[AA50] Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!

[Imperious Leader]

@vodot Can we begin on a 1942 map based on the Beamdog style or at a minimum the OOB map?

You do know the greatest benefit to mankind will be not AA50, but the main title of the franchise 42.2

[vodot]

@Imperious-Leader Yes, that would be a worthy successor project.

[Erocco]

The map looks great, I love the changes especially interested on V5, gives you more content and options, hopefully a bit more balance from the anniversary oob map and setup. Are you working on a revised setup? Have you tested this map?

[Azimuth]

Very interesting post, thank you for sharing.

I was independently “brainstorming” on some of those changes for my own map (https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39054/custom-map-for-aa50) with the same questionning (@vodot “how many map changes can happen to AA50 before it becomes a totally different game?”).

For info, here are the changes I already incorporated from your list:

• Australia split West 1 - East 2 (not sure yet about IPC values)
• Italian East Africa
• Malaya split off from FICT
• Cairo and Singapore added as VCs (like them to be 20 in total)
• Turkish border extended north of Bosporus
• Greece (1) split off from Balkans (2)
• Morocco (1) split off from Morocco Algeria (1)
• Caspian SZ ;)

Now additional changes I am considering (feedbacks are welcome):

• Danemark (1) split off from Northwestern Europe (Belgium/Netherlands 2) and Danish Straits rule
• Irak (1) and Syria (1) split off from Transjordan (1) --> Stop blitzing into India from Sinai !
• Thailand (1) split off from FICT
• Nigeria (1) and Gold Coast (0) split off from French West Africa
• Korea split off from Manchuria
• Guianas (0) as a (mostly useless) British territory in South America

Some of those are also thought to accommodate the option to play with Vichy/Free France HR (hence the need of having Syria/FIC/West Africa as separate territories).

[Argothair]

@Azimuth My personal philosophy is that an AA50-style map should aim to incorporate additional territories if and only if they’re needed to improve the functionality of the game.

So, splitting Iraq off from Trans-Jordan to avoid blitzing from Trans-Jordan directly to India…sounds great; that’s an important change that helps provide a richer game that adequately separates the Middle East theater from the South Asian theater. Splitting Syria off as well…I don’t quite see the need. Yes, Syria is fun to have, but it is not obvious that it changes the gameplay. Sure, Syria is part of the Vichy French network, but it’s not like Vichy France becomes unplayable without Syria. You can just add a French infantry to Trans-Jordan or something like that, and you get close enough.

Similarly, splitting off Nigeria makes sense because the British really did have significant holdings in west Africa, and if you just color the entire region as French then that’s a gross oversimplification. However, splitting off Gold Coast as well adds very little additional value. It’s not worth any money. What does having a Gold Coast let the British do that they can’t already do just by having Nigeria? How does Gold Coast change the strategy of the game?

Of course it’s historically defensible to add all these extra territories in, but if you add in every historically justifiable territory then the map will wind up looking more like Global than AA50. Still potentially fun, but you’re aiming at a different target; the game ceases to function as a medium weight map. Just my two cents.

[Azimuth]

@Argothair, thank you, very valid points and philosophy. I fully agree.

• Gold Coast makes an allied territory bordering SZ 17 in case FWA is Vichy (and plays the role Bathurst (in Gambia) played in the Battle of the Atlantic)
• Syria can be given back to free France without cutting UK from the Mediterranean (if Egypt is lost)
• Thailand can work as the “initially controlled by Japanese” territory for NO, when FIC and Malaya obviously don’t

But these are very weak arguments, and probably off the scope of this post (which was proposing minor enhancements to the original map).

This will definitely fuel my thoughts, thanks !

[vodot]

@Azimuth @Argothair
Love the discussion & would love to look at a French recolor on some TTs and some splits per your ideas, Azimuth, to both enhance vanilla and also potentially accommodate the addition of France. Like Argo says I’m skeptical it’s possible in a way that retains middleweight status while adding strategic options and fun, but let’s find out!

That balance is crazy difficult to achieve and I think AA50 pulls off something of a unicorn in accomplishing it. Want to keep this thread firmly in that worldview.

[Argothair]

@vodot One thing to keep in mind while considering which French territories to add is what kind of role you envision for France in your game.

Is the narrative focused on Free France and its small but cumulatively important efforts to build up from a colonial remnant and turn into a force that can potentially liberate part or all of metropolitan France? If so then you need some kind of reasonably secure rear area (e.g. French Equatorial Africa) that’s not too far aways from some relatively soft Axis targets (Vichy Algeria, Italian East Africa, etc.).

Or, is the point of France to create a neutral or pro-Axis “buffer zone” that deemphasiszes the western Med in the middlegame by nudging most of the territories and sea zones in the region toward neutrality? If so then you might want to carve out a neutral territory in southern France, but you probably don’t care much about French possessions in Africa.

