I just wanted to say that I printed out a very large map size at 2440mm x 1118mm ( roughly 8 foot x 4 foot) on a digital printed transparency with a matt laminate and it has turned out fantastic. The quality was amazing. I searched everywhere to see if it could upscale and could not find the answers. Hopefully this will help someone who is thinking of doing the same.
I have built a custom table with magnets sunken into the table to hold the map in place. I wanted to use the table to play other games so the map had to roll up.
I also wanted to use the table for Global War 1936 and the magnets work well
Fan Edit 1940 Map Re-Painted
-
Received permission from Mark over at Oxford Game Design to use their victory point system. Still need to make adjustments but these are the country specific victory medals (from various close combat mods) worth up to 3 points with 100 points on the map. I have no idea why but photo bucket seems to add a ton of color saturation without letting me edit so I went with an effects filter.
-
I sent an official request form in through Wizards of the Coast so hopefully I’ll hear back from them soon.
-
So the G40 map and territories are staying mostly intact but you are placing these victory point medals on it?
I like the 3-tier medal approach, adds a good flavor. However, it could be a little confusing to add up during gameplay, especially when viewing from longer range. Numbers or colors on the map would be much easier, though not as interesting.
I also think they are a little small based on the picture. You may want to make the medals bigger so they stand out and don’t get missed. Some territories may get kinda crowded with names, markers, victory points, IPC value, victory cities and bases (i.e. Novgorod).
-
Yup the territories are staying mostly intact except for the medals. I think what I’ll have to do is post 2 screen shots side by side, one being enlarged medals, and the second having just one medal at the current size but color coded. I originally planned on the color coding by ripping yellow, orange, and red off of the map to stay within he same color range but as you said makes it less interesting.
The purpose of the victory point system is three fold. My main goal or mission statement sort of speak is to get closer to games like World at War and Hearts of Iron in complexity while at the same time making the play time shorter and still fun. Sounds like competing goals but the VPs accomplish this by ending the old mechanic that once a side reaches an economic threshold they can usually compound statistically into a long drawn out win. I’m not saying that I’m a really good player but this is usually what happens when I play with friends that are equally matched in play styles. Similar to RTS games I think the fun factor drops off once you reach that economic threshold because now it’s just a game of steam roll your opponent. In terms of complexity now there’s various cost benefit choices to make such as do I tactically engage to destroy enemy forces, take a territory for its economic value, accomplish national objectives, or go for victory points? This supports more varied strategies while making useless territories important like Crete, Sicily, Vyborg, and others especially in the Pacific.
How it works is that as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win and if they lose too much the Allies win. This more closely reflects the end game stages of chess or checkers. Struggle for Europe and Pacific already had this system in place so it was pretty convenient to see how they distributed the points in this system which I’ve mostly converted over. One point of note though is that because they have a different movement mechanic feedback will probably be necessary to figure out what the right winning number conditions are. So far straight from the Struggle for Europe and Pacific global game the numbers will loosely be in these ranges:
Summer 1942 37(lose) -65(win), Winter 1942 37-64, Summer 1943 33-59, Winter 1943 28-52, Summer 1944 23-40, Winter 1944 17-27, Summer 1945 12-12.
-
That is cool. I like your thought process here.
It may be a long read to catch up, but part of what you are doing is being discussed here over in House Rules: G40 Redesign http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.0
Discussion of late has been less focused on Victory Conditions, but I think a few of us at least have agreed that Victory Conditions are the most central element of game play. If you want to shape how the game is played, the most immediate way would be to modify the Victory Conditions.
I would love a more nuanced game that has multiple paths to victory and a more complex strategic structure. Unless you enlarge the map even more than G40 is, it will be difficult to achieve this I think. Because map size (# of territories) is directly related to how complex you can get. That must be balanced with simplicity and ease of play so that the game is not overly ponderous and technical.
