Thanks for the information, Veldriss. I agree with Der Kuenstler that using this map for A&A would be a problem, both for the reasons he gives and for a few other reasons which I’ll describe briefly.
First, any A&A game has to have a clearly defined starting date, with a map that matches it. The rules, the political situation, the starting setup of units and the map territories all have to work together; the A&A games set in 1940, 1941 and 1942 are all very different, and rightfully so. My understanding of Hearts of Iron is that it starts in 1936 (presumable due to the Spanish Civil War), which is four years earlier than A&A Global 1940, the A&A game with the earliest starting date (not counting A&A 1914, which deals with WWI rather than WWII).
Second, any map for a game with an area-based movement system has to have a system of territorial divisions that is correctly scaled for the game’s movement rules. The maps shown here have many more divisions than the A&A Global map. If we keep the A&A rules which say that a particular unit can move 1 space per turn, it will take that unit much longer to travel across (let’s say) Europe on these maps than on the regular Global map. The only way to compensate for that would be to change the rules to increase the number of spaces that a unit can move in one turn…and that would potentially unbalance the game.
Third, the map colouring here places the emphasis on terrain features rather than on political status. This is very confusing from an A&A perspective because in A&A it’s political status that counts the most. The newer-style A&A maps (like Global 1940) do actually “look” topographical (in other words, they look a bit like a colour satellite picture of the Earth’s surface), but most of those topographical elements are purely decorative; what really matters are the artificial territorial subdivision lines. Other than the basic land/sea division, the only terrain features in Global 1940 that function as true terrain modifiers are the three impassable ones: the Sahara, the Pripet Marshes and the Himalayas.
Fourth, the map would need IPC values assigned to each territory. IPC values are fundamental to A&A because A&A is driven by a four-step engine: territory generates income, income buys units, units fight battles, and battles win territory. Figuring out which territory ought to have which IPC value under a set of house rules would not only take a good deal of time, it would probably involve a lot of controversial debate because a lot of people would have different opinions on the subject.
These maps are certainly very attractive – I like them a lot – but unfortunately adapting them from a computer game to a very different board game might not be possible if the maps are kept at they are. They’d probably require a major redesign of many elements.
