This is where I think Historic Battlefronts got it right.  Excellent maps

Death's Head.

I believe there was a request for the correct spellings.  You can find my post with them on page 3 of this thread.  I am excited to see that this has legs again.

Imperious, you are right in that the territories to the Italians were to give them some $$$. 

So has there been a resolution on the start date of the game?  I think that is where we lost deep blue last time....or there abouts.

Hello folks, have been away for a long while..............where are we at with the project.  Is the last map that deepblue made the final product?? Are the IPCs sorted?  Are there set up cards available as of yet??  My group is looking to play again, but I want to be sure that I have the most up to date material.

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.

I agree also.  I am not sure on the soviet supply though to the far east.  I do not know if they were supplied in a significant manner via Vladivostok.  Most things you read deal with Arctic convoys going to Archangel/Murmansk.  Perhaps a low valued one in the east.  I also like the idea for German convoy, since the Swedes did supply ore to Germany.

I prefer option B, which is British (Free French) controlled.  So this means that the sub-saharan, Madagascar and Syria (although not sub-saharan) would be British correct???

Micoom,

If you read my post carefully, I also said I was never in favour of Madagascar and south of Sahara being in German hands, I would be more than happy to make them British, as in the official versions of AA, even though that means a slight fudge of the timeline. I just do not see any sense in adding more colours to the map.  The game is already involved enough, and yes, East Poland should be Russian.

Also, it is unrealistic for Vichy to "join" the other side if attacked.  When the Brits attacked Syria and Madagascar and their naval fleet, Vichy did not run to the Germans to join them in the war effort, they broke off relations with the Brits.

This really shouldn't have to be explained.....providing aid, and providing moneys for occupation are two completely different things, one is done willingly, the other is imposed on you.

Further, the Reich imposed an exchange rate of 20 francs to 1 mark, so your figures would be just a tad off, however, that is not the point here.  The point is for ease of game play.  If these are as neutral, it is as deepblue suggested in a previous post, now the Germans must attack to just to form somewhat of a defense against an allied landing.  This will put them at a disadvantage to start the game, further as deepblue suggested, it really forces Germany's hand, which shouldn't happen, it should be flexible.

For the record, I never liked German control of Madagascar and territories south of the Sahara, but I am prepared to sacrifice for deepblue's sake so he doesn't have to created umpteen versions of this map.  He is already doing us all a great service, which I for one greatly appreciate. I am happy with the map right now, and if doesn't change any other territories, it would be fine with me.

deepblue, it seems this debate is never going to end. how about two maps, one the way it is and one with Vichy as neutral for whomever wants it that way.   They can house rule in whatever they want this way.

deepblue,

The main problem I have with changing Vichy is this.....

The French, who ran the un-occupied part of France (Germany occupied 3/5) from Vichy, were infact forced to pay occupation costs of 20 million reichmarks per day.  Yes the Germans were not occupying Vichy France, but the French goverment which was in Vichy, were still paying, as per the terms of the armistice , so in effect, they were financing the German war machine.

Since that is the case, why couldn't those territories just remain under German control.  Where did the French come up with 20 million reichmarks per day?  Surely they took it from anywhere in the French territories, which would include all of the territories you mentioned in your post.  I really see no problem with leaving it in German hands.

Sorry I should have clarified......

Is it possible to order sets of replacement pieces for the folks who may not have those board games.  For example, I can see the utility in cream pieces for Neutrals, so if I wanted to order a set from AH is that possible.  I don't have the revised game, just AA original, AAE and AAP.

Positronica,

The problem is that Fezzan is definitely Italian, and always was Italian, even when the Afrika Korps basically took things over.  It was only in 1947 that Italy dropped claims to all of Libya.  I don't see why Germany couldn't just move troops into Libya from Tunisia in their non-combat movement.

AS for your pieces, depending on what you're after, your solution works quite well since as you state the pieces are uniform.  Is it still possible to order sets of replacement pieces?

As for my group, we love the idea of using AAMinis in this game, not only for Italy, but for all nations.  It would be confusing to do so for relative novices to the game since it may be difficult to tell pieces apart due to some similarity.  But for my group (a bunch of folks in the Canadian military, plus myself, it is no problem).  I am in the midst of finalizing all of the pieces I will be using per nation.  Perhaps when I am done, I will post a spreadsheet of them all in case anyone else is interested in using them.

In the version I plan on playing, I am going to use a combination of pieces from AA original, AAP, AAE and some miniatures thrown in for good measure.

For Italy, I am using Fucile Modello (AAM) as infantry and Blackshirts (AAM) as elite inantry (similar to marines in AAP....I really really really hate the fact the USA has special troops, but no one else does, I mean, the Japanese had the Special Navy Landing Force, which are Marines, so why does USA get them, but Japan does not?)

for tanks, I am using the L3/35 since they are the same size as the tanks in AAM.  Artillery I will use the Bohlers 47mm (which in the game belongs to Romania, but the Italians used as well)

All other pieces are coming from AA original.  I am using Germany, which is a lighter shade of grey than in AAE.  The destroyers will be the Luca Tarigo from the new naval game.

For China, I am using the AAMinis.

In fact, wherever I can use the AAMinis and Naval Minis I will rather than the generic coloured pieces for each nation.

One more question before we leave the VC debate.  The purpose of the Warsaw and Oslo VCs are what exactly?  I was thinking about this the other day and wondered if would be better to have VCs in Helsinki and Budapest rather than Warsaw and Oslo since Hungary and Finland were axis minors and those are the capitals.  Paris makes since for symbolism, Berlin as the capital of the Reich is obvious, and I agree with Bucharest as a VC due to oil, but it is also the capital of Axis minor.  Any other thoughts?

I agree with Imp on this one.  China gets men in a similar manner as in AAP as a minor player.

Cheers,

pdel

Yes Micoom's suggestion does work if gets pushed back like that.  Also in June, Italy just lost the East African Holdings, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make use of Positronica's suggestion giving those back to ITaly. I like the suggestion of having USA only play China turn one, by the time round two rolls around we could be right at PEarl, bringing USA fully into the war.


The island north of Japan is Sakhalin, which was disputed territory between USSR and Japan.