I have never before considered a three faceted motivation system like you describe here. At least I have never recognized it as such. Tactical decisions, Economic decisions (includes NOs) and Victory decisions. Many times all three of these factors are combined within a single territory. However, the Victory point system you describe could be considered a sort of second currency in the game. If you can make it Victory Points sufficiently valuable to compete with the other two, I think there is real potential here.
How it works is that as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win and if they lose too much the Allies win. This more closely reflects the end game stages of chess or checkers. Struggle for Europe and Pacific already had this system in place so it was pretty convenient to see how they distributed the points in this system which I’ve mostly converted over. One point of note though is that because they have a different movement mechanic feedback will probably be necessary to figure out what the right winning number conditions are. So far straight from the Struggle for Europe and Pacific global game the numbers will loosely be in these ranges:
Summer 1942 37(lose) -65(win), Winter 1942 37-64, Summer 1943 33-59, Winter 1943 28-52, Summer 1944 23-40, Winter 1944 17-27, Summer 1945 12-12.
This scale assumes that the Allies will inevitably grow and become harder to defeat as the game goes on. As long as that is inevitable then this method shouldn’t be an issue… but if the Axis have one really great round in, say, Winter of 43, they could win the game before the Allies are truly defeated.
What I do not quite understand is how the Axis could be considered to win later in the game by having less territory than they had in the beginning or the middle. Say the Germans took Stalingrad in 1943 but did not have enough points for victory… if it comes to 1945 and they have lost Stalingrad and are pushed back closer to Germany they could still win? This puts great onus on the Allies to consistently make large gains so that the Axis do not win simply by existing in a stalemate.
You haven’t finished yet and I do not fully understand the rules, but these are just my initial questions.
-
How it works is that as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win and if they lose too much the Allies win.
I’m having trouble understanding this. The part that says “as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win” seems to imply that the more territories the Axis lose the easier it becomes for them to win. The part that says “if they lose too much the Allies win” seems to imply the opposite. Is it one or the other? Or is it something completely different that I’m not grasping?
-
@CWO:
I’m having trouble understanding this. The part that says “as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win” seems to imply that the more territories the Axis lose the easier it becomes for them to win. The part that says “if they lose too much the Allies win” seems to imply the opposite. Is it one or the other? Or is it something completely different that I’m not grasping?
It took me a second take too, so correct me if I am wrong here Ithaut…
To win early in the game the Axis have to have a huge number of victory points because this is where they will have the most territory. Theory being to make them need to do very well to achieve victory when they are at their most powerful.
To win late in the game, the Axis must successfully hold some level of territory even though they are less powerful and being crunched. Sort of a proportional with greater power - greater success needed and with lesser power - less success needed. But if the Axis do not hold enough territory they lose.
I understand it that way, but this presupposes two things: (1) the Allies will unavoidably grow larger and more powerful and beat back the Axis and (2) that the Allies would acquiesce to Axis demands or quit the war when they clearly are going to be cleaning their clocks.
Unless you script the game, (1) cannot be guaranteed. And I do believe that (2) is patently inaccurate.
-
And I do believe that (2) is patently inaccurate.
Agreed. And the Allied senior leadership – in the closing couple of years of the war, if not earlier – understood clearly that they would have to fight the war to the bitter end. I think it was Eisenhower who said (if I recall the quote correctly), that the Axis powers were not going to jump into the abyss on their own…that they would have to be pushed into it. This was a frank assessment of the opponents the Allies were fighting, and also a recognition of the fact that the Allies themselves had guaranteed this outcome by adopting a policy of unconditional surrender. The idea that the Allies would quit the war when they were on the brink of complete victory is simply unimaginable.
-
You are correct LHoffman that it goes along the lines of greater power- greater success and the opposite with lesser power. The two things that I had in mind for this was 1st a sort of prediction to that economic threshold that at a certain point you’ll more than likely win if you have enough IPC and the 2nd was the question of what is an Axis win at which in this case of the VP’s (also how that Struggle board game works) is a competition against the real life progress. Ultimately I think that kind of goes in line with this board game as it’s exciting to see if you can do better than what happened in real life despite just being an abstract game. I’ll definitely have to check out that other thread and catch up to speed.
