You’re welcome.
New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)
-
It’s Friday!
The Ninth draft has arrived!
I have made the following changes from the eighth draft:
Added:
Using Positronica’s rules for airfields (see post above) I have added the following:
Azores
Western France
London
Italian Somaliland
CalcuttaPorts:
New Guinea
Wake Island
Gilbert Island
US West Coast
West Africa
Norway
LeningradNOTE: These are suggested airfields/ports they are not set in stone if you don’t like one let me know.
Changed:
SZ 9 has been divided. (I have not renumbered the sea zones yet)
Moved Great Britain’s Port
Removed Brazil’s Port (I don’t like the idea of a Neutral countries with ports)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. -
Ports:
The most important Germans port: Kiel/Hamburg
Ceylon. The one in india as listed does not exist.
Mariana islands or Marshall islands. The one in wake island never existed.
Puget Sound. The most important US naval port is not represented, while you represented San francisco rather than San diego, which is where our main base was prior to moving to Hawaii.
Replace Dutch new guinea with Papau ( port Moresby). their was not port of significance where you have it.
Dakar is still missing. It was the major vichy port during the war.
Basra should be a port. The southern lend lease effort was directed there and into southern russia.
How come no neutral ports?
-
Is overflight of “impassable” zones possible; ie ‘Flying the Hump’ from Burma to China? I would think so. However, if overflight is possible, you should consider splitting them somehow to prevent abuse such as flying: Morocco to Lower Egypt or Singkiang to Burma.
-
Excellent map. I can’t wait to print and beta test it.
I think it would be prefered to keep SZ 9 in one piece instead of splitting, as in v9 of the map. Adding the sea zone will make naval maneuvers for German very difficult. Is it so bad that London and Berlin can start bomb each other? Isn’t that what happened?
Also, I agree with changing San Franciso to San Deigo. While only cosmetic, San Diego was the more prominant naval port.
Craig
-
Excellent map. I can’t wait to print and beta test it.
I think it would be prefered to keep SZ 9 in one piece instead of splitting, as in v9 of the map. Adding the sea zone will make naval maneuvers for German very difficult. Is it so bad that London and Berlin can start bomb each other? Isn’t that what happened?
Also, I agree with changing San Franciso to San Deigo. While only cosmetic, San Diego was the more prominant naval port.
Craig
Yes they bombed each other but not Berlin to London or visa versa until later in the war. Yes they bombed the hell out of the Rhineland but not so much Berlin itself. Also we have a little thing called Paratroopers and straight dropping into London from Berlin sounds fun, not very realistic. They have a port in Berlin, so France or northern Norway is only a NC move away.
San Diego is the best Place for The NB
Not sure if this has been covered yet.(2 lazy to back read it all).
Are these the Final IPC rates? current land Values? I counted each several times.Axis 110 IPC’s
Germany 46
Italy 24
Japan 40Allies 208 IPC’s
US 74
China 10
Britain 81
Russia 43Neutrals 18
Should the Allies have twice as much? They should have more but double?If the Axis powers all out, I mean attack every conceivable bordering and likely sea invasion, it on the first turn they could gain a Max net gain of 46 IPC’s. This not taking into consideration the number of Troops needed to actually need to take each territory.
Japan should make more then Russia. :evil:
You should complete a sea zone circle around Gibralter. As it is now you can invade Rome by sea from the canary’s islands. The circle should allow the zone to the right, the ability to touch Morocco and N. Algeria.
Airbase in London. Why? I know they had them. For what they do the Benifit is to good in that situation. Please take it off IMO.
Any way nice overall. It’s nice not seeing GE in Russia face yet. Keep up the good work.
-
Oh, I do believe he’s right. There should be a sea zone, the completed circle, for Gibralter. The right edge of the circle should start at Spain & reach down to include a small portion of Northern Algeria. I also understand that renumbering the SZs to accommodate this new one would be an unpleasant task.
- Carl Gustav
-
Still great work Deep Blue. On harbors, have a close look on Imperious suggestions. And further, why isn’t “Scapa Flow” on the east coast of Scotland on the map? It was the largest UK naval base in the war. Also do add some bases to Neutrals as Spain/ Sweden/ Turkey.
-
Ok,
Ports
First off, the ports are not named. So the port on the Western United States territory is not San Francisco, San Francisco is the VC not the port. So this San Diego debate is mute.Second, do not just list ports. If you want me to consider a port, it must link to another port (Please list the linking ports as well). If it does not then it is useless and I am not going to put it on the map I don’t care how important it may or may not have been historically.
Third, if you don’t reference the map territories when listing ports, (ie, just list port names) I am not going to spend the time anymore, to look them up.
Impassable
I am planning to stick with the Revised A&A rules as much as possible. So I feel that impassable territories should be impassable by all units. Not to sure that the “hump†is that important and I don’t like the idea of splitting the Sahara.IPCs
Have not been addressed. They are unbalanced and need and complete overhaul. Let’s get the map finished then we can start that discussion. -
It was mentioned a while back that some of you would like to see the “Oil†rule from A&A Europe added to this map.
What does the group think?
