Awesome ! One of my Favorite parts of G 40 Expansion :)
DKs Hybrid Axis and Allies Map_ATO SZs reshaping
-
@Imperious:
I must admit I’m not that an artist. What is ugly? Simply being larger? Or the picture in itself without a given dimension?
based on the pictures im quite sure the roundels are much larger than .75 inch
Also, the Azores were added because the game should have had them as a means for the axis to bomb the east coast, which incidentally was a German plan for the war latter.
The roundels are all the exact size of the game cardboard roundels - 3/4", except the capital roundels which I made bigger as a tribute to the original classic map.
-
Heres some pics of another map I have with less sea zones. Its IL’s map.
.png)
-
Just more info for your map design.
.png)
-
Also just to let you know I made the Gibralter sea zone two zones where I drew the line at. Other wise its 1 whole sea zone where Gibralter is.
-
Thanks SS,
too bad that China and USSR TTs names are hard to decrypt.
But SZs are clear to see. -
I’ll post pics from other side of map in a bit
-
This better ? I’m going to spray my Dull Coat on this map now to knock down the shine.
.png)
-
You want sprayed map pics let me know .
-
Thanks,
this pic allows me to read most China and all Soviet TTs.
I’m fine with it.Did you play on this map?
IMO, there seems to be too much SZs.
It probably slowed down too much the game.
Unless ships move 3 SZs and 4 with NBs… -
Yes. It doesnt come with bases. It has more seazones but islands are closer together. I wouldn’t want a naval base in med. Move out of there on 4 turns. As far as ship 3 moves would have to check. I liked playing on it for the money that was involved.
-
I have 2 of these maps. 1 4x8 1 3x6. I LL give u the 3 x 6 map if u want and just pay for shipping.
-
4x8 ?
What a monster.
:-D -
@Baron:
4x8 ?
What a monster.
:-DNothing smaller for me for any game :-D
-
OMG that map!
long time ago…
-
@Imperious:
Not one or the other: both are important
and Ceylon with naval base, British naval based there
OK.
Ceylon and Hainan will be on the map.However, for Maldives, I need something to see the relevance. Either for gameplay or from an historical POV.
It seems as minor Islands, not as important as Azores or Iceland, for both sides.For gameplay, I would place Vancouver Island onto the map between Western Canada SZ and Western USA SZ. So, it allows Japan to land Fighters in it and be within range of Los Angeles (or San Francisco). The same way Iwo Jima will be part of the same SZ as Japan, so it can be an airfield to escort Bombers with Fighters.
-
Another drastic change I intend to do is to lower Japan value from 10 to 6 IPCs.
This might compensate for the numerous increase in IPCs :
Japan: Japan TT (6) -4, Gilbert Island (1), Malaya (2?), Hainan (1), Marianas and Guam (2) = +2 IPCs
UK: Vancouver Island (1)
US: Johnston Island (1)
Accordingly, this might reduce Japan production capacity. So, IC would need to be built in Mainland Asia.
And, if Japan TT is surrounded, it will not be able to mass produce units.
In that case, a Fortress Japan will not be possible and the game will end more rapidly.That would solve the don’t-get-looted exploit, and having the penalty be more “immediate” might help motivate players to take the penalty more seriously. Neuroscience says that people care more about small, immediate penalties than they do about large, distant penalties.
I still say a financial penalty of any kind is the wrong tool to keep russia and japan away from each other. If I wanted to try to keep russia and japan off of each other’s backs, I would severely limit Japan’s unit caps relative to its total income. For example, in 1942.2, Japan has $30 of starting income, and 8 unit slots to build each turn. After a few turns, when Japan has built a factory, that often rises to something like $40 of income with 10 build slots. Either way, you’re roughly in the $4 per unit range, which means that you have the option to build plenty of infantry and artillery as Japan.
In real life, Japan’s manpower was tapped out – by spring 1943, after the Japanese Army bogged down in China, Burma, and New Guinea, Japan had almost no able-bodied soldiers left to draft. They had enough industry to continue building more planes, tanks, ships, etc., which acted as force multipliers, but they if they needed to field another army of 200,000 infantry, they simply had no way to do that.
