But they were deployed in far fewer numbers… so a single tank represents perhaps 100 German tanks, but perhaps as many as 500 Russian tanks. So 1 hit is still representative… besides, if you only have the Tiger tank left, the German player should think about retreating!
well then you could have them
cause
two hits for each hit, or they take one hit and can rebuild for 4 ipc ( half price)
OOB thinking BTW
Imperious
I emailed you the background image of the map in a couple of formats. I hope it helps. (I got the files as small as I could.)
@Imperious:
OOB thinking BTW
I’m afraid I don’t know what OOB means…? :? (probably obvious!)
I just hope I get to see the big Deluxe version some time soon - hopefully with Tiger tanks, Me262s etc. Doing a big game tomorrow - didn’t manage to get this map printed, so am using your HHRE map and rules which I did manage to get printed.
Hope to try this map in the new Year, as it looks like a good way to link the Europe game with Pacific game. Just wish I had illustrator and the know-how to use it.
OOB out of the box
BTW by the way
I cant separate your files. PNG, Tiff, Jpeg extensions cannot be broken into different layers
Thus i cant edit anything.
Please post a picture of the AARHE map with pieces during play. Id like to see it in its final form.
Here is my two cents. Overall it is cool. A combined Europe and Pacific is something that is needed for a superior “World” A&A. Like Imperious Leader said though the colors are weird. I like the red for Japan instead of Orange but each to there own. Needs tan UK and dark grey Germany though. Something needs to be done with the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The A&A Europe map that yours is based off is terribly inaccurate. Bessarbia is not close to where it should be. Where is Prussia? Hungary and Rumania don’t look anything like they should. Czechoslavkia needs work too. I think you are just trying to give Italy some more buying power but Italy in control of Greece? I do give you props for Albania though. A factory in Finland and Bulgaria but not Hungary and Rumania? I would put a factory in Rumania before Finland. I agree that should be able to build there but if you want to go that route you should be able to build in Hungary and Rumania. Also Rumania worth less than Bulgaria? Participating with the most troops of the minor Axis Powers and oil that was crucial to the Axis war effort Rumania should be worth more than 1. I like the splitting up of Libya and Egypt. Very much needed.
Iran and India look strange and distorted. Africa for that matter too.
but Italy in control of Greece?
as it turns out Italy was in charge of Italy and part of Yugoslavia. Hitler put them in charge of Greece as it was considered under the Italian sphere of influence.
Maybe it was. I guess I am not that versed in that area of the war. Maybe it just seems weird because was Italy in control of anything? Really just puppets of the Germans. Thats why they have never been a spearate “Power” in A&A. Not that am arguing against that they shouldn’t be separate in the game but, frankly without German help they couldn’t do much.
“Good soldiers, bad officers; but remember that without them we wouldn’t have civilization.”
Sorry for the Christmas break absence.
Admiral_Thrawn
It is important to remember that this map is designed to play as a game. It is not intended to be 100% historically accurate. Its meant to simulate real events in a fun way. The game rules could be picked at again and again. Players will have to accept the fact that the game is not historical fact. Axis and Allies has always taken some artistic leave in its creation. I did the same. The map is distorted. Absolutely. It was deliberate. Some areas need more attention than others. This meant Enlarging Europe, Shrinking the Americas, and compromising the best I could with the rest of the map. So thats why Africa looks distorted. If the map was truly to scale it would be twice as large. And I thought 6’X3’ was plenty big.
Imperious Leader
Did you receive the new file format? Will it help in creating the alternative color scheme, that people seem to favor?
I cant separate the files so i cant work on it unless you manage to turn it into a Illustrator file by downloading the trial version and sending the link.
Colors should be changed as follows:
Soviet: sort of earth brown/red–- like milton bradley soviets
Germany: field grey-- like milton bradley grey
Italy: bluish grey or light grey
UK: kaiki-- like milton bradley tan
Japan: burnt orange like revised
USA: olive drab #2 or just the same as revised.
China: the brighter green from axis and allies pacific or red so you can use japanese pieces for china from aap
France: french blue ( lighter than you got)
Is there any way to change the color scheme without using Adobe Illistrator? If so what will be needed to do it?
change the colors with the program you have.
I have enjoyed playing 3 different large map Axis and Allies variants. This one looks exciting. I have some feedback, questions, and suggestions:
1. Victory condition. I love the Axis victory conditions that allow for an individual axis to get victory or for the combined forces to gain victory. This will certainly accomplish the goal of preventing the allies focusing exclusively in one theater. One point of feedback: The victory condition is 10 victory cities for either Axis power, or 20 total. If the axis have a total of 20 victory cities, doesn’t that mean Germany or Japan must have 10? (Is the 20 total mathematically redundant?) i.e. if Germany has 10 and Japan has 10 victory cities, that is 20 combined. Should the individual number be raised or the total number be lowered?
