Alternate setups for 1942 2nd edition

@FranceNeedsMorePower

My changes? Sure:

FranceNeedsMorePower Global 1943 setup SuperbattleshipYamato version 2.5.tsvg

@CrazyIvan
a lot of time : ) dl Pact of Steel and open the games folder and then open POS 2 and it will explain what triplea can do, mostly : )

If you run into something it can’t do, you need to make a feature request or have slide ruling capability to java code it yourself : )

@argothair said in Argo's Middleweight Map for 1939 & 1942:

@general-6-stars Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I’m actually in Washington DC these days; I left the west coast. I don’t plan to travel to Wisconsin, but if you’re ever in my neighborhood I’d be happy to buy you a drink and hear more about your thoughts in person.

In the meantime, please don’t post any more secret calculations on my map feedback thread. If you’re not willing to publicly explain where the numbers come from, then I don’t want the numbers on this thread.

If anyone has any complaints, concerns, or feature requests, please send them in – otherwise, I will post the game to the server.

Yep no problem was going by your comment above. I just try to help out most people with suggestions based on test playing. I won’t post nothing no more.

@Skyian_Leader:

Any tips on game/map design? Like things to avoid doing? I might just need to finish up the map and post a photo of it so you experts can actually see it, instead of general assumptions.

The best advice on this will come from the board’s various map-making people, like Imperious Leader.  I’ve never made wargaming maps, but here are a few thoughts for whatever they’re worth.

I personally prefer area-movement maps (like in most of the A&A games) over squares and hexes.  They look more natural to me and better suited (in my opinion) to games that operate at the global/strategic level.  This is due to the fact that, at that level, things like combat and movement and the depiction of the military forces involved occur at a very high level of abstraction – so it doesn’t seem like a good fit to combine this abstraction with the kind of fine-scale movement tracking that hexes offer.  Hexes, to me, only work well for large-scale actions when tracking is a central game element, such as in hunt-the-Bismarck type games.  On another point, I find it annoying that hexes only allow straight-line movement in six of the eight main compass directions.  Hexes are better than squares in that regard (since squares only allow straight-line movement in four directons), but they still don’t permit movement in one of the two diagonal axes.

One idea you might want to consider, on the issue of map zone size adequacy, is to use a split-representation system along the lines of the “task force markers” that were used in the original A&A Pacific game.  In such a system, the plastic sculpts corresponding to a particular group of forces are placed off the game map (on a side table) rather than on the map, along with a small numbered identifying marker.  A corresponding marker is placed on the map to mark the position of the force group.  That way, the map sections only need to be big enough to accommodate these small markers rather than a pile of sculpts, and you only need to move the markers from position to position rather than the sculpts.

As a further refinement, you can even use this system (if you’re so inclined) to introduce partial blinding into the game.  This involves keeping your map markers face-down until they make contact with enemy markers (which are also face down).  Before the markers make contact (at which point they are both turned face up), each side knows the composition of the enemy’s various forces (seen via the groups of off-the-board sculpts) and the position of the enemy’s various forces (seen via the map markers), but remains unaware of which group of sculpts corresponds to which map marker. This makes possible the element of surprise, which is absent in a conventional A&A game in which you can always see every detail of the enemy’s forces.  The old Stratego game works a bit like that, in the sense that you know what pieces the enemy has and you know where on the board the enemy has pieces, but you don’t know the specific unit type of each piece until you make contact with it.

@Rorschach:

@12doze12:

I just have one answer.

The boards, the units, the dice trays and the boxes come with the box right?

No.  The ammo box itself, the boxes FOR the units and the dice trays come with it.  Pretty clear in the product description on the website i think.

Ok, thank you

You can gauge the size of pieces against the infantry. There is a good set of pics at BoardGameGeek.

@Imperious:

Is this the same map as global 39? or close?

No. This map is based on the old AAE and AAP. At the time I wanted a way to play both maps seemelessly. AAG40 acomplished the goal of this project, albeit in a slightly different way. Therefore, this map has been mostly forgotten since then.

I believe I may have VP locations set, along with solid win / loss numbers.  I need to play through a few more games with these rules, but this is very close (if not the) final product.  Still, I’d like some input from you guys.

The Axis win if they have a total of 27 VPs (they start with 20) for 2 whole turns (they must hold the locations), and the Allies win if the axis have 10 vp for 2 wholes turns.

(edit: I realize now that 27 is insanely high, and is very hard to obtain and is a pretty decisive victory.  25 seems like a good number; the Allies have to get off of their asses to take away a victory point or two to even things out before the Axis make a big breakthrough on one of the fronts [which will net 2 or 3 VPs, with a fourth probably not far off]).

VP LOCATIONS: Listed by nation, and also showing how many VPs each territory is worth (1 is minor, 2 is major).

Germany:
East Germany - 2
West Germany - 2
Italy - 2
France - 1
Austria - 1
Norway - 1
Ukraine - 1

Japan:
Southern Japan - 2
Northern Japan - 2
Chosen - 2
Shantung - 1
Thai-Malay - 1
North Philippines - 1
New Guinea - 1

Russia:
Moscow - 2
Leningrad - 2
Stalingrad - 2
Sverdlosk - 1
Archangel’sk - 1
Vladivostok - 1

United Kingdom:
England - 2
Scotland - 2
Bombay - 2
New South Wales - 2
Eastern Canada - 2
Burma - 1
Egypt - 1
Iraq - 1
South Africa - 1

China:
Western Sinkiang - 2
Kansu - 1

United States:
Northeastern United States - 2
Southwestern United States - 2
Widwestern United States - 2
Southern United States - 1
Northwestern United States - 1
Hawaiian Islands - 1
Alaska - 1
Central America - 1

Tell me what you think.