I know. I had it printed for bud. He wants a different map now. Maybe not fond of piece chart in South America ?
Loves the map.
Classic - some reflections
-
Its not really clear to me on which game you are refering to, I guess you are talking about the 1980’s classic game of A&A. I agree that game was setup poorly, but changing it doesnt make sence, because there are already new A&A versions on the market that have dealt with those issues. Like for example Global 40. There are more seazones and more landarea’s.
Other games you might prefer, because of the distance and territory’s are World at War and Domination.
About the whole semantics of distance on the real globe of the world, I dont really want to get into that, I dont think we can find a solution on that anyway. The only thing I would like to say about it, is that any textbook or globe Ive seen of the world as we know it, shows that the landmass of eurasia is one of the biggest from east to west.
I suggest you have a look at either G40 or WAW, I hope that those maps will give you the answer you are looking for and give you many hours of quality playing time.
Good luck and have fun playing Hirohito.
-
You are talking about the 1980’s classic game :)
After reading your post I forgot what you wrote at the start, my answer remains the same tough ;)
-
Agree with @cds. The original game is not meant to be historically accurate. It’s just a strategy game with a World War 2 can-of-paint that’s one or two steps above Risk in terms of complexity. I would highly suggest looking into newer editions, like Axis and Allies: Anniversary Edition, Axis and Allies: Europe 1940 and Axis and Allies: Pacific 1940 (the latter two games can be combined to form one, extremely large game called “Global 1940” (G40 for short)).
I would recommend looking into the Anniversary Edition first before diving into the “1940” series of games. There have been many new unit types, playable countries, and rules since the original version and Anniversary is a happy medium between the original game you’re familiar with and the much more complex 1940 games. However, based on the nature of your complaints, I do think you’ll end up liking the 1940 games the most, as they (to an extent) accurately portray the political situation of 1939-1940 (US Neutrality, Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc.), and had a very large and detailed map (to cite your key complaint here, in Classic Egypt is 4 tiles away from Indochina (Indochina -> India -> Persia -> Trans-Jordan -> Egypt), in G40 Egypt is 9 tiles away (Indochina -> Shan State -> Burma -> India -> West India -> East Persia -> Persia -> Iraq -> Trans-Jordan -> Egypt)).
EDIT: Cited an example to show just how much bigger in scale A&A games have gotten over the years.
-
@cds those games do not make soviet less land zones…
-
What can I say, apparently the creators of the game feel that Russia need that much territory.
On the other hand, you could also focus on the amount of territories China has gotten, and the territories between FIC and EGY as cited by @DoManMacgee.
I would also like to know if you played the games I mentioned, for example Global 40 sec ed. Because I think if you would play a few games, you might not feel that the game is as unfair as the classic edition was.
*On another note: I feel that no map could ever be as good as a ‘real’
map of the world, because then you have to consider a lot more then we are mentioning here. I think World at War is getting closer and closer, with lots of Island and cities and nations.It was nice discussing this topic, but like I said earlier, I dont think that changing the old classic game is really necessary anymore.
Well the best of luck and have fun playing Hirohito
-
@hirohito22 If you want a smaller Axis and Allies game go play “Axis and Allies: 1941” or “Axis and Allies and Zombies”. Those games are still not “realistic” though.
You specifically complained about the maps not being realistic, so I gave you examples of games that were more to-scale. I figured since you took the time to write a 2000+ word post essay on why the map is not realistic, you’d appreciate a map that is, you know, more realistic
Side note, the USSR is huge in real life. The Nazis lost the war because (among other things) their Blitzkrieg tactics weren’t as effective when invading a huge landmass like Russia. Russia being comprised of many territories in game is a reflection of that reality.