I think this is a major reason why Japan chose not to invade Russia in the 1940s! Invading northern Asia would have required another army of 200,000 infantry that Japan simply didn’t have. You can’t invade a vast land mass with nothing but tanks; at some point you also need boots on the ground.
So, suppose you reduce the value of the Japanese home territory from $8 to $5, and suppose you reduce the value of Manchuria from $3 to $2. You can increase the value of some of the islands from $0 to $1 so that Japan’s total income stays the same. Now Japan is collecting $30 income with only 5 build slots, and later in the game they’ll collect $40 income with $7 build slots – closer to $6 per unit. At $6 per unit, you want to build a lot of ships and tanks and planes to multiply your firepower. You might build one or two infantry each round, but you’ll be chronically short of infantry, so invading the (low-value) territories of Siberia will naturally be much less attractive. You won’t have to bribe the Japanese to leave the Russians alone – they’ll do it anyway, because that’s their natural incentive from that starting position.
Meanwhile, concentrate the bulk of the starting Russian infantry closer to Yakut and Evenki, rather than in the Soviet Far East and Buryatia. The Russians will then cheerfully and gratefully migrate any surplus infantry westward to Moscow and Archangel – they certainly will not go picking a fight with the Japanese.
Another, altogether different option is to trigger some American lend-lease if and when Japan invades Moscow. If Japan breaks the non-aggression pact first, then America can make a one time cash transfer of up to $16 from the US treasury to the Russian treasury. That at least simulates real diplomacy – the Western Allies are pissed that Japan is making a surprise attack against their alliance partner, so they send the partner some extra cash by way of retaliation.
-
I’m looking to increase action in PTO and trying to take the best out of Hybrid, Anniversary, 1942.2 and 1942.1 maps, here is a specific idea.
What consequences do you see, if Burma and French-Indo China SZ36 is cut in half (below it is SZ69)? That way, it creates 4 SZs between India and Japan. (US and Japan keeps 3 SZs between them.) The same as OOB AA50 map.
However, East Indies will be reachable from both SZ36 and SZ37.
These changes allow for 2 Navies to unload units from 2 sides to fight the same TT, without making a Naval combat prior to this amphibious landing.
FIC from SZ36 or this new SZ69.
East Indies from SZ36 or SZ37.I also change Japan’s IPCs value from 10 to 6. Making still more valuable to protect money islands.
However, even East Indies is now within 2 SZs from Japan.
So, Japan can react to all captured money islands without putting his Navy out of position.SZ37 is still 2 SZs from Solomon Islands SZ45.
This map makes all money Islands (East Indies 4 IPCs, Borneo 4 IPCs, Philippines 3 IPCs) within 2 SZs range of SZ45, thus increasing Solomons value as an entry point into Japan Empire’s core.**Do you think this additional SZ69 would make for a longer game or do not change things?
Or help UK’s India gaining time before India’s crush, without making it a two days game?Can this increase interactions between Allies and Japan both Navies and Amphib. combat?
Do you believe it can be a more interesting Pacific map than 1942.2 or AA50?**
-
I’m not very familiar with AA50, the water of your map is similar to 42.2, but the land of China is more complex, like AA50 I think.
As my games and discussions with Argo, Black Elk (and Karl, who beat us at Gencon) showed, the post patch 42.3 version has a fairly locktight allied opener where they just blow Japan off the map, and make sure you can’t gain Caucasus. Axis seemed overpowered but in the tourney game I think we lost 18? or so hits worth of units with 3 retals–-devastating luck.
As a result, the game seems very flat, which isn’t a product of the map so much as the setup.
I love giving all the islands values, I want there to be a fight over even the smaller ones…
Japan going for India in 42.2 with that arrangement of SZ seemed easy…until we attacked their fleet every game, then Japan was put on the immediate defensive–no arrangement of india zones is protective because the protection is the preemptive attack and KJF by USA.The geometries of these boards are incredible, especially Global, where most situations/confrontations seem to have been quite hammered out by Larry, and the risks of forward placement are balanced by needing to be forward placed in order to attack with everything. That’s where the airbases and naval bases shine, since they are not usually economic targets but strategic movement nodes (like carolines).
Throughout various AxA versions and increasing over time, I see that some of the squares are so oddly shaped and proportioned, the entire map projection is incredibly distorted, yet, the chess-like character of the game is enhanced by these odd zones. Global SZ 42, 46 (“the boot”), 16 are crucial crossing squares that, if blocked or open, act as choke points that must be screened and newer players do not see how versatile those critical SZs are and get ambushed when they don’t see those openings/paths.
