Map size….

@General-6-Stars

👍

Update September 2022:

I just found this one:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36740/1940-global-alternate-universe-g40-alt-universe/5

“The war is the same, but occurs in an alternate universe where the Earth’s land formation happened
differently.”

(From the Rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/assets/uploads/files/1661014153409-g40-alt-universe-rules-vb1.4-8.1.2022.pdf )

So Axis and Allies… just on another map.

Will check this one out asap…

I think it might make more sense to just return Australia to a single territory rather than two.

I have tried games before testing the idea of splitting islands across sea zones (basically a reverse definition) it has the effect of making bombardments more significant, and fleets less likely to engage on attack (they tend to camp defend  relying instead on amphibious.) Splitting islands also increases fighter movement in a somewhat overpowered way, so you have to be careful. I think with an interesting starting unit placement you can accomplish a lot. Australia as a single territory would have greater reach for any fighters landed there, and the scale of the territory warrants it a bit more then solomons.

I think the best approach is to tilt Japan slightly counter clockwise at the southern tip of the island to make more room for ships. And then put the alignment for the smaller islands based of the relative distance between Australia Hawaii and the three major island territories (East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines). I will play up the focus on the key islands (though some of those chains were involved Palau and the Marianas and such. On the whole though I think the stepping stones out of W. USA would be the most interesting way to change the Pacific dynamic. Force both players to defend their coastlines instead of drop south so easily with everything.

Will redraft it sometime on Tuesday when I get a break from work.

Have a nice memorial day

@ghr2:

You should definitely get some sort of protective layer for that map.

I’m going to at some point. Until, I get a permanent place to play, it is rolled up in a cylinder tube. I’m going to have a man cave built, and then I will work on things like that. I’m going to have to either buy or have someone build me a table to fit the map. This is the plan, anyway. :-)

This is not anniversary edition, this is retail game “Spring 1942”.  The “lite” version.

Although it may have “25th anniversary” printed on it this game is/was $24.99-$29.99 and was seriously lacking on everything.

you would need a really tiny one-….hey, FMG… :wink:

yes so to fix that you have hexes for land and spaces for sea, but the problem with that is the issue of national borders because pieces of both sides would technically be able to co-exist in the same hex.

That is the only reason why GMT makes ‘point to point’ movement maps… because they hate ‘area movement maps’

They hate them because its not a solution THEY came up with, but Larry Harris would take the credit because any area movement map that has been offered since 1980 owes its existence to larry.

Additionally, GMT are lazy sods because they have tons of photoshopped maps they didn’t even make and simply draw boxes on these maps and finish in a days work. Its totally disengenious of them among other things.

The other poster is correct about the ocean because the world is round and it should be harder to travel along the center, then at the ends. Hexes standardizes movement but does not offer a realistic solution to the earths round surface.

ok great.