New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)

Got a question:  “When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.”

I haven’t been paying that close of attention when does the map take place? I’m asking b/c the UK has a great deal of influence over the South Pacific and Japan doesn’t.

Side note: I like how the US has the Philippines nice touch. I also like how Japan has all the convoy routes in that area.

I like the map; however, do you have a proposal for unit starting locations? I think thats where at least half of the accuracy will come from. Also I think you should take into consideration that for example in North Africa you may have both German and Italian troops in the same places. (I know that that came up just not sure where that led).

Question: was Africa spelled Afrika at the time I looked it up in Websters the only reference to the alternitave was with South Africa starting in 1908. I hate to be a pain but I’ll look into it, but if any of you know off the top of your head I would be grateful.

Thanks for listening to the ramblings of an outsider looking in.

-LT04

I think Japan has one too many CB. I would remove the one above wake island. Japan didnt have any trade routes there. Also you would need a CB between Hawaii and the west coast replacing the one above the marshall islands.

I would boost the one near cape horn as it was a major point of trade and id boost it up to 3 and the one west of west africa should also go to 3.

The sea zones look much better than those lines.

Also is their any way to reduce the waves to 3 rather than 7?

was Africa spelled Afrika

This was only to the Germans who spelled it that way.

Imperious Leader thanks for the clarification.

-LT04

@tekkyy:

Why don’t you make your first post a release point for drafts.
It’ll be easier for new people to get up to speed.

Thanks for the suggestion.  Will do.

@Craig:

What are you trying to represent with the US convoy in the middle of the Atlantic?

It is just the original CB from the US Eastern Coast moved forward a bit.

Wow Deepblue, you went to town on the Seazones.  The new dotted lines look great, and your SZ movement streamlines the zone movement.

Convoy Zone thoughts
  Just about every CB appears to touch at least 3 SZs.  That may not be a goal necesarily, but there are a couple that do not, and I think it could help if they did.

The Russian CB should be moved down just a bit so it rests on the line of SZ extending from Finland.  That would make it accesible by 4 SZ.

The US CB north of Midway, could be moved SW to so that it touches the Midway SZ, as well as the ones East and North of it.  It looks like the CB is big enough to still touch the Eastern SZ that it currently touches.

The UK CB East of the Solomons.  It could be moved north to touch the Gilbert and Line SZs (which would make it a bit closer to Jap attack) or South to touch the Fiji SZ (which may be more realistic to shipping routes from the South Pacific around South America)

Map gets looking better and better…

I think you should remove the Japanese convoy at Wake… Don’t think Japan had any convoying in that region.

I like the British Convoy in the Western Mediterranean.

I saw some discusion on the US Convoy in the Middle of the Atlantic, well I think it could represent American support for it’s own troops in England and later Europe. Not necessarily Lend Lease.

Thought about my suggestion on splitting the seazone of the Philippines? And maybe also even the Islands?

Gentlemen,

I did not add the Wake Island CB; it is from the original map.

I also did not move the CB near Alaska.

The only CB changes I made are:

1. Moved the one British CB from the Atlantic Ocean to the Med. per Micoom’s request.
2. Moved the US East Coast CB forward.
3. Removed Madagascar CB.
4. Some of the CBs were adjusted due to the SZ changes.
5. Added CB near Palau Island

Micoom,

Splitting the Philippines would be hard to represent on the map.

Craig,

Having CBs adjacent to a nation’s home SZ does not add value to the map.

Last Week’s Goals Review. April 2nd

1. Finalize Vichy
Finalized Discussion closed.

2. Start Sea Zones discussion
Still Open for discussion.

3. Convoy Boxes
Still Open for discussion.

but wait i missed this post:

Vichy France

The arguments that Vichy should not be financing the Germans are valid but…

I have major concerns about the following:

If we just make Vichy France and its territories neutral we are forcing the German/Axis player to attack Vichy on the first turn to A) get the income, B) to reinforce the territory to keep the Allies from invading.

This is not acceptable, I do not want to force any player’s move, the map should allow for various styles of play and tactics.

So… if we can come up with a solution to this problem I will gladly change the color.

The problem: How to discourage both the Axis and the Allies from attacking Vichy early.

The best ideas that I have at the moment are these:

The Axis & Allies can’t enter/attack Vichy territory until the Allies have declared war on Vichy or When turn X has passed.  Allies can only declare war during the “Check for Victory” stage of the turn.

OR

Can we treat Vichy in a similar manner as China?  Let another player (Axis) control its forces and maybe give them very limited production similar to China or none at all.  This way they are not financially supporting Germany but the Axis have some control over what happens to them.

Just some thoughts.

Any other ideas?

Vichy Territories:
Vichy France, Algeria, Northern Algeria, Tunisia, French West Africa, West Africa, Morocco, and Madagascar.