To answer some of the what if’s I believe an over time could work for this. Say if a player wins and it seems like there is still a chance for a rebuttal then once during the game over time can be called that lasts for 4 turns and win conditions checked after the 4 turns. If a stalemate is reintroduced at the end of the over time then game continues but next win condition that is met is a for sure win. Assuming that a total game can be 15 turns at 6 months taking it up to 1947.
It’s not so much that the Axis win by holding victory conditions and the Allies surrender, it’s more of a win in terms that they were more successful in real life which draws out the war. Hope that answers some things let me know if I missed anything. It’ll definitely be interesting to see what sort of winning conditions HBG comes out with once their 1936 game is available.
-
I should add as an example that say Summer of 1943 is listed as 33-59, means that if the axis have 33 VPs or less then they lose as this represents a significant allied push but if the axis hit 59 or more VPs then they win. The game already kind of starts with this in mind I think as the axis start out with more point valued units but less territory with the opposite for the allies. Another variable strategy to winning can also be grabbing enough VP territory early and if you can hold onto it then you win as the axis player. Also an example of competing victory points can be seen in the pacific as a lot of the islands are worth points around Japans planned defense parameter but the Dutch East Indies are not worth points so it’s a choice to go for NO’s that can help later or go for a VP island campaign.
-
Also an example of competing victory points can be seen in the pacific as a lot of the islands are worth points around Japans planned defense parameter but the Dutch East Indies are not worth points so it’s a choice to go for NO’s that can help later or go for a VP island campaign.
I understand the competing strategic needs, but what is your general rationale for assigning victory points to a territory? Is is population, possession of strategic resources, historical and cultural significance, political influence…?
-
I see, while for the most part it’s a direct adaptation from the other board game, it falls more into the historical and political influence based around campaigns and their objectives both axis and allied. I’ve only made minimal changes to redistribution with incentives in mind pertaining to strategies that might be used.
Small points of note to the rational of these changes/non-changes are: Sicily, Vyborg, Ceylon, and Crete worth a point to get them into the game and their historical importance; politically Szechwan 1 point representing the unofficial Nationalist capital and Jehol as the demilitarized zone; Russia broken up to be a fair trade between north, center, and south group (Caucasus worth most points, center for capital and railroad network, north because I feel that’s a tough nut to crack if you take it as the axis); Strict neutrals sometimes being a point if the axis feel lucky or desperate; Amur worth a point for the border wars and incentive to possibly attack the USSR.
Other notes in mind: Normandy not worth points but Holland being 1 point and 3 ICP will probably railroad a more built up defense (while not actually in Holland it’s incentive payoff for invading Calais instead of Normandy). Hong Kong not worth VP’s but worth 3 IPC and possible British base plus port makes it important. Cairo worth only 1 VP because of the intercept with NO’s, canal, and bases. Eastern America not worth anything because I didn’t want to waste VP’s there and I don’t think the Germans went further than long range bomber design concepts to extend out that far.
-
Here’s a list of the point break down that is subject to change upon further suggestions. Currently I’m customizing various medal png photos for better resolution and selection. Originally I had Southern France, Northern Italy, Western Germany, and Kiangsu given 2 VP’s so that each country would have a 2nd level medal but these are areas that could definitely be redistributed.
3 VP: Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, Caucasus, japan, western United States, southern Italy, France
2 VP: Southern France, western Germany, northern Italy, Ukraine, Volgograd, Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Iraq, Persia, India, Kiangsu, Philippines, new south wales, Hawaii
1 VP: Scotland, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Baltic states, Poland, Vyborg, greater southern Germany, Hungary, Romania, western Ukraine, Smolensk, Rostov, Vologda, Spain, Gibraltar, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, Alexandria, Egypt, Sicily, Greece, Crete, Turkey, west India, Ceylon, Szechwan, Burma, Jehol, Malaya, amur, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Marshall Islands, Coroline Islands, Gilbert Islands, New Guinea, New Britain, Solomon Islands, New Hebrides, Victoria, Fiji, Samoa, Midway, Aleutian Islands
As for how many are needed for a win at a current year I’ll have to go through and mark historical VP then decide the number that goes in both directions that would be considered doing significantly better historically.