-
Really, is ‘Zombies’ not realistic ;) Just kidding of course Macgee :grin:
-
@DoManMacgee
my reply is near your suggestion "@DoManMacgee said in Classic - some reflections:@hirohito22 If you want a smaller Axis and Allies game go play “Axis and Allies: 1941” +h: he point is not “smaller” but that soviet should have less regions based on the regions of India Persia etc. and hence less production potential but see below.
d: "You specifically complained about the maps not being realistic, so I gave you examples of games that were more to-scale. I figured since you took the time to write a 2000+ word post essay on why the map is not realistic, you’d appreciate a map that is, you know, more realistic
h: correct… d: “Side note, the USSR is huge in real life. The Nazis lost the war because (among other things) their Blitzkrieg tactics weren’t as effective when invading a huge landmass like Russia. Russia being comprised of many territories in game is a reflection of that reality.”
h: I wish you noticed that those two statements you just wrote self conflict.
the second one “many regions” is only relavant in the EAST of soviet in the 1980 version based on situation in 1942 [rulebook]. which would not delay Nazi only delay japan and since less length than India and Persia should be accessible to japan in the game. those regions are snowy ice undeveloped and empty and should be barely provide one production even when enlarged.
your first statement is about the Nazi east front that is soviet west. this also has a problem kuz in 1942 the Nazis were near Moscow and Moscow was not north WEST from caucus mountains but north of east edj of black sea. chosing “spring 1942” caused other problems that I did not yet complain about. I did not complain about the five infantry west of Moscow. only the production potential and regions east from Moscow. althoe the location of Moscow should also be fixd and perhaps was fixd in a later game map. so if you know which game map please tell me. thanks. -
I think we’re talking past each other at this point, but I will reply to your replies regardless.
@DoManMacgee said:
If you want a smaller Axis and Allies game go play “Axis and Allies: 1941”
@hirohito22 said:
The point is not “smaller” but that soviet should have less regions based on the regions of India Persia etc. and hence less production potential but see below.
Yes, you want the distances on the map to be proportional to real life. The only ways to accomplish this are to:
A: Play a smaller-scale Axis & Allies Game.
B: Play a larger-scale Axis & Allies Game.My initial suggestion was for you to play on a larger map, and your reply was to refuse on the grounds that “those games do not make Soviet [have] less land zones”, so in my second post I suggested that you try one of the smaller maps instead.
@DoManMacgee said:
Side note, the USSR is huge in real life. The Nazis lost the war because (among other things) their Blitzkrieg tactics weren’t as effective when invading a huge landmass like Russia. Russia being comprised of many territories in game is a reflection of that reality.
@hirohito22 said:
I wish you noticed that those two statements you just wrote self conflict.
They would be self-conflicting if I was arguing that the “Classic” map was a good map, but I’m not arguing that. The map is not historically accurate in the slightest. No one is disagreeing with you on this point.
the second one “many regions” is only relavant in the EAST of soviet in the 1980 version based on situation in 1942 [rulebook]. which would not delay Nazi only delay japan and since less length than India and Persia should be accessible to japan in the game. those regions are snowy ice undeveloped and empty and should be barely provide one production even when enlarged.
Every Axis & Allies game other than “Classic” drops the value of the territories East of Moscow to 1 IPC instead of 2 (except for Kazakhstan and Novosibirsk, to represent the reality that the Soviets moved a large amount of Russia’s industry east during the war). Every Axis & Allies game other than “Classic” also splits the German-Soviet front into multiple territories, making European Russia similarly vast to Asian Russia.
If you explicitly want the worthless land of Siberia to provide 0 IPC, you may actually be interested in “Axis & Allies: 1941”, which I suggested earlier in this thread. That game has lower IPC values for territories across the board, including territories with 0 IPC, like “Soviet Far East” and others.
your first statement is about the Nazi east front that is soviet west. this also has a problem kuz in 1942 the Nazis were near Moscow and Moscow was not north WEST from caucus mountains but north of east edj of black sea. chosing “spring 1942” caused other problems that I did not yet complain about. I did not complain about the five infantry west of Moscow. only the production potential and regions east from Moscow. althoe the location of Moscow should also be fixd and perhaps was fixd in a later game map. so if you know which game map please tell me. thanks.
