Images of the Map?

You know i did make two other Great War games with hexes. Not a good experience combining hexes with pieces. Inspiration was the game Guns of August

Axis and Allies keeps changing, it’s not a static game where everything needs to be the same from edition to edition. It’s quite reasonable to think that this 45 degree tilt is also a normal map. Innovation and change can be good. Distortion and difficult territory sizing could well have been worse without this 45 degree turn.

I for one am for the 45 degree turn.
I thought this was the only way to do it since before I even saw the map.

There is another solution. It’s called making the board bigger. If it produces areas where nothing much happens then use them for placing production charts, mobilization zones and so forth.  This arrangement has grown on me, but only because I can use the corner triangles to do exactly that.

Right ON Flash. MAKE A BIGGER BOARD.MSRP value at 100 bucks you would thing they could make a bigger board. My biggest complaint on these games definitely is the quality. NO money,bad map design and usually not enough chips. I own almost all of these games and have spare parts so it’s not a big deal to me but for a new guy that just bought his first game it is. Come on WOTC put a little more love in these games and you know what you will probably sell more and make more money in the process.

My problem with the diamond design is the poor management of table space.

People are going to end up playing this game symetrically anyways.

@Flashman:

There is another solution. It’s called making the board bigger. If it produces areas where nothing much happens then use them for placing production charts, mobilization zones and so forth. � This arrangement has grown on me, but only because I can use the corner triangles to do exactly that.

I would agree, but that would cost more money for the producer, so I didn’t really consider that an option.  :wink:

Well in my game the map is 5x4 feet and we got 3 times the sculpts and the cost will be between $100 and $119. So it’s not really true. You can make a larger board and don’t need this 45 degree turn thing.

I like the sound of that IL. I still don’t believe how having a little bigger map would cost that much money. Like I said earlier they MSRP is 100 bucks. Wizards of the Cheap does it again. BTW Imperious who is publishing your game a new independent company or someone else. I don’t know if you can say this info just curious.

Cant disclose that at this point. Sorry.

@GoSanchez6:

I like the sound of that IL. I still don’t believe how having a little bigger map would cost that much money. Like I said earlier they MSRP is 100 bucks. Wizards of the Cheap does it again. BTW Imperious who is publishing your game a new independent company or someone else. I don’t know if you can say this info just curious.

To answer your question Sanchez.

It’s not coming out.

You came out….of the closet. Does that count?

Gar and IL we can all feel the love right now on this forum.

The Dutch flag is upside down. But great job!

Ooops!

Corrected.

I do hope I’m wrong about Poland, but it seems this is the way they’ve done it.

Also “Western Turkey”; the projection on the game map makes this look less distorted, but Armenia should not have a coastline on the Persian Gulf. Hopefully I’m just not seeing it correctly.

I suspect that western Germany may be slightly different, with Alsace further west and bordering Belgium. The Germany report is unclear on this.

Not at all certain about the arrangement of the Turksih straits area.

Doing the mines reminded me of one of my rules that would really work on a map like this: ship refueling. Even if we don’t have true “ships in port”, the mines give some sense of it. But ships can still stay at sea indefinitely, which is absurd.

The rule is very simple: on each and every turn every ship that a player owns must refuel. To do this it needs to visit the coastline of a friendly or neutral land tt. It can do this at any time on its turn.

If a ship is unable to refuel (for example an intended fueling station has been captured by an enemy power) then it is lost. Assume the crew scuttle the boat rather than let it be captured by the enemy. Also a player cannot deliberately leave a ship in a SZ from which it will be unable to refuel next turn - no suicide missions.

This is now probably 2nd only to strategic rail movement in my house rule priority list for this game.

Would probably mostly effect German subs, but then again SRM benefits the CPs.

Pretty odd that UK vessels on their way to Egypt are subject to Ottoman mines.

Like I said, I’m not certain of the borders in that area, or if the “Aegean” SZ has a naval base and mines, though it does represent the mining of the Dardanelles that sunk several Allied ships.

By not (it seems) having Gibraltar or Malta featured, the game is reflecting that France was given the task of patrolling the western Med, Italy the centre.

It must have been tempting to add a Straits SZ with Gibraltar as NB; this would be a British NB in Spain - UK gets the benefit of the minefield, and the base is in effect protected by Spanish neutrality. The CP would have to invade Spain to neutralize it. I’ve long argued for this arrangement, rather than the silly bloated “Gibraltar” land tt.

This might give us something like this:

Note that if the CPs captured Greece, they’d be able to move ships directly from the Adriatic to the Aegean via the Corinthian canal.

I’d also think about adding a German cruiser in the Tyrrhenian sea. Since Italy starts neutral, the Goeben would be able to sail into the Aegean on G1 without encountering enemy mines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Goeben_and_Breslau

Is there a historical reason for labeling the eastern most province of the Ottoman Empire “Western Turkey” or are you trying to catch us out there Flashman?

Maybe the ottomans plan to expand Turkey to the east a little bit.

Why is Bulgaria part of the Ottoman Empire?