2. German Blockhouse. Would Germany every buy these? At 5 IPC, wouldn’t a tank just be a better defense? What advantage is there to a Blockhouse that would make it preferable to a tank in defense?
3. 2-hit tank for Germany. While 99% of the time I favor the simplicity of fewer unit types over the complexity of many unit types, I am very intrigued at the 2-hit tank suggestion for Germany. Especially with a production limit of 1 per turn or something similar. This would create a most interesting combat option for Germany.
4. Balance. Our group has played many games of the Global War large map that is somewhat similar to this one. We found the Axis to be extremely overpowered. This was primarily caused by an unstoppable Japanese Navy. On the surface, this map seems to suffer the same overly huge Japanese navy. Howeever, it does seem to be offset by a low Japanese starting income and difficult situation in China. How much play testing has been done? Am I incorrect in my initial assessment of the Japanese navy?
5. May I help out by making the setup charts? I have made some rather nice looking ones for one of the other large Axis and Allies variants. I am not proposing to change the set up, rather make some attractive looking set up charts that are easy to use and assist game play.
Craig
CraigBee
1. There are three Axis Nations (Germany, Italy, and Japan) Therefore it is possible to have twenty victory cities without having any single axis power having 10.
2. A careful reading of the rules will show that a blockhouse could be better than a tank when defending against an amphibious assault. This is for two reasons. First the blockhouse has a targeted attack so it can chose who it hits (during the first round of combat) Secondly, it fires twice in the first round of an amphibious assault. once at a three (targeted) and once later at a one (no targeted). So in my opinion blockhouses are worth buying.
3. The 2 hit German tank does not exist. it was simply a suggestion which has not been implemented. I personally don’t like a two hit tank or a production limit rule.
4. I have play tested it twice. Both times it was a pretty even match. The Japanese navy is huge (primarily because they wont be able to afford it later on) however this is offset by the USA huge 100 IPC income.
5. Yes some nicer setup charts would be greatly appreciated. I am now revising the setup for the final time and some territory ipc values have been tweaked. I will upload them soon.
For your info. Based on the feedback of others I will also be revising the rules one last time. Because there are so many players everyone tends to sit around waiting a lot, which makes the game less exciting. I have been encouraged by others to let the Axis Nations move at the same time, and Then let the allies move all at once. (with the conduct combat phase being resolved separately for each nation) I have also elected not to use the IPC dollar bills. Instead each player will place supply tokens (1 token = 1 IPC) at their complexes during their collect income phase. Players must use the supplies at the complex for purchases. Note this does mean that a player could capture supplies if he captured a hostile complex. And finally capturing a capital does not prevent a player from building or collecting income. However a player cannot claim victory if his capital is occupied by an enemy.
Phases would go something like this
1. Develop weapons
2. Purchase
3. Combat Move
4. Conduct combat
(resolve each nation’s attacks separately)
5. Non Combat Move
6. Place Units
7. Place supply Tokens
Thank you for all the additional information and explanation. A great deal of though has obviously been put into this game. There are 5 of us that regularly play games together. It will be my choice of game in May. We’ll try this game in May and post some feedback. Even with play testing already being done, it is always a surprise what a new group of people find :)
We have tried simultaneous movement in Axis and Allies variants and found it created some new dynamics to the game that were not anticipated.
For example, with regular turn order, the British may liberate France and then the Americans would reinforce. This generally meant that the British needed the strength to capture the territory, and the Americans would move it behind the British with a more defensive force. With simultaneous movement, the British and Americans could both attack simultaneously. This meant the Germans needed a stronger defense and the Allies individually could be weaker as long as the combined force was enough.
There were also some odd movement scenarios. For example, with separate movement, the Americans might clear a sea zone with a Japanese transport in it, then the British could move through the sea zone to attack an adjacent territory. With simultaneous movement this was not possible.
Overall, we found simultaneous movement to be a completely different game than the turn based game. It required significant new rules and balance. In the end we decided to stay with a turn based game. I am very interested to hear about the simultaneous movement experience tried with this game!
Also, can you please PM me with your email address. I’ll put the setup charts into a nice format. I’d prefer to email them to you for approval so that you maintain control of the ‘look and feel’ of the game and it meets the objectives you have for quality and appearance.
