germany, but the Axis still collectively only can gain the same amount of IPCs. In this case, less to Japan, but more to Germany.In regards to the island IPC changes; several different ways someone could go about this. In particular I’m an advocate of adding 2 IPCs each to the Guineas. Those 4 IPCs also would coincide with ANZAC’s +5 NO bonus. So now we’re talking about a larger IPC swing. It might be worth it for Japan and US/ANZAC players to really fight over them. Japan occupied/attacked them during WWII. And then the Allies liberated them in the course of the actual war. But how often does a Japanese player really go for the Guineas as an objective during a table top game? I’m really curious what you guys think about this those islands in particular?
https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2013/09/09/remembering-war-new-guinea/
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-coral-sea
Also, I think almost all islands on the board need a higher value; especially if a battle was fought there (like Crete). Even Sicily and Sardinia on the European board should be worth 1 IPC I think. The Allies almost invaded Sardinia, Sicily was. Crete had a huge battle in the early war. ANZAC forces came close to beating the Germany parachute troopers. ANZAC forces on Crete fought very well…if they knew the overall situation (that us armchair generals know), then it would have been the first German defeat in the war against western forces.
Other islands I think need a higher value. Iwo Jima due to it’s strategic location for bombing raids on Japan. Obviously that rock isn’t worth resources…so maybe I’m wrong here…just thought that it would be better if Japan had to defend an island like that or Okinawa. Again, for whatever island is increased for Japan, do the same for the allies side.
Also, if some islands scattered throughout the Pacific add too many IPC extras for one side or another, perhaps there could be a rule where the allies or Japanese forces would have to literally land a ground unit to in order to “activate” that IPC. Any thoughts on this idea?
-
On the subject of Russia’s stripped eastern IPCs going to western Russia rather than to the Pacific islands: in a sense it’s meaningless to say that the specific IPCs from specific territory X should be ressigned to territory Y as opposed to territory Z because all IPCs are the same. Nor does it really matter whether IPCs are reassigned in an IPC-neutral way overall, or whether new IPCs need to be created and added to the game map overall, except to the extent that the second method would allow for greater map modifications than the first method. In practical terms, all that really matters are three things: which territories have their IPC value go down (and by how many IPCs, if applicable); which territories have their IPC value go up (and by how many IPCs, if applicable); and whether these modifications raise or lower and have no effect on the number of IPCs that each power starts out with.
On the subject of all islands everywhere being boosted: the Russia/China/Pacific IPC modifications mentioned above were intended to solve a specific problem: discouraging Japan from carrying out a historically inaccurate (and physically improbable) offensive drive against Moscow via eastern Russia or China, and encouraging Japan to focus its attention instead on the Asia/Pacific theatre (which is where its attention was in WWII and should be in the game). The same technique could in principle be used to boost (or lower) the values of other territories that have nothing to do with the Russia/China/Pacific problem, if those other territories were considered to be sufficiently problematic, but I don’t know if the islands on the Europe side of the map are problematic to the same extent as the Russia/China/Pacific situation.
-
Islands on the European side are not problematic…I’m not strongly advocating that places like Sicily get an IPC. Won’t mention it again. Just thought it might result in the Allies going for it. One player against me did take Sicily. He stacked infantry there for cover and used it as a staging area to bomb Germany.
Russia: Â I wouldn’t want Russia to lose their total IPC income (as they have to buy lots of infantry or Moscow will fall even easier) when zeroing out Pac side non-coastal territories for game play. I like zeroing out the non-coastal territories in order to take away the incentive for Japan to help the drive towards Moscow (which I agree makes no sense for several reasons).
I do like creating incentives for Japan to go more for the island battles.
I like the Guineas in particular having an IPC value.
Well, I’ve commented too many times on this thread…I’m going to try to refrain from further comments. Thanks for the discussion CWO Marc, Black_Elk, and SS.
-
I really wonder how much YG is going to pay attention to our comments here.
I will definitely absorb and consider all suggestions, I really appreciate all the feedback and the extensive discussion generated here. I am all in on my card deck accessory right now and don’t have much time to comment on the map… but I look forward to reading everything here and coming up with a consensus. After skimming over the posts… I really like what I see so far.
