@thrasher1 Maybe it is time for me to thank some people. The people who came before me… All the guys (and maybe girls) at game magazines who published Axis and Allies (and Fortress America and Shogun related stuff). I never got one of these magazines myself however.
But for now: a big shout-out to these pre-internet guys! If anyone from you is here on this forum: please send me a message if you want.
New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)
-
Thanks Craig Bee
I have extensively play tested on original map. I truly believe that these will be appropriate totals for each country.
It also allows for a 7th player if needed(China) to go simutaniously with the US. I literally have somewhere between 20 -30 games played already on the old Positronica map. Both the allies and the Axis Powers have won several times. The US even fell once to Japan. HeHe, I was Japan. :evil: -
@Deaths:
Thanks Craig Bee
I have extensively play tested on original map. I truly believe that these will be appropriate totals for each country.
It also allows for a 7th player if needed(China) to go simutaniously with the US. I literally have somewhere between 20 -30 games played already on the old Positronica map. Both the allies and the Axis Powers have won several times. The US even fell once to Japan. HeHe, I was Japan. :evil:What has changed on the map that would make you recommend 9 extra income for the axis?
-
I feel The 9 extra IPC’s will even it out a little more, besides the Allies went up 1 also, so it is only a 8 IPC increase percentage wise.
I have found that the Axis powers struggle just a little bit to get going. -
Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs)
| A&A REVISED |
| | IPCs | % of World Total |
| US | 42 | 25% |
| UK | 30 | 18% |
| SU | 24 | 14% |
| Allied Total | 96 | 58% |
| |
| GER | 40 | 24% |
| JAP | 30 | 18% |
| Axis Total | 70 | 42% |
| |
| Total Diff | 16% |
| World Total IPCs | 166 || PROPOSED |
| | IPCs | % of World Total |
| US | 72 | 24% |
| UK | 51 | 17% |
| SU | 39 | 13% |
| Allied Total | 162 | 54% |
| |
| GER | 63 | 21% |
| JAP | 51 | 17% |
| ITA | 24 | 8% |
| Axis Total | 138 | 46% |
| |
| Total Diff | 8% |
| World Total IPCs | 300 |I would say to go with the 250. I’d like the 300, though it would extend the game, but just don’t like the idea of the US being able to drop 20+ INF a turn, and I don’t like to have to remember a bunch of rules that limit amounts of production for particular pieces per country. If you need more pieces, buy them, and if you want a shorter game, play Classic.
On the other hand, Lend Lease can play into it, though then the Soviets can perhaps drop multitudes of commies into the trenches… So, Lend Lease is good, but the 250 still would be better.I like following the percentages you had referenced from LH and AAR, definitely a good starting point without having to debate territory by territory, which would end up with even higher totals. And basing whether this is good or not solely on playtesting at this point is going to give you skewed results based on incomplete rules and the house rules that will be factored in because people like them.
All that being said about the numbers for countries, I am not a big fan of valueless land territories. I can understand islands, but there are an awful lot of current valueless territories throughout central asia and that is already an 8 turn trip to Moscow for Japan at best, with half of that being of no added value. Just in looking at the big picture and the current amounts, could it be feasible to at least make the current valueless territories have some value. i mean, could there really be nothing there of use for a country’s warmachine? men, metal, chemicals, food, supplies, chicks? something… making them 1 ipc each at least gives some meaning to defending abit. (this would add about 7 ipcs to Russia and 3/4 to China, couple to UK. Anyhow, that may be a bit later in the discussion, but just my 2 cents at least, maybe it’s better to have them without value…Yes on the convoy boxes not producing IPCs, bravo.
And on a delayed note, the Berlin circle v2 looks good, and I see no problem in having a factory for Germany in Berlin and in the Germany territory north of it for shipping.
-
I say build the trans Siberian Railway so that a few of the valueless territories have a Different kind of Value. Strategic Value
My Marker is going to draw it on if it’s not printed on. :-o
The worlds “value” does not have to be a nice round number either
If England only MAKES 51ipc’ THE GAME WON’T BE WORTH PLAYING BECAUSE IT WILL BE OVER WAY TO SOON. I feel people will start bidding for UK instead of Germany. UK has to fuel the war machine for 3 different countries.(England, India,Australia) Kind of hard to do on this large of a map with each country getting to spend 17, 17 , and 16IPC each. not enough fuel for the fire. :(
Whats the point in convoy boxes if they make no $.
