New Custom Map Project

So you don’t think that would hurt Japan in the long run. ?  That would be something worth seeing where some islands are worth 2 icps.

Of course it could hurt Japan. But on the flip side if Japan snags more islands real quick and has the position to hold onto them for awhile it could help them gain the upper hand whichever direction they’re going. In reverse of course, if the US and ANZAC get the islands then it will naturally help them beat back Japan.

I do agree now that I am thinking about it more. Seems like more pressure on India.

@SS:

That would be something worth seeing where some islands are worth 2 icps.

This concept for a 2-IPC island value would actually fit nicely with the idea of stripping the interior Chinese provinces of their 1-IPC value, in the same way that the Russian non-coastal eastern territories would be stripped of their 1-IPC value.

I’m playing a new G40 game and I think I will put this idea in game and try it. But still put in any planes that want to land on islands must have at least an airstrip on it.

But game starts with some airbases and naval bases but you can’t buy any during game.
Can buy airstrips only. Cost is 5 icp’s.

Ichabod, I will take your ideas to my game. As far as China I will have an answer soon. From now on I will be discussing my game and changes in a new thread.

Just as a quick back-of-the-envelope kind of thing, I’ve had a look at the current IPC values of the Russian and Chinese territories that seem (at first glance) to be the most likely candidates for a 1-IPC drop, and at the Japanese and American islands that seem (at first glance) to be the most likely candidates for a 2-IPC boost, just to see whether the swapped IPCs add up properly.

The current values are:

• Buryatia (1 IPC)

• Evenkiyskiy (1 IPC)

• Kazakhstan (1 IPC)

• Novosibirsk (1 IPC)

• Sakha (1 IPC)

• Timguska (1 IPC)

• Urals (1 IPC)

• Yakut S.S.R. (1 IPC)

• Yenisey (1 IPC)
  Total: 9 IPCs

• Anhwe (1 IPC)

• Chahar (1 IPC)

• Hunan (1 IPC)

• Hopei (1 IPC)

• Kansu (1 IPC)

• Kweichow (1 IPC)

• Shensi (1 IPC)

• Sikang (1 IPC)

• Suiyuyan (1 IPC)

• Tsinghai (1 IPC)
  Total: 10 IPCs
  (Note that I didn’t downgrade Yunnan or Szechwan because their connection to the Burma Road gives them special importance)

• Caroline Islands (0 IPC)

• Iwo Jima (1 IPC)

• Formosa (1 IPC)

• Marianas (0 IPC)

• Marshall Islands (0 IPC)

• Okinawa (1 IPC)

• Paulau Island (0 IPC)
  Total: 3 IPCs

• Guam (0 IPC)

• Hawaiian Islands (1 IPC)

• Johnston Island (0 IPC)

• Line Islands (0 IPC)

• Midway (0 IPC)

• Philippines (2 IPC)

• Wake Island  (0 IPC)
  Total: 3 IPCs

If we drop all the Russian and Chinese territories I’ve listed to 0 IPCs, this liberates 19 IPCs for distribution to the Japanese and American islands I’ve listed, of which there are 14.  This would translate into a boost of 1 IPC for 9 of the 14 islands, and a boost of 2 IPCs for 5 out of the 14 islands.

In fairness, Formosa and the Line Islands could probably be tossed from the list, since they saw little action in WWII.  On the other hand, the Gilbert Islands, New Britain and the Solomon Islands should probably be added to the list, since they were the scene of either heavy direct fighting or (in the case of New Britain) a large-scale, long-duration blockade.

Yes Thank You

@Young:

Nice work CWO Marc… this will be helpful for sure.

Thanks.  It’s just a starting point for discussion, of course, with severeal rough edges; for example, the list of Chinese provinces to be downgraded may be too large, and there’s also the unaddressed question of which islands would get a 2-IPC boost as opposed to just a 1-IPC boost.

@Ichabod:

Now, China would be losing 3 IPCs worth of money = 1 less infantry purchase. So what about a special peasant ability?

Perhaps the closest historical parallel would be to give China a single special extra unit (based in Shensi) representing Mao’s Communists, who historically – when they weren’t making plans to resume their civil war with Chiang once WWII was over – gave the Japanese an appreciable amount of trouble as a guerilla force, notably during their Hundred Regiments Offensive.  This special extra A&A unit could be sort of a ChiCom equivalent to the single American Flying Tiger unit that the rules allocate to China.