-
I think all of this discussion really depends on what your intention is and what it should be. It seemed to me that your original intention was to make a map of Global 40 that was more functional and had all of the aides placed on it. The discussion has morphed into how can we change the game to make it better. So really we are talking about 2 things here. If we change the map itself, i.e. different income values or making it so one particular territory doesn’t touch another specific one then we are creating a different game. Similar but different. That would be like adding a row of squares to a chess board. It wouldn’t be the same game.
There is room for both ideas, improving the game board and creating a new, community driven game itself. Perhaps there should be 2 separate discussions for these ideas.
-
From what I understand of YG’s opening post on the first page, the project aims to do at least one but possibly two things. The “at least one” aim is to improve the map in ways that don’t change how it functions rule-wise: making it bigger and more attractive, adding tools that facilitate play, correcting map errors that have no impact on play, and so forth. The “possibly two” aim is to combine the improvements just mentioned with some other elements that actually do affect play rule-wise, if such modifications are found to be broadly acceptable to a majority of people.
-
battle board on the map
Hmm…I wonder about that. If the map is printed on something rigid like cardboard, the repeated impact of dice on a batttle board printed on the map itself might cause the sculpts on the map to jiggle out of position. More seriously, aggressively thrown dice might bounce/skid across the map and plow into the sculpts like a bowling ball into a rack of bowling pins, with similar results. The jiggle problem would be reduced if the map were printed on something soft and shock-absorbing, like vinyl, but the bowling ball issue might still be a problem.
-
@CWO:
From what I understand of YG’s opening post on the first page, the project aims to do at least one but possibly two things. The “at least one” aim is to improve the map in ways that don’t change how it functions rule-wise: making it bigger and more attractive, adding tools that facilitate play, correcting map errors that have no impact on play, and so forth. The “possibly two” aim is to combine the improvements just mentioned with some other elements that actually do affect play rule-wise, if such modifications are found to be broadly acceptable to a majority of people.
Correct.
-
@CWO:
battle board on the map
Hmm…I wonder about that. If the map is printed on something rigid like cardboard, the repeated impact of dice on a batttle board printed on the map itself might cause the sculpts on the map to jiggle out of position. More seriously, aggressively thrown dice might bounce/skid across the map and plow into the sculpts like a bowling ball into a rack of bowling pins, with similar results. The jiggle problem would be reduced if the map were printed on something soft and shock-absorbing, like vinyl, but the bowling ball issue might still be a problem.
Well, people really should be using a box or a dice tray, it’s kinda like wearing a seat belt… if you don’t, you gotta accept the consequences. I’m looking into double printing for front and back of the boards… maybe a G40 map on one side, and a map with some house rule aspects on the other.
-
As far as battle board I would put them on the ends of table off the map like I have.
It is so convenient.
And with size of G40 map won’t take as much room as my table.
Mines 60" x 144" -
In regards to the Battle Board…please see YG’s video at around 8:12.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlha8-nCxU
I think he got the Battle Board in the right spot in his custom. In fact, that’s about where I’ve set it during a table top game when we resolved to use it.
YG, if you build this custom board…double printed (standard G40 on one side, with improvements), and some game changing aspects, like in this discussion thread…I will buy it!
Cheers!
Ichabod -
@Young:
I’m looking into double printing for front and back of the boards… maybe a G40 map on one side, and a map with some house rule aspects on the other.
That would be a very elegant way of solving the question of whether the map should simply be an upgrade or whether it should incorporate rule modifications: it would have both, and players could choose to use whichever side they wish for a given game. And if it turns out that printing the map double-sided is mechanically impossible (or too expensive), the fall-back solution would be to offer the map in two separate versions.
-
I think that’s a great idea too. It would be such a huge bonus to have 2 different choices of map to play the game on. It’s also a cool idea to have everyone contribute to a new game that we all have the pieces for already but only need a new playing surface.
-
To add a few more ideas to the discussion, here are some expanded and revised versions of the IPC-adjustment concepts and charts that I posted previously. They’re not intended to be finished products; they’re simply meant to generate feedback and discussion. I’ll post the information about them in multiple messages, since I’d probably go over the post-length limit if I tried to put everything into a single message. The sections and parts will be:
SECTION A: The Soviet Union and China
PART 1: Introduction
PART 2: Adjustments for the Soviet Union
PART 3: Adjustments for ChinaSECTION B: The Pacific
PART 1: Introduction
PART 2: Adjustments for the Pacific======================================
SECTION A: The Soviet Union and China
PART 1: IntroductionAs previously mentioned, the idea is to use IPC adjustments to discourage Japan from heading westward towards Moscow (which it did not do historically, and which would be improbable in view of the distances involved) and to encourage Japan to head eastward into the Pacific (which it did do historically).
