New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)

Ok,

Ports
First off, the ports are not named.  So the port on the Western United States territory is not San Francisco, San Francisco is the VC not the port.  So this San Diego debate is mute.

Second, do not just list ports.  If you want me to consider a port, it must link to another port (Please list the linking ports as well).  If it does not then it is useless and I am not going to put it on the map I don’t care how important it may or may not have been historically.

Third, if you don’t reference the map territories when listing ports, (ie, just list port names) I am not going to spend the time anymore, to look them up.

Impassable
I am planning to stick with the Revised A&A rules as much as possible.  So I feel that impassable territories should be impassable by all units.  Not to sure that the “hump” is that important and I don’t like the idea of splitting the Sahara.

IPCs
Have not been addressed.  They are unbalanced and need and complete overhaul.  Let’s get the map finished then we can start that discussion.

It was mentioned a while back that some of you would like to see the “Oil” rule from A&A Europe added to this map.

What does the group think?

If so I have created an icon to represent this on our map.  (See attached)

Let me know if you want to see this rule and what territories should be consider for Oil territories.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Ports
First off, the ports are not named.  So the port on the Western United States territory is not San Francisco, San Francisco is the VC not the port.  So this San Diego debate is mute.

You missed the point. The location of the port should be in san diego. The location of the port is not accurate as you got it in the middle of the state. We allready understand the ports are not named. Also most of us figured you understood basic geography because you at least made a map of the world. I guess ports and cities were not remembered. Below is a list of major ports that are crrently off the map but should be on the map.

Ports:

The most important Germans port: Kiel/Hamburg… its in sea zone 10.5 in west germany. You actually dont have a SZ labeled for the zone between 10 and 9

Ceylon. The one in india as listed does not exist… Ceylon is that island off of the southern tip of india… #64 SZ

Mariana islands or Marshall islands. The one in wake island never existed. Mariana islands is in SZ 103

Puget Sound. The most important US naval port is not represented, while you represented San francisco rather than San diego, which is where our main base was prior to moving to Hawaii. … This is located in Pac northwest but im not sure why the sea zone # 115 cant just cut straight so its in a seperate SZ

Replace Dutch new guinea with Papau ( port Moresby). their was not port of significance where you have it… Its in New guinea…#83… the one in #81 does not exist

Dakar is still missing. It was the major vichy port during the war…#32 but further south of where you got something currently

Basra should be a port. The southern lend lease effort was directed there and into southern russia… Thats at the tail end of Iraq SZ #58

How come no neutral ports?  Lisbon ( its in Portugal), San Paulo ( its in Brazil), Stockholm ( its in sweden), Antwerp ( its in neatherlands)

The one in Italian (actually british occupied abbyssinia) does not exist.

Panama should be a port center. Im not sure why it got missed. Panama is in SZ #27/26

If so I have created an icon to represent this on our map.  (See attached)

Let me know if you want to see this rule and what territories should be consider for Oil territories.

Yes but only as an oil derrick. That teardrop looks terrible.

Oil centers at:
Polesti ( romania)
Mosul ( Iraq)
Cacasus–Grozny
Georga-- Baku
Hungary (possible) it was secondary source for hitlers oil
Dutch east Indies,Sumatra, Borneo, Java… if thats too many then remove borneo
Venezuela

on the net look under clip art. If i have to make one for you i can do that.

@Imperious:

If so I have created an icon to represent this on our map.  (See attached)

Let me know if you want to see this rule and what territories should be consider for Oil territories.

Oil centers at:
Polesti ( romania)
Mosul ( Iraq)
Cacasus–Grozny
Georga-- Baku
Hungary (possible) it was secondary source for hitlers oil
Dutch east Indies,Sumatra, Borneo, Java… if thats too many then remove borneo
Venezuela

What about Texas?

yea forgot! add it.

Folks,

I think we are getting too bent out of shape over this port issue.  Deep blue is right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.  The port belongs to the territory, not a specific city within the territory (unless of course, the city is the territory ala Hong Kong).  So the port in western US, can be any damn city you want it to be.  The point is, it is in western us.  Now, I have no problem with being historically correct, so a port in Abbyssinia, as you suggest Imperious Leader, we can do with out, but the port in western us should stand as is.  It makes no difference for game play if the port is in the middle of the territory or the bottom of the territory if it is connected to the same sea zone.

if your adding Puget sound it may help to seperate them a bit

Soory, I can not see the map in IE.