-
Something interesting that was pointed out to me by a Hearts of Iron forum member was that an alternative win condition can be a definite end date in the game at which point there’s varying degrees of a win for both sides. The PC game Combat Mission has a pretty neat VP breakdown that may or may not be prevalent to this.
< 1.25 to 1 - draw
< 1.75 to 1 - minor victory
< 2.50 to 1 - tactical victory
< 5.00 to 1 - major victory5.00 to 1 - total victory
-
What about making the Victory point system Axis-centric? Since the premise of your design revolves around how many points the Axis have at a given moment, there is no need for the Allies to track how many points they have. All they need to know is how many the Axis have and how they can best decrease that number.
Unless this is already your intent. But in this system you could assign victory points to places like the US. They serve only as a motivator for the Axis and will not count against the Axis if they don’t have them.
-
Update: Been pretty busy with University work but almost finished with the final version of the map. I ran into a multitude of problems with the medals and learned more than I ever actually wanted to about Photoshop and military awards. Alternatives also failed as I found the limits of Photoshop and the purpose Illustrator serves if I had the program. I eventually went back to the Close Combat medals since they had uniform lighting and resolutions. I don’t think I’ll be able to find a home for any flash art though so chances are I’m scaling back on the scope of the project.
After the maps out I’ll re-investigate the possibility of a full rules conversion I plan to use and that others might find interesting. Through limited play-testing a couple points of note from changing the movement mechanics was a prolonged battle for the Atlantic and Germany being able to brush the outskirts of Moscow in 1941.
-
Well this is unfortunate I had to remove the link due to a reply by Wizards of the Coast. I’m going to try to get a more in depth reply from them other than a “we’re unable to grant you permission to use our intellectual property in the manner you have requested”. It’s possible it may have just been over a single issue.
-
Well this is unfortunate I had to remove the link due to a reply by Wizards of the Coast. I’m going to try to get a more in depth reply from them other than a “we’re unable to grant you permission to use our intellectual property in the manner you have requested”. It’s possible it may have just been over a single issue.
It may not have been over any one specific issue. Owners of copyrighted material arguably have an obligation to defend their property, even against small-scale, non-commercial, non-profit use by a single individual, because doing so puts them in a better position to defend their property in court against potential large-scale, commercial piracy by another party. That’s why, for example, a company that owns the rights to a famous animated character might issue a cease-and-desist letter against a daycare centre that’s using their character without permisssion: it’s not because the company has anything against daycare centres, it’s because the company actually wants to protect itself against, let’s say, the possibility that a pirate might sell thousands of unauthorized T-shirts decorated with that particular character. Demonstrating to the courts that the company has a record of defending its intellectual property, even in inoccuous-looking cases, helps the company argue its case against any serious violators who try to rip it off for profit. It’s a bit like the concept of territorial sovereignty: if Nation X, which considers disputed Island Y and its surrounding waters to be part of its territory, is unable or unwilling to defend its sovereignty claim against vessels from Foreign Power Z who intrude into those waters to challenge the claim, it puts Foreign Power Z in the position of arguing that Nation X has renounced its claim to Island Y and that Foreign Power Z (which also claims Island Y) is free to take control of it.
-
Yea I see the logic behind that. I was hoping for an environment like some video game companies have with mods, since the fans are essentially the only thing that keep the game alive. Oh well at least Fall Out 4 comes out soon :-D. With encouraged mod support. I might pop in here every now and then to post pictures of my personal use custom map with painted units. Might inspire someone else to do something cool :mrgreen:.
I found a nice painting guide by Flames of War that’s pretty helpful. Not so sure how their own Vallejo color shades will turn out though.
-
I can see wizards of the coast having a blanket statement rejecting all requests to modify material, after all… they probaly deal with it alot with their D&D department than with Avilon Hill products.
Suggested Topics