That idea has a lot to recommend it. The worthless islands are the areas most people want to see activated with a value anyway.

Of course stripping those interior Asian territories will nerf Russia on income, which might still prove problematic for the Allies during the opening rounds. I would offset it with a simple objective bonus attached to Soviet territories, where fighting actually occurred, along the front with Germany.

For China you could revert to an AA50 style unit spawn, or do a ChiCom thing, or both.

If increasing the pacific islands beyond a 1 ipc doesn’t grab you, then an alternative to 2 ipcs islands, would be to give some of the med tiles a value, for more sand and sea action.

Good points, Black Elk, and a good solution might be as follows.  The table that I posted earlier today was meant to see what kind of numbers we’d be playing with if we opted for an “IPC neutral” redistribution, in which the total number of IPCs on the board remained unchanged.  One point that I noticed at the time, and commented on, was that there wouldn’t be enough IPCs to boost all the islands to the same degree (though that might not be a bad thing, since not all islands were equally valuable to the war effort of the nations involved).  However, one point that I failed to consider (even though in retrospect it looks glaringly obvious) was that stripping the USSR and China of IPCs in certain territories (as a disincentive to Japan) would lower the Russian and Chinese incomes to such a degree that compensation might be required to keep things balanced.  The solution might therefore be to move away from an “IPC neutral” redistribution model.  The mainly-wilderness interior parts of Russia and China would still be stripped of their IPCs, and those IPCs would still be reallocated to various Pacific islands, but a few entirely new IPCs would also be created.  Some of these new IPCs would be allocated to certain Pacific islands that didn’t get enough of a boost from the redistribution, and some would go to a few key Russian and Chinese territories.  In Russia’s case, these would be somewhere on the Europe side of the map (where, as Ichabod has noted, major components of the Soviet economy were located).  In China’s case, two good candidates (and there may be others) for boosting would be the two territories I’ve mentioned already in connection with the Burma Road: Yunnan and Szechwan.  Both could get a boost, and Szechwan in particular could get a larger boost than Yunnan because that’s (on the A&A map) roughly the location of China’s wartime capital, Chunking, which Japan was sufficiently obsessed about that it became one of the most-bombed places on Earth.  Another notable (and thus boostable) Chinese territory that I’ve mentioned would be Shensi, which is roughly where Mao’s forces ended up after the Long March.

I really wonder how much YG is going to pay attention to our comments here…also, apologies if I comment too much. But even if any of my “ideas” (which have been borrowed from others too) are not included, I will buy his new G40 board if its constructed and reasonably priced. I’m not rich, LOL!

I like CWO Marc’s idea just posted for the Chinese territories of relocating additional IPC values to other Chinese territories if zeroing out the regions bordering Russia…good idea.

I’m still advocating stripping Russian Pac side non-coastal territories to zero, and putting those 6 IPCs redistributed as such:
1-Leningrad
1-Urals
1-Bryansk
1-Stalingrad
1-Russia
Doing this I think takes away from having to discuss fixing an IPC imbalance. Russia gets the same and still gets to collect those additional IPCs for about the same amount of turns as if they were being gobbled up by Japan. Instead, they could get gobbled up by Germany, but the Axis still collectively only can gain the same amount of IPCs. In this case, less to Japan, but more to Germany.

In regards to the island IPC changes; several different ways someone could go about this. In particular I’m an advocate of adding 2 IPCs each to the Guineas. Those 4 IPCs also would coincide with ANZAC’s +5 NO bonus. So now we’re talking about a larger IPC swing. It might be worth it for Japan and US/ANZAC players to really fight over them. Japan occupied/attacked them during WWII. And then the Allies liberated them in the course of the actual war. But how often does a Japanese player really go for the Guineas as an objective during a table top game? I’m really curious what you guys think about this those islands in particular?

https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2013/09/09/remembering-war-new-guinea/

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-coral-sea

Also, I think almost all islands on the board need a higher value; especially if a battle was fought there (like Crete). Even Sicily and Sardinia on the European board should be worth 1 IPC I think. The Allies almost invaded Sardinia, Sicily was. Crete had a huge battle in the early war. ANZAC forces came close to beating the Germany parachute troopers. ANZAC forces on Crete fought very well…if they knew the overall situation (that us armchair generals know), then it would have been the first German defeat in the war against western forces.