You can have both in the same game if you insist, but I’m skeptical that France is interesting enough to justify both sets of changes in a mediumweight map. Better to save some ammo for other ideas, imo.

[CentralCommando]

@vodot Sir, this is brilliant! I always though the Dutch East Indies looked ugly on that map. So with these overlays, not only does it look so much better, there’s more territories for more strategies! Also, this fixes my biggest problem with 50th: Italy. Italy originally only had three territories, and was overall irrelevant to the game as a whole. But here, There’s more territories for them, and a new pair of frontlines with IEA. Australia is improved too, which is a welcome quality-of-life addition.

[cloud7707]

Hey @vodot , first of all: amazing work you have done there!! I am a big fan of having many of your changes in Anniversary.

I took the liberty to change some of these things so that it still feels pretty much like the base game but hopefully better. In my opinion, giving Italy 7 more IPCs is a bit too much and almost doubles their IPC count.

I will upload my map for everyone that is interested, but these are the changes I implemented:

• The Sea Zone surrounding Japan is split (to avoid easy attacks from Carriers near the US West Coast and Japan, similiar to the change in 1942 2nd Ed.)

• Australia is split BUT it only yields 2 IPCs in total (as was the case in the OOB edition)

• Malaya is a new territory now BUT only yields 1 IPC

• The Money Islands have been split so that there are 4 of them and they all have their own Sea Zone BUT they are all worth only 2 IPCs except from Borneo, which is worth 3 IPCs (since it provided more benefit for Japan resource-wise in WW2 than the other islands). Other yields would have given Japan way too much income IMO.

• Italian East Africa is now Italian

• The line between Sea Zone 65 and 56 has been redrawn. Before that, you could shuffle fighters from the sea Zone bordering Morocco Algeria to the US West Coast which was almost half the map. That was a bit too much so I changed this.

I have also made new National Objectives and some setup changes regarding China. You can find these in House Rules and I will probably also do some more to cater for the changes on this map. Overall, it should be pretty balanced. Yes, the Axis get a slight IPC advantage now (by conquering Malaya, having Italian East Africa and the Money Islands yielding 9 IPCs), but Japan also has to send more transports to the Money Islands now and they are harder to defend since there is more space now.

I hope you enjoy!

Here is a link where you can download my map… since it is 390 MB, it is too big to upload it here:

EDIT: Please check my newer post for a new link that contains a better adjustment of the map.

[Argothair]

@cloud7707 I’m glad to see ongoing interest in this mod and that you are creating your own content, but I disagree with several of your changes; I think they make the game both less fun and less historical.

• The Doolittle Raid scared the heck out of Japan very early in the war and prompted them to keep significant naval forces near the home islands for years to come. As long as you keep 3-4 units in SZ 62, it’s safe enough; fighters alone are not a great attacking unit and it will rarely pay for the US to launch a serious attack directly from SZ 56 (or vice versa). The game is already a little artificial in terms of sending everything to the front lines with zero garrisons, because there is no fog of war and no paratroopers – I would not want to move things even further in that direction by killing off the reason for US & Japan to garrison their home sea zones.

• Australia was a major contributor to the war effort, both in terms of high-quality infantry that fought in the middle east and india, and in terms of providing subs, destroyers, and cruisers that fought in the south Pacific. By making both Australian territories worth only 1 IPC, you destroy the possibility of an Australian factory – or really any south Pacific factory until the game is basically over and you are just building factories in, e.g., Borneo or the Philippines in order to ‘win more’ after Japan has already been decisively pushed back. This makes the already-weak “Kill Japan First” strategy basically impossible.

• Since each game turn represents at least four months, I see no reason why the US shouldn’t be able to transfer fighters directly between the west coast and the coast of Morocco. There are very rarely any sea battles in SZ 56 or SZ 12 once the US has carriers in play that could enable those transfers, so we’re really talking about a non-combat redeployment of forces, and four months is plenty of time to get those planes across the world even if you have to ship them in crates and reassemble them at the end.

[vodot]

@cloud7707
First, thanks for the encouragement, and I’m glad you’re using the project as a baseline for your own ideas! Keep going! :)

Second, RE: this quote from your post:

…giving Italy 7 more IPCs is a bit too much and almost doubles their IPC count.

