or maybe Naha, which is listed on the map already to give the axis 1 more to balance and make Chunking count for the Allies.
Naha is already a VC. The VC post on the thread listed Okinawa, my mistake; it should have read Naha which is on Okinawa.
Are we ready to print this thing yet?
-jim lee
I’m not sure if its worth the effort of giving China special rules. It might just be easier to give China a decent number of men at the start, and make sure that they have infantry units spread throughout all the western territories. The time it takes them to march their troops from the west to the front with Japan will approximate getting a few new men each turn. For people who really want to seperate China farther from the rest of the US player’s pieces, a variation of the AAP rules could be included in the rules addendum. From a gameplay perspective though, weather or not the Chinese men come marching in from the west, or if they just pop in at Chungking, I don’t think its going to make much of a difference.
Also, if we do go with a variation of the AAP rules, I like the idea of control of the Burma Road giving China access to Artillery units in some way, however there aren’t any Artillery pieces in the chinese unit color. (For those of you that don’t have AAP, China doesn’t use American infantry units to represent its own. The game ships with a bunch of dark brown colored infantry units to use for the Chinese. The Flying Tigers still use an American fighter piece, though.) Also, in AAP there’s rules that prohibit Chinese units from going beyond any Chinese territories, or captured chinese territories that are held by Japan at the start of the game. Furthermore, in AAP, these captured chinese territories are marked on the map so that if they are liberated by the US or UK, the IPC from those territories goes towards giving China men, instead of into the bank of one of the allies. Also, in AAP, there’s no Russia. In our map, Japan will very likely have to deal with a nearby, hostile Russia, too.
All in all, I just don’t think adding in the China rules from AAP is all that worth it. Its doesn’t really change all that much gameplay wise, and to make it work it will require the map to be marked up in ways that would be unique to just one area of the world. One might ask, if China is getting such special treatment, why aren’t other minor powers getting the same? I say just focus on the six main countries, (though Chungking should be a VC). Just treat the Chinese units as American units like they are in Revised. All we’d really gain from using the AAP rules is the need for another color of pieces.
Ok we have gotten a little off topic here. Forget the China rule set for now.
What needs to be decided is the status of Chungking.
I like the VCs as they stand but also agree that Chungking should have value for the Japanese.
Chungking as an objective worth 10 points for the Axis is the best option that does not require changing the current VC structure.
Chungking was never under japanese control but could be a starting Allied VC worth 10 points. Why not?
Chungking VC worth 10points sounds like a plan.
The group agrees that Chungking should be a VC in some shape or form. So I will go ahead and change the font to the VC font.
It’s Friday!
The fourth draft has arrived!
I have made the following changes from the third draft:
Added:
None
Changed:
Replaced Budapest with Bucharest
Western Ukraine and Byelorussia are now Russian
Chungking is now labeled a VC
Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.
Last Week’s Goals Review
1. Victory Cities
The VCs are set on the map. (VC rules may need further discussion)
2. Starting Territories, their borders, names and any final additions/removals.
The territories are set with one exception “Vichyâ€.
3. Turn Order
The majority of the group likes A) Axis aggressors so A) it is.
4. Roads in or out?
Out. (There seems to be enough people that want a version with roads so I will make a second version with the current roads on it.)
One more question before we leave the VC debate. The purpose of the Warsaw and Oslo VCs are what exactly? I was thinking about this the other day and wondered if would be better to have VCs in Helsinki and Budapest rather than Warsaw and Oslo since Hungary and Finland were axis minors and those are the capitals. Paris makes since for symbolism, Berlin as the capital of the Reich is obvious, and I agree with Bucharest as a VC due to oil, but it is also the capital of Axis minor. Any other thoughts?
How much will a hard copy of the map cost? How can one obtain units for the new China and Italy forces?
In the version I plan on playing, I am going to use a combination of pieces from AA original, AAP, AAE and some miniatures thrown in for good measure.
For Italy, I am using Fucile Modello (AAM) as infantry and Blackshirts (AAM) as elite inantry (similar to marines in AAP….I really really really hate the fact the USA has special troops, but no one else does, I mean, the Japanese had the Special Navy Landing Force, which are Marines, so why does USA get them, but Japan does not?)
for tanks, I am using the L3/35 since they are the same size as the tanks in AAM. Artillery I will use the Bohlers 47mm (which in the game belongs to Romania, but the Italians used as well)
All other pieces are coming from AA original. I am using Germany, which is a lighter shade of grey than in AAE. The destroyers will be the Luca Tarigo from the new naval game.
For China, I am using the AAMinis.
In fact, wherever I can use the AAMinis and Naval Minis I will rather than the generic coloured pieces for each nation.
pdel21,
All good points, this debate could go on forever. All are good candidates for VC status.
I prefer Oslo over Helsinki because it is easily accessible by an Allied invasion fleet. But not easily supported by Germany itself. This is currently the only German VC that is really at risk, the remaining VCs are within a stone’s throw from Germany.
I don’t really prefer Warsaw over Budapest.
Like I said earlier I think Germany already has an easy go at defending its VCs with their proximity to Germany; Budapest would just make it that much easer for Germany due to the fact it is land locked. But this is a small issue.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
I would really like to close this topic soon so if anyone has a comment on pdel21’s suggestion lets hear it.
I think the current 5 VC’s for Germany are the best choice for game balance and historic importance. Though Helsinki and Budapest could also work…
For your fase 5, please do change Vichy and add Corsica :wink:
Goals for This Week. (Week of April 2nd)
1. Finalize Vichy
2. Start Sea Zones discussion
3. Convoy Boxes
START sea zone discussion?!?!
Ey yiyiy!!
-jim lee
Sea Zone Outlines
I was looking at the A&A map and noticed that the sea zones are outlined with dashed lines not solid lines.
I made a quick and dirty test, just so you can get a feel for what it would look like with doted lines.
Let me know if you like the idea.
I can try different colors if you think one would work better (Black or White maybe).
That is totally perfect!
Make all the SZ like that.
very nice… bravo.
Also… i think you should have different fonts on the names of the territories and names of VC… The Territories should be a less “blocky script” font and the VC or city fonts should be kept as they are currently. When you have them both as the same it takes longer to “see” where the VC are. I see that they are a different color, but its still too similiar IMO.
I have to add i think your doing a great job!
But could you please make one version where those French vichy territories are a different color than the current german colors?
I will repay the favor with something… perhaps a play aid i could create for your project?
Battleboard?
Tech chits?
Leader chits?
Ok another thing… could you attempt a version that has a “drop shadow” under the land masses. The color of this shadow would be a darker version of the current color of the water. Secondly reduce the number of those lines to about 3 as opposed to 7. I believe this will also make another leap forward.
Like IL already mentioned, great job on the “new” sea zone look. It will be looking better and better.
On sea zone lining: could the sea zone ring/zone of Norway/ Denmark be connected to the border of the Netherlands and West Germany? Don’t like it that the North Sea sea zone is now adjactant to West Germany, meaning amphibious bridge is directly possible between London and West Germany… Don’t think this is nice for gameplay.
And maybe make two sea zones of the Philippines sea zone. It is rather large now. Make it an upper and lower part sea zone. Then maybe also split the territory accordingly…