Can somebody please just post an image, not a link

Tanks folks

Glad to see some people are actually reading the threads.

Ports without historical foundations have been added to enhance game play.  I did not just randomly place ports on the map.

“does not exist” and “never existed” are not reason enough to remove a port.  If you don’t like a port I have added tell me why.  I am looking for discussions that provide insightful feedback not simple statements.

Example:

Abyssinia’s port does not have historical foundations, true.  The port was added to enhance game play and to add a new dynamic to the African Theater by allowing Italy (if the Axis control the Suez) to move troops to its holdings in Africa, giving the Suez farther reaching tactical value and allowing Italy to defend one of its VCs.

It also gives the Southern Italian port a place to go.  (Remember ports need pairs so without it we lose the Italian mainland port as well)

So… If my reasoning does not persuade you to keep the Abyssinia port on the map, that is fine, tell me why.

Not all elements of this map require historical foundations.  This is a game map, “based” on a historical war.

Does anyone else like the “OIL” rule addition? Or has “constructive” feedback.

I provided a list of oil centers … what are the proposed rules?

AAE?

this?

Oil Centers
Each enemy oil center can be either captured or bombed in a similar manner as Strategic Bombing run. If you capture an Oil center roll one D6 result equal’s number of IP you gain each turn. If you decide to bomb it you then roll one D6, equals the amount of IP that is lost from a player’s base total. If you capture an enemy oil center, the original player cannot then bomb his own oil center (even if you control it) allowing him to roll one D6 against you.

@deepblue:

Does anyone else like the “OIL” rule addition? Or has “constructive” feedback.

I’m not fond of the various “OIL” rules I’ve seen, but they are very easy to ignore if I don’t want to play with them, so I’ll just remain quiet on the question.  :)

Craig

Issue with Ceylon Island Port (SZ64)

Players will use the port to reach SZ 64 but then unload directly to India and not Ceylon island.

Thoughts?

sure why not? Ceylon could also be a base where indian fleets can be built rather than calcutta.

I could live without oil rules.  If you ask me the game will be complicated enough already - with the addition of ports, airfields, and convoy boxes, there are plenty of new strategic targets on the map.

If someone can propose a good ruleset for oil then I would vote for including it.  IL’s suggestion is pretty good but incomplete.  It seems to me that you could abuse it as per original unlimited SBR rules.  Also you would have to come up with a way to track how much oil production you have, and do your original oilfields produce IPC for you as well?  If no, that’s a bit strange.  If yes, then how much do they produce?

At 1D6 per oilfield, own 3 oilfields and you could generate 18IPCs per turn… seems to me too powerful, and would become too much of a focal point for control.

And why can’t players bomb a captured oilfield?  You can bomb a captured complex.

~Josh

ok simple modification:

Oil Centers
Each enemy oil center can be either captured or bombed in a similar manner as Strategic Bombing run. If you capture an Oil center roll one D6 result 1-2=1 ipc , 3-4=2 ipc, 5-6= 3 ipc you gain per oil field. If you decide to bomb it you then roll one D6, equals the amount of IP that is lost from a player’s base total. Loses of oil center cannot exceed the value of the territory. If you capture an enemy oil center, the original player cannot then bomb his own oil center (even if you control it) allowing him to roll one D6 against you.

does that work…?

Anyway, you can list the link to the map again, i have been looking through the various links, and not sure what the latest one is.

Much appreciated.

@Sleeman’s:

Anyway, you can list the link to the map again, i have been looking through the various links, and not sure what the latest one is.

My signature has a link to all the drafts.

Has anyone printed out this map, at a size large enough to get all the pieces on it? if so did you use a plotter? any suggestions? i know that Super Fly and I are anxiously looking forward to playing, and I was just trying to figure out the best printing method, i assume this map is going to be around 4-5 feet by 2-3 feet. any suggestions?