+7 IPC for Italy would be a lot - But even my “Kitchen Sink” version only intentionally adds +4 IPC to Italy:

• +1 for splitting the Balkans (was 3) into Balkans (2) + Greece (2)
• +1 for Sicily
• +1 for Sardinia
• +1 for Italian East Africa (assuming it starts the game under Italian ownership rather than British)

I think these bumps for Italy are not only needed in general to make Italy more fun to play (particularly if Cairo is sitting there as a VC), but are also offset by increases to Italy’s great adversary the UK in Malaya, Australia, Ceylon, and the like; and also by the fact that Sicily’s territory is carved out from and adjacent to the Italian mainland, making Italy much more vulnerable to a protracted [historical] amphibious invasion.

Regarding your other changes I mostly agree with @Argothair. While I’m personally in favor of the SZ62 split we see in AA42.2, I do feel very strongly about making Australia in particular (and the money islands by extension) a much more interesting part of the game. Splitting AUS into two 1 IPC territories is a step in the wrong direction, as Argothair says, making them impossible to build from and inconsequential to attack - the exact opposite of both history and, more importantly, fun Pacific games!

EDIT 1: I should clarify that I cordially dislike National Objectives, both philosophically (don’t force my strategy, bro!) and mechanically (they’re a balance crutch and they add a whole meta-layer of complexity). I almost never play with them, so that does have an impact on how I think about espeically Italy’s pathetic income without her NOs. I mostly teach and play with groups that include newbies, so things need to be as WYSIWYG and straightforward as possible.

EDIT 2: In that vein I think the “minimalist” board changes from OOB to instantly improve Italy and the AUS/Pacific game without NOs or any fuss would be:

• Increase AUS to 3 (+1 UK), no split
• Add Sardinia and make Italian Africa… Italian (+2 Italy), no Sicily
• Add Singapore and Cairo as VCs

You can make the above changes to an OOB board in about 10 minutes with some sharpies - use blue tape to make it reversible - and I think you’ve instantly made AA50 more interesting and fun :)

[cloud7707]

Hey guys, thank you so much for your input.

And yes, you are correct when it comes to Australia being worth 2 IPCs in one territory to allow for an IC there. That makes perfectly sense.

I am still a bit undecided on this possible shuffle from Africa to US West Coast in one turn. True, one turn represents 4 months, but I think it is the nature of the game to not being able to move units right to the frontlines or immediately from A to B. But I will think about this.

I also still think that splitting the money islands and giving them a lower yield will not benefit Japan. Yes, it will take a bit longer for the US to liberate them, but it will also slow down Japan in the first two or three rounds because they have to split their transports even more. There are just so many possible targets now (money islands/ philippines, Australia, mainland China, India, Hawaii,…).

Yes, making it so that these islands yield more IPCs would make Britain’s economy stronger - but only in the first or second turn. Although these are crucial turns, in the long run, these increases in yield will only benefit Japan. It is so much easier for them to capture and defend them than for the British Player.

I might do some test games on my current board and see how they go!

EDIT: This is the link for the same map as before but without the altered Sea Zone on The US West Coast and East Australia being worth 2 IPCs. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4aog2fx8fse0n8k442i3k/MODDED-2-AA_Anniversary_OOB_gimp.png?rlkey=5k4lcgbthv8tekdmg8pct5jb6&st=cj2f2aat&dl=0

[Erocco]

Seeing this topic started up again I decided to post some pictures from my 3’ x 6’ printed map based on version 5. I haven’t made any adjustments to the map (love it as is). You’ll notice all the units are placed based on the OOB anniversary 1941 version with small additions here and there for balancing. I also made my own NO’s for further balancing (you can see them on the 3rd picture bottom left on the whiteboard). Unfortunately my flash drive with all the saved files stopped working so I lost all the files (set up charts, NO chart, victory cities chart etc.). The good news is I have hard copies of the files so I can make them again sometime. Play tested this about 10 times and it’s very interesting and fun. Seems balanced but much more playtesting needs to happen.

[cloud7707]

Hey guys, some days ago, I posted some changes I’d like to implement (mainly splitting islands in the pacific, giving Italian East Africa to Italy)… And what shall I say? I edited the Triple A WW2v3 map so that you can play the game as i proposed some days ago! I combined this with my New Objectives Scenario (which provides more balanced NOs and incited the US to actually engage in the Pacific, same goes for Japan; you can find it under House Rules). You can download it via my Dropbox link.

I am not that great at editing Triple A. I still have to create semi-transparent names for the new countries and also some Relief Tiles… But I hope it will suffice for now if you are keen on trying this one out!

Beware that the 1942 Scenario is still work in progress. For now, only the 1941 Scenario is completely finished.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ztlp6iv8igdmqz143em85/AMCitWQXI5OvqLU6Q7kuGyI?rlkey=jf9kcip7gczp923tyhki89t83&st=9p47df97&dl=0

[vodot]

@cloud7707 awesome!

[barnee]

@cloud7707

Hey sweet ! I like the colors you used for the Objectives :)