On the Global 1940 game map, Japan can in principle launch an attack against Moscow by four different overland routes:
-
Through the Soviet Union alone. Starting from Manchuria, Japan can strike north and then west. Under this option, Japan has to traverse at least eight Soviet territories to reach Moscow. Various routes of this length are available, one example being the one that traverses Amur, Buryatia, Yakut, Yenisey, Timguska, Novosibirsk, Samara and Russia.
-
Via China. Starting from Jehol, Shantung, Kiangsu, Kiangsi and/or Kwangsi, Japan can strike west across the Chinese territories that are still controlled by China. Japan’s shortest route to Moscow via China starts from Kwangsi and traverses six territories: three Chinese ones (Yunnan, Szechwan and Sikang) and three Soviet ones (Kazakhstan, Samara and Russia).
-
Via Mongolia. This route is more trouble than it’s worth. It doesn’t save Japan any time (since it too involves traversing at least eight territories), it violates Mongolia’s neutrality (with all the consequences that this involves), and it gains Japan no IPCs (because Mongolia’s territories have no IPC value).
-
Via Southeast Asia. This is an even less attractive option than going through Mongolia: it’s the longest overland route of all, it involves fighting the UK, and it also involves violating Afghan and/or Persian neutrality.
(Just for fun, it should be noted that Japan technically has a fifth option for invading the Soviet Union: by amphibious landing. The Soviet Union has coastlines on four bodies of water that are, in principle, all reachable by a Japanese naval task force: the Pacific (SZ 3, 4 and 5), the Black Sea (SZ 100, if Turkey is under Axis control), the Baltic (SZ 115); and the White Sea (SZ 127). A Japanese amphibious landing in SZ 3, 4 or 5 wouldn’t actually be hard to do, but there would be little point to it because a Japanese overland invasion of the Soviet Union from Manchuria would be more efficient. As for the notion of a Japanese amphibious landing in southern, central or northern European waters…well, it would at least have the virtue of being something that the Allies would probably never expect.)
If we therefore assume that Japan’s only two serious options for invading the Soviet Union are by land through eastern Russia or China, then those are the only two areas where IPC values need to be adjusted in some way to discourage Japan from doing so.
The original concept from a few days ago was to keep the adjustments IPC-neutral for the map as a whole. This hasn’t turned out to be feasible, so the fall-back solution is now to have a net gain of IPCs for the map as a whole, but to keep this creation of new IPCs to a minimum.
The original concept also overlooked the fact that some of the IPC adjustments which had been proposed would have resulted in a net loss of starting income for the Soviet Union and China, which in turn would have negatively affected their ability to buy units. In the revised version below, the IPC adjustments cause no net change to the starting income for the Soviet Union and China. Two different methods, however, have been used to adjust the IPC values of the Soviet Union and China, as will be explained in their respective parts.
-
-
SECTION A: The Soviet Union and China
PART 2: Adjustments for the Soviet UnionThree main principles were used to prepare the table below:
-
Each decrease to the IPC value of a Soviet territory needs to be compensated by an equivalent increase to the IPC value of another Soviet territory.
-
These compensatory IPC increases should be spread out rather than concentrated into a small number of territories, in order to avoid making some territories disproportionately valuable.
-
The number of Soviet territories targeted for an IPC decrease should be as small as possible, in order to keep the number of compensatory IPC increases as small as possible.
Based on these principles:
-
The IPC values of Sakha, Siberia and the Soviet Far East were left unchanged. Japan does not have to traverse these territories to reach Moscow, and therefore no measures need to be taken to discourage Japan from entering these territories.
-
No change was made to Amur either, even though it does have to be entered if Japan wishes to reach Moscow by traversing Soviet territory alone. Japan fought border wars with Russia and Mongolia in his area in the late 1930s, and it maintained a large army in nearly Manchuria for much of WWII. Amur is therefore a reasonable target for Japanese invasion for reasons that are independent of its potential use in the game as the entry point for a drive against Moscow.