Again, no one is arguing that the “Classic” map is not historically-accurate. “Classic” is the only Axis & Allies game set in 1942 where:
- Caucasus is west of Moscow, rather than south of it.
- The Nazis are not immediately in-striking-distance of Moscow at the beginning of the game.
As you appear to just want a map that’s similar in scale to “Classic”, but without the various historical inaccuracies and unrealistic IPC Values for territories, I will suggest the following maps for you to check out:
- Axis & Allies: 1941 - A more “basic” game than the others, but shrinks Asian Russia and drops its IPC values. Also moves Caucasus south of Moscow and puts Germans on the gates of Moscow. Full list of map changes below:
-
“Caucasus” is moved south of “Russia” and gains an “Industrial Complex.” Is is also merged with the “Kazakh S.S.R.” territory.
-
“Karelia S.S.R.” loses its “Industrial Complex”, and it split into two territories, “Karelia”, which is adjacent to “Finland-Norway”, “Eastern Europe” and the new “West Russia” territory (more on that below), and “Archangel”, which is adjacent to “West Russia”, “Russia” and “Urals” (which is just a renamed “Evenki National Orkug”)
-
“Ukraine S.S.R.” is split into two territories, “West Russia”, which is adjacent to “Russia”, “Eastern Europe” and “Karelia”, and “Ukraine”, which is adjacent to “Eastern Europe” and “Caucasus”
-
IPC values across the board have been heavily reduced. The changes are too extensive for me to give details here. If you are interested, please visit the forum for this version of the game.
- Axis & Allies: Revised Edition - The “sequel”, if you will, to “Classic 3rd Edition” (I say this because “Revised” was the first global Axis & Allies game to come out after “Classic”). Revised adds two new unit types (Destroyers and Artillery), and makes the following changes relevant to your critiques of “Classic”:
-
Drops the IPC values of the Asian Russian territories to “1” instead of “2”.
-
Germany’s overall IPC value is increased to 40 (from 32). USSR’s overall IPC value remains at 24.
-
Limits production from “Industrial Complexes” to be equal to their IPC value (instead of a limit not existing for “Industrial Complexes” you originally own in “Classic”. This effectively gives Moscow “less production capabilities” than Germany). This change is in all Axis & Allies games other than “Classic”, but I’m giving credit to “Revised” for being the first main game to introduce said change.
-
“Eastern Europe” is split into two territories, “Eastern Europe”, which is adjacent to “Karelia S.S.R.”, “Germany”, “Ukraine S.S.R.” and the new “Belorussia” territory (more on that below), and “Balkans”, which is adjacent to “Southern Europe”, “Germany” and “Ukraine S.S.R.”
-
“Karelia S.S.R.” loses its “Industrial Complex”, and it split into two territories, “Karelia S.S.R.”, which is adjacent to “Norway” (which is just a renamed “Finland-Norway”), “Eastern Europe” and the new “Belorussia” and “West Russia” territories, and “Archangel”, which is adjacent to “West Russia” and “Russia”.
-
“Ukraine S.S.R.” is split into two territories, “Belorussia”, which is adjacent to “Eastern Europe”, “Karelia S.S.R.”, “Archangel” and the new “West Russia” territory, and "Ukraine S.S.R. ", which is adjacent to “Eastern Europe”, “Caucasus” and “West Russia”.
-
“Caucasus” is split into two territories, “West Russia”, which is German-owned at the beginning of the game and is adjacent to “Belorussia”, “Russia”, “Archangel” and “Karelia S.S.R.”, and “Caucasus”, which is adjacent to “Ukraine S.S.R.”, “Russia”, “Persia” and “Kazakh S.S.R.”. “Caucasus” also gains an “Industrial Complex.”
- Axis & Allies: Anniversary Edition - A game honoring the anniversary of Avalon Hills, the company that produced several of the Axis & Allies games. This one includes Italy and China as independent, fully-playable countries, and also introduces the Cruiser as a unit type. It also includes both a 1941 (beginning roughly with Operation Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor) and 1942 (trying to mimic the setup of “Classic”) setup. Anniversary makes the following changes relevant to your critiques of “Classic”:
-
Asian Russia is split into 6 territories (up from 3 in Classic), each worth 1 IPC. The changes are extensive, so I will not go into detail. You may not like this change, as it increases the number of Russian territories, rather than decreases them/their value.