Vichy Color Samples
http://www.mediafire.com/?dnrz1jxmahh

Please let me know which color you like.

I prefer the second one with the diagonal stripes because it looks like an old history map that was in the old william Shirers’ Rise and Fall of the third Reich

And it also shows that Vichy is neutral, but really a vassel of what was a German conquest, because it shares part of the German color and has the white stripes of neutrality.

If you made a 1939 map … then the first (french blue) would be much more appropriate.

The pale colors found under the bottom two are not pleasant at all.

Another project sugguestion, deepblue.

I didn’t realise your first post isn’t the first post of the thread.
You might want to put a link to our first post in your signature then.
Makes it easier.

The Vichy Topic has been discussed at length.  The compromise that is reflected on the fifth draft is the final resolution to this topic.

This Week’s Goals (April 9th)

1. Finalize Sea Zones
2. Finalize Convoy Box locations
3. Hopefully finalize the map itself (I am not referring to things that go “on” the map such as IPCs, Ports, etc.)

Craig,

First off I didn’t move the Alaskan CB or for that madder any of the US CBs in the pacific.  If you have a problem with their location, that’s fine.  Where did you want them to go? What is your solution/suggestion?

I think the Alaskan CB is in a good spot myself.

The one out in the middle (near Marshall) I guess is for the supplies to the Philippines.  Again I did not put it there.

I never like the one near the Line Islands but I got such a response when I suggested removing some CBs that I left it.  After I gave it more thought, can it really hurt?

The only argument I can see for having the US CBs where they are in the Pacific is that it pulls the US quicker into the pacific.  The Japanese can strike them without hitting the mainland, I kind of like that idea.  It keeps the “turtle” US players from just sitting back.  This will force him to protect his assets.

The other argument for CBs near these islands (Line, Gilbert, Marshall) is that it adds value to the islands.  Without the CBs this area is void of value.  I like this idea too, adding value to the region.

On the same note some people have suggested that the CB near Wake Island be removed.  I will use the same argument here, without the CB these islands (Wake, Iwo, etc.) have no value.  This gives the area some value.  (By the way this is another CB I did not add.)

The current set up in my option will force more navel battles to take place in the pacific.

Second,

I don’t think the map needs to represent convoys that moved up and down the coast of the same nation that is pointless.

So… the US convoy in the Atlantic, can’t it represent goods going to Britain and later troop/supply movements when they land in Europe?

CBs should be a bit of an abstract concept.

Do CBs need some work? Sure, I’m open to suggestions.

Positronica:

Can you address the issue about the lines surrounding the land masses? I find that particularly in the Mediterranean that the lines (e.g.waves) detract from the sea zone. I propose that you take a look at using only 3 lines rather than 7. Is it possible to make a test to see the difference?

I am not the creator of the “waves” nor am I going to put in the tremendous amount of time it would take to remove individual lines (waves) from the map.  I defer you to Positronica (wave maker) on this request.

Unless I get an overwhelming response from this group to the contrary, the Vichy topic is final.

You have a good number of CBs, they will help action in the seas. 
I like the SZs, more streamlined around the North Atlantic and North Pacific.
For the size of the Philippine SZ, it could be split in two (north/south).  If New Guinea is 3 SZ, why not 2 for Philippines.

for the sake of mention but discussion down the road…
@deepblue:

The only argument I can see for having the US CBs where they are in the Pacific is that it pulls the US quicker into the pacific.  The Japanese can strike them without hitting the mainland, I kind of like that idea.  It keeps the “turtle” US players from just sitting back.  This will force him to protect his assets. 
The other argument for CBs near these islands (Line, Gilbert, Marshall) is that it adds value to the islands.  Without the CBs this area is void of value.  I like this idea too, adding value to the region.
On the same note some people have suggested that the CB near Wake Island be removed.  I will use the same argument here, without the CB these islands (Wake, Iwo, etc.) have no value.  This gives the area some value.  (By the way this is another CB I did not add.)

I would suggest that we keep the CBs and also add some small value to the islands themselves (even if it is just 1 IPC).  Too often I see games where the US/UK forces bypass the islands without value for the ones with some value, even if it means by-passing a few INF or not being able to use their fighters for another round on the way through Island hopping.  just log it away for another week…

The week is almost over.

Recap…

There has been some debate over the CB near Wake.

Was I able to persuade you to keep it our do you still feel it should be removed?

The British CB in the Med.

I like it but still have some reservations.  It seems that this CB will be really hard to defend.  One thought I had was to trade places with the Italian CB, but not sure if that would help or not.  Any other thoughts?

America CB in the Atlantic.

I think it should stay.  But I could move it up and over a bit (on the sea line under Newfoundland) so it is more in line with supplies going to Britain.  Let me know if you think this is better then the current location.

Thanks for all the great input, I will try to get all your suggestion on the map for this Friday.