-
The remaining Soviet territories on the Pacific side of the Global 1940 map are Buryatia, Yakut, Yenisey, Evenkiyskiy and Timguska. They have to be entered if Japan wishes to reach Moscow by traversing Soviet territory alone. To discourage Japan from doing so, their IPC values of 1 have all been reduced to 0. This puts 5 IPCs into the redistribution pool for the Soviet Union.
-
The three Soviet territories on the right-side edge of the Europe 1940 map (Urals, Novosibirsk and Kazakhstan) form a border between the Pacific 1940 map to their right and the rest of the Soviet Union to their left. Any invasion of the Soviet Union through eastern Russia or China has to traverse at least one of these territories. Their IPC values of 1 have therefore all been reduced to 0. This puts 3 more IPCs into the redistribution pool for the Soviet Union, for a total of 8.
-
The Soviet Union has one territory with an IPC value of 3 (Russia, which contains Moscow) and six territories with an IPC value of 2 (Novgorod, which contains Leningrad; Volgograd, which contains Stalingrad; and the territories of Caucasus, Rostov, Ukraine and Western Ukraine). The 8 IPCs in the redistribution pool for the Soviet Union have therefore been expended by allocating 2 of them to Russia (raising its IPC value from 3 to 5) and 1 to each of the six other territories (raising their IPC value from 2 to 3).
The IPC adjustment table for the Soviet Union is therefore:
Buryatia Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Yakut Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Yenisey Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Evenkiyskiy Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Timguska Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Urals Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Novosibirsk Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Kazakhstan Old value: 1 IPC New value: 0 IPC
Russia Old value: 3 IPC New value: 5 IPC
Novgorod Old value: 2 IPC New value: 3 IPC
Volgograd Old value: 2 IPC New value: 3 IPC
Caucasus Old value: 2 IPC New value: 3 IPC
Rostov Old value: 2 IPC New value: 3 IPC
Ukraine Old value: 2 IPC New value: 3 IPC
Western Ukraine Old value: 2 IPC New value: 3 IPC -
-
SECTION A: The Soviet Union and China
PART 3: Adjustments for ChinaThe IPC redistribution method which was used for the Soviet Union is not suitable for use in China’s case. China has fewer territories than the Soviet Union on the Global 1940 map, and some of them are already under Japanese occupation at the game. This means there are fewer Chinese territoires to choose from when deciding which ones should be targeted for an IPC reduction and which ones should not. This situation also limits the number of Chinese territories in which compensatory IPC increases can be made, and therefore creates the potential for excessive concentration of IPCs into a few territories. A further complication is that Japan’s shortest route to Moscow via China traverses Yunnan and Szechwan, two territories which are already of special value to both China and Japan because control of those territories determines whether or not the Burma Road can contribute to China’s war effort.
The IPC adjustment solution which was developed for China is based on the fact that special OOB Global 1940 rules apply to China (rules which state among other things that China has a rural economy and decentralized government). The IPC adjustment solution developed for China assigns two possible IPC values to each of the territories originally controlled by China at the start of the game: their original value of 1 IPC when they are controlled by China, and a downgraded value of 0 IPC when they are controlled by Japan. This concept is expressed in the table below by the IPC value “1/0” (standing for “one or zero” not “one divided by zero”). As a map symbol modification it could be expressed as 1*, or the printed map figure could be left unchanged as long as players remember that the Chinese territories originally controlled by China have two possible values.
The two-value system for China has both advantages and disadvantages. Its advantage is that it helps to discourage Japan from advancing into Chinese territory (because Japan gains no IPCs from doing so) and that it avoids creating the problems which an IPC redistribution would cause in China’s case. Its disadvantage is that it is a less powerful deterrent to Japan than the IPC redistribution method which was used in the Soviet Union’s case: Japanese territorial gains in China do not translate into IPC gains for Japan, but they do translate into IPC losses for China and this something which works to Japan’s advantage.