-
Numerous changes to European Russia and Europe in general, centered around the inclusion of Italy as a playable country. Changes summarized below (they’re too extensive for a 1:1 comparison to “Classic”):
2.a. Germany always controls “Germany”, “Northwest Europe”, “France”, “Norway”, “Finland”, “Poland”, “Czechoslovakia-Hungary”, “Bulgaria-Romania” and “Morocco Algeria”
2.b. Italy always controls “Italy”, “Balkans” and “Libya”
2.c. USSR always controls “Karelia S.S.R.”, “Archangel”, “Russia”, “Caucasus”, “Urals”, “Kazakh S.S.R.”, “Novosibirsk”, “Yakut S.S.R.”, “Evenki National Orkug”, “Yakut S.S.R.”, “Buryatia S.S.R.” and “Soviet Far East”
2.d. The following territories are controlled by the USSR in the 1941 scenario, but by Germany in the 1942 scenario:
“East Poland”, “Baltic States”, “Ukraine”, “Eastern Ukraine”, “Belorussia”
- Starting incomes for the relevant parties (Germany/USSR) are as follows:
1941 - Germany: 31, USSR - 30
1942 - Germany: 37, Russia - 24
In both scenarios, Italy has 10 IPC for itself.
- “National Objectives” exist, allowing players to gain bonus IPCs based on controlling specific territories. I will not go into detail on those here. Please visit the forum for this version if you want to learn more.
-
side-note: Here are some images of the games I am talking about, to help illustrate my point:
Classic Map (for reference) (credit to @AcesWild5049):
http://www.mediafire.com/view/x2tq68bqzf9svnv/Axis Allies Board.jpgAxis & Allies 1941 Map (hosted by this site):
Axis & Allies Revised Map (hosted by this site. Note that this is not a 1:1 image of the gameboard, but an edit. The territories are the same as the actual game, though):
Axis & Allies Anniversary Map (credit to @Imperious-Leader):
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ec6a12bs4hpyamc/AA50_Suplreme_Edition.ai -
Wow, you are making homework of this topic Macgee.
I am not sure why you are still talking about this land issue situation. I enjoyed playing classic, but moved on to other maps, that are more realistic (or ‘not’) and better and larger in scale. I guess hirohito sidesteps the point that a game first of all has to be fun to play, not so much realistic. Its like when I started playing Risk, that was also not realistic, but it was sure as hell fun to play.
-
Just googled for ‘map of the world’ and if you take a look at all the examples that are being given, most or not all of them show that the landmass of russia is the largest from east to west.
-
@cds I was more trying to make the point that there’s tons of Axis & Allies maps out there beyond Classic in this day and age, so there has to be at least one game that will scratch your particular itch.
Some people still prefer Classic despite being aware of all the other scenarios. Even I prefer Revised and Anniversary over G40 (which is most peoples’ favorite).
-
@hirohito22 good title for my post thank you guys.
-
@DoManMacgee althoe I thank you for “12 march” detaild reply again your recommendations add regions.
similarly the maps in your later reply unjustly keep japan tanks away from Moscow or place Moscow “east” of true location unjustly aiding Moscow, at game start, when should be three steps from eat coast to Baltic not more and two steps in same turn to Moscow from pacific coast as in photos.
you mentioned ipc so I will specify: do you know any version that gives the allies accurate ipc as described below production potential? I mean considering that eastern soviet is bare icy land undeveloped the two larger [larger than classic] regions each barely worth one ipc. total for soviet : 10 for Moscow like berlin plus 3 plus one plus one should total 15 [not 24 in classic]. unless add china potential to soviet 2 and one for west china then 18 for soviet [not for u.s. as classic kuz china too far to truly aid America building warships] or better yet 15 for soviet as above but china potential for India so brit ipc total 10 for London same as berlin plus 3+1 Canada [no complaint] plus 3 regions Australia-size in Africa not including French west Africa which is named “French” hence Nazi ipc, same as Libya, and Madagascar but Madagascar and new Zealand undeveloped and small each zero ipc, plus Jordan river region and Persia each one [and correctly two steps for length] plus 3 India and 2 Australia total 24 [not 30 as classic] and if add china ipc to India then 27.