Other islands I think need a higher value. Iwo Jima due to it’s strategic location for bombing raids on Japan. Obviously that rock isn’t worth resources…so maybe I’m wrong here…just thought that it would be better if Japan had to defend an island like that or Okinawa. Again, for whatever island is increased for Japan, do the same for the allies side.

Also, if some islands scattered throughout the Pacific add too many IPC extras for one side or another, perhaps there could be a rule where the allies or Japanese forces would have to literally land a ground unit to in order to “activate” that IPC. Any thoughts on this idea?

On the subject of Russia’s stripped eastern IPCs going to western Russia rather than to the Pacific islands: in a sense it’s meaningless to say that the specific IPCs from specific territory X should be ressigned to territory Y as opposed to territory Z because all IPCs are the same.  Nor does it really matter whether IPCs are reassigned in an IPC-neutral way overall, or whether new IPCs need to be created and added to the game map overall, except to the extent that the second method would allow for greater map modifications than the first method.  In practical terms, all that really matters are three things: which territories have their IPC value go down (and by how many IPCs, if applicable); which territories have their IPC value go up (and by how many IPCs, if applicable); and whether these modifications raise or lower and have no effect on the number of IPCs that each power starts out with.

On the subject of all islands everywhere being boosted: the Russia/China/Pacific IPC modifications mentioned above were intended to solve a specific problem: discouraging Japan from carrying out a historically inaccurate (and physically improbable) offensive drive against Moscow via eastern Russia or China, and encouraging Japan to focus its attention instead on the Asia/Pacific theatre (which is where its attention was in WWII and should be in the game).  The same technique could in principle be used to boost (or lower) the values of other territories that have nothing to do with the Russia/China/Pacific problem, if those other territories were considered to be sufficiently problematic, but I don’t know if the islands on the Europe side of the map are problematic to the same extent as the Russia/China/Pacific situation.

Islands on the European side are not problematic…I’m not strongly advocating that places like Sicily get an IPC. Won’t mention it again. Just thought it might result in the Allies going for it. One player against me did take Sicily. He stacked infantry there for cover and used it as a staging area to bomb Germany.

Russia:  I wouldn’t want Russia to lose their total IPC income (as they have to buy lots of infantry or Moscow will fall even easier) when zeroing out Pac side non-coastal territories for game play. I like zeroing out the non-coastal territories in order to take away the incentive for Japan to help the drive towards Moscow (which I agree makes no sense for several reasons).

I do like creating incentives for Japan to go more for the island battles.

I like the Guineas in particular having an IPC value.

Well, I’ve commented too many times on this thread…I’m going to try to refrain from further comments. Thanks for the discussion CWO Marc, Black_Elk, and SS.

I think all of this discussion really depends on what your intention is and what it should be. It seemed to me that your original intention was to make a map of Global 40 that was more functional and had all of the aides placed on it. The discussion has morphed into how can we change the game to make it better. So really we are talking about 2 things here. If we change the map itself, i.e. different income values or making it so one particular territory doesn’t touch another specific one then we are creating a different game. Similar but different. That would be like adding a row of squares to a chess board. It wouldn’t be the same game.

There is room for both ideas, improving the game board and creating a new, community driven game itself. Perhaps there should be 2 separate discussions for these ideas.

From what I understand of YG’s opening post on the first page, the project aims to do at least one but possibly two things.  The “at least one” aim is to improve the map in ways that don’t change how it functions rule-wise: making it bigger and more attractive, adding tools that facilitate play, correcting map errors that have no impact on play, and so forth.  The “possibly two” aim is to combine the improvements just mentioned with some other elements that actually do affect play rule-wise, if such modifications are found to be broadly acceptable to a majority of people.

@Ichabod:

battle board on the map

Hmm…I wonder about that.  If the map is printed on something rigid like cardboard, the repeated impact of dice on a batttle board printed on the map itself might cause the sculpts on the map to jiggle out of position.  More seriously, aggressively thrown dice might bounce/skid across the map and plow into the sculpts like a bowling ball into a rack of bowling pins, with similar results.  The jiggle problem would be reduced if the map were printed on something soft and shock-absorbing, like vinyl, but the bowling ball issue might still be a problem.