-
They will have to add some lend lease rules to balance it out.
-
@Deaths:
Whats the point in convoy boxes if they make no $.
–check out pages 22 and following, this was discussed quite a bit.
-
No sir, I don’t llike it. Leave them the way they are.
-
Fantastic, some activity. Hopefully we can get a few more people to chime in on the subject.
CraigBee,
300 IPCs is too high but 328 is ok? What changed your mind?Craig A Yope,
Yes, this will probably not be the final IPCs count, but which one do YOU like?Murraymoto,
Thanks for the input.@Deaths:
Whats the point in convoy boxes if they make no $.
Like I stated in my pervious post, convoys do not produce income. They are transit points (ships do not make income, they move income). These represent vulnerabilities in the supply lines. I believe that CBs should be attacked and when attacked they reduce the available income of the owning nation.
@Deaths:
I have extensively play tested on original map. I truly believe that these will be appropriate totals for each country.
Playing games with the same friends does not constitute play testing. Yes you have an insight that most of us do not, so tell me this. Did you win most of the time? Did you play the same people? How long did it take to play? Honestly rate your competition?
Did you test it or just play?
Can you provide pictures of the board 3 turns to 5 turns in, the next time you play? That would actually be a great help.
@Deaths:
So what we will have in the grand scheme of things is-
ALLIES = 205 IPC’s
AXIS + 123 IPC’sI appreciate the time it takes to devise a IPCs system. And yours will probably work just fine. I am not saying it is bad or wrong. I am entitled to my own opinion as well.
And you still have not addressed my concerns:
1. With such a high IPC count the piece density will be high. This will slow the game down and consume even more of the limited space on the map.
Yes… the map is larger but the majority of the growth is in Russia and China. If you look at the historical fronts they are not that much bigger and surely this does not constitute the 85 IPCs you have given the US. Do you really think the US needs that much money when on the map they have not actually gained that much territory?
2. Historical relevance. I don’t think your IPC values reflect the economic situation of the war. Where did these figures come from?
You make a valid point concerning Britain. After reviewing the AAR map I noticed that Japan is in control of the South Pacific whereas on our map Britain controls these territories. And considering the time frame in which our map is reflecting, Britain should receive a larger percentage then Japan. I also believe that if Japan starts with fewer IPCs this will encourage a more aggressive opening by the Japanese player, reflecting the war in better detail.
So I will post my new suggested IPC count.
@Deaths:
My Marker is going to draw it on if it’s not printed on.
If you use the Strategic Moves you will not need your Sharpie to draw on the trans Siberian Railway. But feel free to do whatever you feel is necessary to your map.
@Imperious:
They will have to add some lend lease rules to balance it out.
I love that it is “they” now. Your not part of this discussion?
Yes, like previously stated a lend lease system should be put in place.
My suggestion:
Lend Lease
Axis
Germany may send up to 15 IPCs to Italy during Germany’s purchase phase.Allies
While the Soviet Union convoy box is Allied controlled. Britain may send up to 15 IPCs to the Soviet Union during Britain’s purchase phase.While the North Atlantic US convoy box is allied controlled the US may send up to 25 IPCs to Britain during US’s purchase phase.
my 2 cents
-
Like I stated in my pervious post, convoys do not produce income. They are transit points (ships do not make income, they move income). These represent vulnerabilities in the supply lines. I believe that CBs should be attacked and when attacked they reduce the available income of the owning nation.
Gay :cry:
So in saying this you have made the decision for everyone.
Whats the point of a SBR then?Playing games with the same friends does not constitute play testing. Yes you have an insight that most of us do not, so tell me this. Did you win most of the time? Did you play the same people? How long did it take to play? Honestly rate your competition?
Did you test it or just play?
Can you provide pictures of the board 3 turns to 5 turns in, the next time you play? That would actually be a great help.
I would love too provide pictures, and I will. :)
As for my competition varies from week to week, I Have a Pool of 8-10 peeps + a few pop ins here and there. At least 6 of them I would consider very well versed in the ways of A&A.
As far as testing , what do you mean.