Your map is cool, but these geometries are so inter-dependent, like a puzzle where moving one thing moves others, that trying to find the perfect arrangement would take incredible study and consideration. Which, is the point I suppose ;)
-
I’m not very familiar with AA50, the water of your map is similar to 42.2, but the land of China is more complex, like AA50 I think.
As my games and discussions with Argo, Black Elk (and Karl, who beat us at Gencon) showed, the post patch 42.3 version has a fairly locktight allied opener where they just blow Japan off the map, and make sure you can’t gain Caucasus. Axis seemed overpowered but in the tourney game I think we lost 18? or so hits worth of units with 3 retals–-devastating luck.
As a result, the game seems very flat, which isn’t a product of the map so much as the setup.
I love giving all the islands values, I want there to be a fight over even the smaller ones…
Japan going for India in 42.2 with that arrangement of SZ seemed easy…until we attacked their fleet every game, then Japan was put on the immediate defensive–no arrangement of india zones is protective because the protection is the preemptive attack and KJF by USA.The geometries of these boards are incredible, especially Global, where most situations/confrontations seem to have been quite hammered out by Larry, and the risks of forward placement are balanced by needing to be forward placed in order to attack with everything. That’s where the airbases and naval bases shine, **since they are not usually economic targets but strategic movement nodes (like carolines). **
Throughout various AxA versions and increasing over time, I see that some of the squares are so oddly shaped and proportioned, the entire map projection is incredibly distorted, yet, the chess-like character of the game is enhanced by these odd zones. Global SZ 42, 46 (“the boot”), 16 are crucial crossing squares that, if blocked or open, act as choke points that must be screened and newer players do not see how versatile those critical SZs are and get ambushed when they don’t see those openings/paths.
Your map is cool, but these geometries are so inter-dependent, like a puzzle where moving one thing moves others, that trying to find the perfect arrangement would take incredible study and consideration. Which, is the point I suppose ;)
Yes.
Pretty much the point for sketching out a fitting chess like SZs.
Before drawing carefully and printing ($$$).
I want to get the best for my bucks.I would like that Black Elk or Argo chimed in, but seems there not here very often actually.
Thanks for your comment.
Is there some choke points in 1942.2 you see in PTO (Solomons?) or ATO?
In Atlantic, do you believe 1942.2 all three England SZs being within range of NWEurope Fighters a better map than AA50 or 1942.1 where at least 1 SZ is 3 move away and only within bombers range better?
Do you think allowing US to directly land troops in England make a more dynamic game?
(See the first page for pictures).What is 1942.3? Larry Harris Tournament setup?
With your comment, I made a change to make Carolines a more interesting idea to reach all PTOs island within 2 SZs (Midway, Hawaii and Johnston).
Hawaii and Carolines are now only 2 SZs away from each other. And both are only 2 SZs from New Zealand.
There is one less SZ in middle of Pacific Ocean as previously.
Burma SZ is now #68
But Japan is still far away from Hawaii, unless taking Midway shortcut.
Guam and Marianas are 2 SZs from Midway but Okinawa is 3 Szs from Hawaii as well as Guam and Marianas, making Japan 4 SZs along this way.Marshall Islands and Gilbert Islands, as well as Wake Island can be reached in a 2 SZs move from Western USA coast.
So the first counter strike can easily follow WW2 Island hopping strategy.
And from Hawaii, you reach Solomons and Carolines in a 2 SZs move.
Both of with are access ways to Money Islands.Aleutians and Midway have a more significant location being 2 SZs from Japan.
From these locations, StBs can attack Japan SZs.
Or an amphibious landing can be directly launched from these 2 starting points.
-
Here is a variant map.
Toying with Guadalcanal, Gilbert and Line SZs to make Solomons 2 SZs from Western USA SZ…That way, both Hawaii and Carolines get a lot of Islands within 2SZs reach.
Carolines is like the core of a seven star from which you can use 7 branches and reach every PTO Islands, except Aleutians.
Hawaii can reach all south-eastern islands, New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea, Carolines, Marshalls and Wake.
Suggested Topics