Craig
One aesthetic suggestion on the Neutrals: Make the impassible a different color from the neutrals that can be invaded or flown over. Perhaps use sandy yellow or orange for the impassible and the same white for neutrals that can be invaded.
Also, is there a setup chart for the neutrals? The rules say they can be invaded by the Axis, but I can’t find what units start in the neutral territories that can be invaded.
CraigBee
I’ve toyed with different colors schemes, but since I did the entire process on a trial version of photoshop its pretty difficult to alter now. I basically would have to color it in microsoft paint, and it tends to look unnatural when colors are changed. So the colors will change for the time being.
As for the neutral rule. I like neutral counties having units, but have a problem with then never being able to build more. Hypothetically if someone invaded a neutral and the neutral wasn’t conquered wouldn’t it make sense for the neutral to build more units. However I have not discovered a good way to do this. As an alternative to neutral unit placement i came up with this rule using non real simulated units:
“Only the Axis may violate Political Neutrality. Violating political neutrality must take place in the Combat Move phase. The Axis player attacks as normal, keeping track of the number of hits scored. An Allied player then rolls six die for each IPC the territory is worth. The Axis player removes one invading unit for each die roll equal to or lower than the territory’s IPC value. Combat is now complete. If the Axis player does not have any surviving land units or if he did not score as many hits as the territory’s IPC value he must retreat. Any units not capable of retreating are treated as causalities.”
using this rule there is no actual units present on the board. It also means the axis can be defeated. If the Axis player attacks again he will face the same odds as before not a depleted neutral force as is the case in statically placed neutral armies.
someone could carefully determine that in order to sucessfully invade netural country a axis player is stasticly likely to to recieve these casulities:
1 ipc = 1 unit lost
2 ipc = 4 units lost
3 ipc = 9 units lost
Here New Updated map with territories and IPC values final (except possibally neutral mongoilia)
http://www.mediafire.com/?cjomfz2sy9u
here is the revised setup
http://www.mediafire.com/?7t9yuziv090
And here is the rule book (same as before not re-revised yet)
http://www.mediafire.com/?cbkmvgviidu
Hope it helped.
The new setup charts refer to India, yet the map has split India into 3 pieces (Northern India, Southern India, Calcuta).
I’ve also got a finished draft of some attractive setup charts I’d like to email to you for approval and posting.
CraigBee
Sorry for the oversight on my part
This is the corrected setup
NORTHERN INDIA - 1 INF, 1 ART
CALCUTTA - 2 INF, AAGUN, COMPLEX
SOUTHERN INDIA - 3 INF, 1 FIGHTER, AAGUN, COMPLEX
(Ive also updated the links)
Ok, this is my fist post. I have played the game 3 times know and have some thoughts on balancing the game. I found that the Allies are excessively overpowering to begin with. The huge incomes for both UK and USA are way too much for Japan to handle, and Germany is barely a match (if a match) for Russia by itself. Italy matters little (historically acurate) and can be ignored until Germany and/or Japan defeated or put into submission. The starting units are good, the economy needs to be adjusted. I found that if the convoy rules are altered it creates a much more even game. (BTW the convoy rules are somewhat vague in the rulebook). If you require the allied played to have a transport stationed on the convoy site at the end of the player turn to receive the IPC’s from the convoy, it evens things out a lot. Here is my reasoning…
Under the current rules the Allies have little difficulty in controlling all but the Soloman Islands convoy and Soviet Far East convoy for nearly the entire game. (with the possible exception of turn 1).
Under current rules, with the convoys the Allies have enough purchasing power to overwhelm the axis long before they have a chance to capture that many victory cities.
It will likely reduce Russia’s income by 20% until at least turn 3-4 before Russia can afford to get a transport safely to the atlantic convoy. This makes Russia able to be beaten by Germany and requires the UK and USA to do more that beat up on Japan.
Creates more naval conflict (an item sorely lacking from other Axis and Allies games, mostly due to the limited space for manuvering), the allies now have to protect their convoys as they become vunerable to air attack.
I would be very interested to hear if anyone else has played this game yet and what their thoughts are on the balance of play. Overall I think it is superb, and an excellently done map!
Last thought, Japan seems to be the only Axis nation with a legit chance of winning. The axis together cam close to 20 VC when played with the revised convoy rules, but Japan is definetaly the only one with a chance to get to 10 VC’s. I really do like the 10VC’s rule, as it stops the usual KGF strategy that has seemed to rule ealrier Axis and Allies games (at least with the people I play with).
Ok, so does anyong have thoughts on balance of game play?
hey can you post a picture with the pieces set up? Id like to see how the print came out. I am considering sending my copy to printers.