The IPC adjustment table for China is therefore:
Anhwe Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Chahar Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Hopei Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Hunan Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Kansu Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Kweichow Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Shensi Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Sikang Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Suiyuyan Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Szechwan Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Tsinghai Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC
Yunnan Old value: 1 IPC New value: 1/0 IPC -
SECTION B: The Pacific
PART 1: IntroductionIn the same way that territory values in the Soviet Union and China have been adjusted downward to discourage Japan from moving westward towards Moscow, territory values in the Pacific have been adjusted upward to encourage Japan to devote more of its war effort to the Pacifc Ocean. (These adjustments may also have the beneficial effect of encouraging the US to fight in both theatres rather than concentrating its war effort in Europe.)
The adjustments have been made by creating additional IPCs, not by redistributing existing ones. Only Pacific island territories have been adjusted. Most of the adjusted islands are territories with a 0-IPC value on the OOB map; however, not all 0-IPC islands have been increased in value, and not all of the value increases have been to 0-IPC islands.
As in the case of the IPC adjustments in the Soviet Union and China, the IPC increases in the Pacific have been kept to a minimum, and have been spread out rather than concentrated. To maintain balance, the Allies (as a group) and Japan (the only Axis power in the Pacific) have been given the same number of new IPCs.
On the OOB game map, the following named island territories in the Pacific theatre have an IPC value of 0:
ALLIES:
United States
Aleutian Islands
Guam
Johnston Island
Line Islands
Midway
Wake Island
United Kingdom
Fiji
Samoa
ANZAC
New Britain
New Guinea
Solomon Islands
France
New Hebrides
AXIS:
Japan
Caroline Islands
Hainan
Marianas
Marshall Islands
Paulau Island -
SECTION B: The Pacific
PART 2: Adjustments for the PacificSince the Allies and Japan are supposed to receive an equal number of new IPCs, the first problem to be solved is to reduce the imbalance between the number of 0-IPC islands initially held by the Allies (12) and by Japan (5). On the Japanese side, moreover, the island of Hainan is not a good candidate to have its IPC value raised because it is in fact a Chinese territory which was captured by Japan in 1939, so it will be removed from the list; this drop Japan’s initial number from 5 to 4.
The French territory of the New Hebrides will be removed from the list because of France’s peculiar status in Global 1940, and because this territory was historically jointly administered by France and Britain as an Anglo-French Condominium. It is remote from Japan, and it was controlled by the Allies throughout WWII.
The British territories of Fiji and Samoa will be removed from the list. They are remote from Japan, and they were controlled by the Allies throughout WWII.
The US territories of Johnston Island and the Line Islands will be removed from the list. They are remote from Japan, and they were controlled by the Allies throughout WWII.
The US territory of the Aleutian Islands will be removed from the list. Two of the Aleutian Islands were occupied by Japan for part of WWII, but they proved to be of little use to Japan and they were kept under regular bomber attack by US forces for much of that time.
Based on the adjustments described above, the revised list of 0-IPC Pacific territories which are candidates for an IPC increase now features a more balanced number of 0-IPC islands initially held by the Allies (6) and by Japan (4):
ALLIES:
United States
Guam
Midway
Wake Island
ANZAC
New Britain
New Guinea
Solomon Islands
AXIS:
Japan
Caroline Islands
Marianas
Marshall Islands
Paulau IslandIf all of these territories are raised in IPC value from 0 to 1, there remains a 2-IPC imbalance to be corrected between the Allies and Japan. The method which will be used to solve this problem will be to allocate 1 extra IPC apiece to two strategically important Japanese island territories which saw particularly heavy fighting in 1945: Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
The IPC adjustment table for the Pacific is therefore:
ALLIES:
United States
Guam Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
Midway Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
Wake Island Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
ANZAC
New Britain Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
New Guinea Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
Solomon Islands Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
AXIS:
Japan
Caroline Islands Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
Marianas Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
Marshall Islands Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
Paulau Island Old value: 0 IPC New value: 1 IPC
Iwo Jima Old value: 1 IPC New value: 2 IPC
Okinawa Old value: 1 IPC New value: 2 IPC -
Excellent stuff CWO Marc!
-
Thanks! I developed the tables purely from a conceptual base, not on the basis of any actual testing, so they may not stand up to actual use in an actual game, but they’re a potential starting point and they can of course be adjusted in any number of ways. I wasn’t sure where I was going to end up when I started working on them, but in the end I was happy to see that redirecting Japan 180 degrees from west to east can apparently be done with fewer IPC changes than I initially thought might be needed.
Suggested Topics