similarly brazil was nutral until 1945 so u.s should have 10 same as berlin plus 8 plus 2 Alaska total 20 [not 36 in classic] while Solomon like Hawaii both zero ipc. kuz brazil and mexico nutral and china far so its ipc for India. thanks.
and good title for our dialog “classic reflections.” -
@cds that does not change the fact as measured in my original post in photos of length calculation. I wish I could fix world map too but at least the game with “tank movement” we fans can fix.
-
@cds to cds date 13 about fun. how can it be fun if map unjustly helps one side so I explain why it is unjust. if you know a map that fixes these issues please tell me or as fans we can influence the game producers. that is my point.
-
@DoManMacgee both maps of date 12 unjustly keep japan tanks away from Moscow or place Moscow “east” of true location and east of caspian sea, this nt only aids Moscow buut unjustly aiding Moscow, at game start, when should be three steps from east coast to Baltic not more and two steps in same turn to Moscow from pacific coast as in photos of original post. as fans we can influence the production of a real game.
however I doubt allies would ever win if ipc were accurate so at least fix the map. thanks. -
@hirohito22 Your usage of the term “unjust” confuses me. Is English possibly your second language? “Unjust” typically implies bias or discrimination on the part of the designer of the game, as if Larry Harris intentionally designed the game to favor one side over the other.
That aside, let me attempt to summarize the things you’re looking for in an Axis & Allies game, aside from what’s already in Classic:
- 15-18 IPC for USSR
- 24-27 for UK
- 20 for USA
So you want these values for the Allies, but I’m not sure what values you want for the Axis. If you’re going to value the entire United States of America at “10” for IPC Value, you’d need to severely drop the IPC values for basically every other territory on the map, or increase the value of other territories.
The “Axis & Allies 1941” map I’ve shared is the only one that comes close to these lower IPC values. Every game after “Classic” (other than “Axis & Allies 1941” and “Axis & Allies & Zombies”) has gone with the approach of increasing IPC values for countries, rather than decreasing them.
The other issue you’ve raised in your comments is the inconsistent lengths that are represented by different tiles on the map of “Classic”. The later games resolve this issue by increasing the number of territories on the map (thus making distances consistent), but this is not what you want, it seems, because you want less territories, not more.
Moscow is not “east of the Caspian Sea” on the 1941 or Anniversary maps I posted above (you mentioned that I only posted 2 maps, but I posted 4. Please click the links in my last post). Tanks are also not “kept away from Moscow” in Revised or 1941. It only takes two rounds of tank moves for a Japanese Tank to reach from Manchuria -> Moscow in both games, assuming no Soviet units are in the way. That’s the exact same distance Tanks need to travel to get from Berlin -> Moscow. If anything, geographically speaking, the Japanese Tanks aren’t being kept far away enough from Moscow.
There’s no map that’s both historically accurate and compact. You’re going to have to choose one or the other. Additionally, we do not have the capacity to change the game’s official rules or maps. There are several users and threads on this forum dedicated to making customized maps and rulesets for individuals to use in their own games, but almost all of these focus on making the maps bigger, not smaller.
I apologize that I can’t be of more help to you on this front.
-
Follow-up: Regarding the whole “lower IPC value thing”, the specific values for the 1941 game are as follows:
- USSR - 7
- Nazis - 12
- UK - 12
- Japan - 9
- USA - 17
And here’s a link to the setup page. https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/axis-allies-1941-setup-chart/
EDIT: Got USA’s starting income wrong. Thanks @Midnight_Reaper
Suggested Topics