If so I have created an icon to represent this on our map. (See attached)
Let me know if you want to see this rule and what territories should be consider for Oil territories.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ports
First off, the ports are not named. So the port on the Western United States territory is not San Francisco, San Francisco is the VC not the port. So this San Diego debate is mute.You missed the point. The location of the port should be in san diego. The location of the port is not accurate as you got it in the middle of the state. We allready understand the ports are not named. Also most of us figured you understood basic geography because you at least made a map of the world. I guess ports and cities were not remembered. Below is a list of major ports that are crrently off the map but should be on the map.
Ports:
The most important Germans port: Kiel/Hamburg… its in sea zone 10.5 in west germany. You actually dont have a SZ labeled for the zone between 10 and 9
Ceylon. The one in india as listed does not exist… Ceylon is that island off of the southern tip of india… #64 SZ
Mariana islands or Marshall islands. The one in wake island never existed. Mariana islands is in SZ 103
Puget Sound. The most important US naval port is not represented, while you represented San francisco rather than San diego, which is where our main base was prior to moving to Hawaii. … This is located in Pac northwest but im not sure why the sea zone # 115 cant just cut straight so its in a seperate SZ
Replace Dutch new guinea with Papau ( port Moresby). their was not port of significance where you have it… Its in New guinea…#83… the one in #81 does not exist
Dakar is still missing. It was the major vichy port during the war…#32 but further south of where you got something currently
Basra should be a port. The southern lend lease effort was directed there and into southern russia… Thats at the tail end of Iraq SZ #58
How come no neutral ports? Lisbon ( its in Portugal), San Paulo ( its in Brazil), Stockholm ( its in sweden), Antwerp ( its in neatherlands)
The one in Italian (actually british occupied abbyssinia) does not exist.
Panama should be a port center. Im not sure why it got missed. Panama is in SZ #27/26
-
If so I have created an icon to represent this on our map. (See attached)
Let me know if you want to see this rule and what territories should be consider for Oil territories.
Yes but only as an oil derrick. That teardrop looks terrible.
Oil centers at:
Polesti ( romania)
Mosul ( Iraq)
Cacasus–Grozny
Georga-- Baku
Hungary (possible) it was secondary source for hitlers oil
Dutch east Indies,Sumatra, Borneo, Java… if thats too many then remove borneo
Venezuelaon the net look under clip art. If i have to make one for you i can do that.
-
@Imperious:
If so I have created an icon to represent this on our map. (See attached)
Let me know if you want to see this rule and what territories should be consider for Oil territories.
Oil centers at:
Polesti ( romania)
Mosul ( Iraq)
Cacasus–Grozny
Georga-- Baku
Hungary (possible) it was secondary source for hitlers oil
Dutch east Indies,Sumatra, Borneo, Java… if thats too many then remove borneo
VenezuelaWhat about Texas?
-
yea forgot! add it.
-
Folks,
I think we are getting too bent out of shape over this port issue. Deep blue is right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The port belongs to the territory, not a specific city within the territory (unless of course, the city is the territory ala Hong Kong). So the port in western US, can be any damn city you want it to be. The point is, it is in western us. Now, I have no problem with being historically correct, so a port in Abbyssinia, as you suggest Imperious Leader, we can do with out, but the port in western us should stand as is. It makes no difference for game play if the port is in the middle of the territory or the bottom of the territory if it is connected to the same sea zone.
-
if your adding Puget sound it may help to seperate them a bit
-
Soory, I can not see the map in IE.
Can somebody please just post an image, not a link
Tanks folks
-
Glad to see some people are actually reading the threads.
Ports without historical foundations have been added to enhance game play. I did not just randomly place ports on the map.
“does not exist†and “never existed†are not reason enough to remove a port. If you don’t like a port I have added tell me why. I am looking for discussions that provide insightful feedback not simple statements.
Example:
Abyssinia’s port does not have historical foundations, true. The port was added to enhance game play and to add a new dynamic to the African Theater by allowing Italy (if the Axis control the Suez) to move troops to its holdings in Africa, giving the Suez farther reaching tactical value and allowing Italy to defend one of its VCs.
It also gives the Southern Italian port a place to go. (Remember ports need pairs so without it we lose the Italian mainland port as well)
So… If my reasoning does not persuade you to keep the Abyssinia port on the map, that is fine, tell me why.
Not all elements of this map require historical foundations. This is a game map, “based†on a historical war.
-
Does anyone else like the “OIL†rule addition? Or has “constructive†feedback.
-
I provided a list of oil centers … what are the proposed rules?
AAE?
this?
Oil Centers
Each enemy oil center can be either captured or bombed in a similar manner as Strategic Bombing run. If you capture an Oil center roll one D6 result equal’s number of IP you gain each turn. If you decide to bomb it you then roll one D6, equals the amount of IP that is lost from a player’s base total. If you capture an enemy oil center, the original player cannot then bomb his own oil center (even if you control it) allowing him to roll one D6 against you. -
Does anyone else like the “OIL†rule addition? Or has “constructive†feedback.
I’m not fond of the various “OIL” rules I’ve seen, but they are very easy to ignore if I don’t want to play with them, so I’ll just remain quiet on the question. :)
Craig
Suggested Topics