We set board up and played from the original post
A few rules we used that you should know about,
Ind. Complex In a Capitol city only had no limits on production-Rome Berlin, London, Washington, Tokyo,Moscow
others such as Sydney and Calcutta, could only produce IPC worth of territory
Positronicas turn order of,
Germany-Russia-Japan-UK-Italy-USA+China
We had a ten Techs- Most where basic AAR + a few from the “House” and Net. Nothing crazy.
We played with and without NA’s Frequently both ways
We toyed with Japans First strike as in Pacific, They don’t need it. I would say the Allies won most of the Games,but not by many.
We use CAP rules from Pacific.
Tanks where 3/3I appreciate the time it takes to devise a IPCs system. And yours will probably work just fine. I am not saying it is bad or wrong. I am entitled to my own opinion as well.
And you still have not addressed my concerns:
1. With such a high IPC count the piece density will be high. This will slow the game down and consume even more of the limited space on the map.
Yes… the map is larger but the majority of the growth is in Russia and China. If you look at the historical fronts they are not that much bigger and surely this does not constitute the 85 IPCs you have given the US. Do you really think the US needs that much money when on the map they have not actually gained that much territory?
2. Historical relevance. I don’t think your IPC values reflect the economic situation of the war. Where did these figures come from?
You make a valid point concerning Britain. After reviewing the AAR map I noticed that Japan is in control of the South Pacific whereas on our map Britain controls these territories. And considering the time frame in which our map is reflecting, Britain should receive a larger percentage then Japan. I also believe that if Japan starts with fewer IPCs this will encourage a more aggressive opening by the Japanese player, reflecting the war in better detail.
So I will post my new suggested IPC count.
1 Piece Density. Yes there 2-3 spaces in and around Europe, West Germany, London, Berlin. This inconvenience is mostly first turn though, after set up, before first move. Bombers take up space. :) Use a Fleet card
After every thing gets chipped, No Probs.1a 10 of that is Chinas money so therefore the US only makes 75, the same as Britain. The US is a vast Natural resource with major manufacturing capabilities. Britain needs half the globe to acheive that. That right there should show there manufacturing abilities. No where near as much as the US.
2 IPC Total- It’s a game! If you go totally Historical, Italy will make I dunno 3 IPC’s a turn. The Axis are suppossed to have a chance.
Your lend lease to Italy is a bad Idea. Germany CANNOT afford to give Italy Crap. Why would any one want to be Italy and have to depend on the German players kindness while he is trying to slam Russia and defend France at the same time. The Allied lend lease thing is cool, but should be a NA not an automatic get. Again Convoy’s should have IPC worth.3. Dude you can’t base any of your findings off of the original map. Throw it away for now. Japan can’t have less. They now will have 3 factories surrounding them plus one on Hawaii + a whole new Army to fight in the Chinese. Japan is aggressive enough with Previous Set up. There navy is Huge and an Nice army to boot, I won’t even talk about their AirForce, let me just say 2 Bombers.
If you use the Strategic Moves you will not need your Sharpie to draw on the trans Siberian Railway. But feel free to do whatever you feel is necessary to your map.
Set the map up so people can play a basic A&A game using Established Rules. Not every one is going to want to play a Fancy game that takes forever because of a thousand of your house rules. A game this big takes long enough.
I love that it is “they” now. Your not part of this discussion?
Yes, like previously stated a lend lease system should be put in place.
My suggestion:
Lend Lease
Axis
Germany may send up to 15 IPCs to Italy during Germany’s purchase phase.Allies
While the Soviet Union convoy box is Allied controlled. Britain may send up to 15 IPCs to the Soviet Union during Britain’s purchase phase.While the North Atlantic US convoy box is allied controlled the US may send up to 25 IPCs to Britain during US’s purchase phase.
my 2 cents
As stated before you have already made every ones mind up on the convoy thingy you got going on. So as you delete all of the convoy boxes, we will not have a choice because you have made it for us, as with roads and rail Most people play this game using the vast majority of the OOB rules when it applys a Pacific or Europe or AAR. Build the map around that crowd, Then make your juiced up version. If you have not played a game on the original map,(Posi’s) you need to before you start screwing with the mechanics of the map. You don’t know how too. If you have, what are you thinking? :roll:
Just remake the map, not the rules.
-
I love that it is “they” now. Your not part of this discussion?
It was a knee jerk reaction to the “Can you move Paris further south” getting no say.
ON the lend lease issue i don’t think it can be decided by “15 and 25 round numbers philosophy” but rather once the final IPC values are decided and those values are placed on the map… then you will have to look at the balance to address the problems with the Soviets or UK getting too easily into trouble.
The first thing is to get the basic parts of the variant down and then make an outline of all these little issues and address them each in turn.
-
first the template of units and costs and values
-
then any changes in movement and combat and non combat
-
technology
-
diplomacy
-
set up issues
-
scenarios
-
balancing issues ( lend lease, cheaper units for some nations, some starting technology etc)
-
-
Imp. Leader.
1 Go with already established unit costs, ie. tanks 5 IPC’s Fighters 10 IPC’s and so on
2.Movement and the sequences in each countries turn should be as they are in AAR.
3. Techs. I believe we already have a great pool of techs to use from, We just need to narrow it down to 10- 12 of them
4. Diplomacy- I like this part. This is where the game can get real interesting fast.
5. Set up issues. I believe we should use a Hybrid or almost exact copy from before. Most of the set up is from Europe and Pacific put together.
6. Scenarios. Hmm, like what. Germany didn’t stab Russia in the back and decided not to invade, or….
7. The game is already for the most part balanced. If you give the Axis a few more IPC’s to start with, the game will be fine.
-
All I am saying is this: ownership of a couple territories, a few Naval bases made no sense, and a few border changes is all that needed to be done with this map.
-
Well lets please be a bit civil folks. Bickering will lead to a dead end. Lets just put this issues aside and move forward.
I will edit those posts so it does not become a sword of damocles of future discourse…
-
CraigBee,
300 IPCs is too high but 328 is ok? What changed your mind?Initialy I like the lower number. However, after reading DH’s suggestions, they look very close to adding AAE and AAP together. I fear with the lower number, we might see Germany and Russia battling on the easter front for a very low dollar amount. I am guessing that after populating the board, the higher number will give more appropriate incentive for the axis to aggressively attack.
Craig
-
Gentlemen,
I will no longer be wasting my free time arguing with someone as stubborn as myself.
Below is a link to an updated version of Positronica’s map prior to my joining of this thread. This map hopefully has achieved our original goal of correcting all the spelling errors and other suggested changes from pdel21, Craig A Yope, and others from page 6 and back of this thread.
**Be aware you may see a “file not found” warning that is just for the preview image. You can download the actual file by clicking on the file name link on the right.Hopefully this is what DH and others are looking for.
It was not my intent to blow smoke up anyone’s anything, or to make you feel neglected or ignored. I truly joined this thread to get suggestions to improve this map beyond my own vision and despite DH’s claims I believe this map has gone far beyond my vision thanks to you.
I would like to thank all who has taken their valuable time to provide feedback for this project and apologize for making you endure the last few posts.
deepblue
-
Oh come on …. come back to the table. Things like this happen from time to time and it does you no good to take such a thing too personally.
-
wow, I’m out of it for a little while and… wow
-
Gentlemen,
I will no longer be wasting my free time arguing with someone as stubborn as myself.
Ahh some progress. :wink:
I am not trying to be a jerk here, this whole thing is just plain frustrating. Both of our stubborness has gotten us no where.For that I am Sorry. That was how I was feeling.
I felt like I was back in the Army arguing with a green troop straight out of Boot. No experience- just the tools to do the job right. But the attitude of a 30 year veteran.Some of the things done on this new map are great! Afrika is very cool looking, the Azores was a neat Idea. Fixing the port to port routes is good, sea zone around Phillipines is okay but can definatly live with it. US not controlling Brazil was a interesting Idea. I gots a few more but do I really need to go on.
In short, lets make a Basic Map, based off of Positronica’s design. Fix the few Clerical errors that we know of, and then use that map as a stepping stone to the next. Redo all of the above and any others I may have missed. Please leave Siagon, and feel free to put in a Berlin circle, I don’t care either way. I was more worried about the density after populated. the “old” Germany was crowded before it was cut in half by the cirlce.
Pleas don’t drop because of a few off the wall comments by me. I just didn’t feel like you cared at all for my input and a few other peoples as well.
SO in Shorter
I am Sorry I PiZZed You Off
DH
I do want you Deep Blue a part of this project. But your stubborness and mine, and anyone else out there, will get us no where fast.
IMHO if folks would like a juiced up map, lets do it, but make it a modern warfare map, or WWIII
-
OK good show DH. BTW im working on a modern version right now.
Suggested Topics
