I did notice a few things now that I have the map put together.
The Persian Gulf doesn't have a number designation like other sea zones.
Yeah, I totally missed that, and didn't even notice until you pointed it out.Â I guess it helps to have a second pair of eyes go over the map.Â The Persian Gulf should have a number designation.Â However, since no ships are placed there in the starting setup, its not too big of deal.Â Just make sure that players are aware that the zone is still a valid zone for ships to enter.
There are a few major island territories that don't have a name printed for them but would seem to be places that you should be able to go to.
I contemplated putting names on more of the smaller islands, but at some point I felt the map was just getting too crowded, and that small islands with no IPC value and no real strategic value didn't really add anything to the game.Â I should have put it in the rules, but any territory that doesn't have a name is supposed to be a non-valid zone that cannot be entered.
Are the island in sz 49 considered to be all one territory?
Yes, I didn't think it was worth it to try and split them up into seperate territories.Â The "Cuba" territory represents all the important islands in the Caribbean.
I take it that if a place has a name on it that it is a separate territory?Â I ask because Nova Scotia is kind of hanging out there on the edge of the coast but I am not totally sure if it is a separate territory.Â I think that you mean for it to be.
Yes, Nova Scotia is intended to be a seperate island territory.
I take it that the Japanese home islands are considered to be one territory?
Is the Sinai Peninsula a part of the Cairo territory?
Yes.Â I wanted the Suez Canal, the Panama Canael, and the Dardanelles/Bosphorus to each only have a single territory that controlled their use.
Now onto some of your choices concerning placement of sz boundaries and ports.
You have Hong Kong set up to be a two sz port but you rob Singapore of such an honor.Â I would see Singapore as being a much more appropriate choice for such a use.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't have hurt the game to move Malay's Naval Base onto the border between Sea Zones 70 and 85.Â As for Hong Kong, even though the Naval Base touches two sea zones, its not a huge benefit.Â The only Naval Base that is three zones away from SZ 91 is the naval base in Japan that effects SZ 125.
It would seem that the northern UK port should be up in sz 14.Â Scapa Flow was up there.
That would probably work, however my rational for putting it in SZ 15 is that its then exactly 3 zones to the naval base in Great Britain, no matter which way the player decided to go around Britain.Â (I don't know if that's really that good of reason, though.)
With all the sea zones around the UK home islands, it is interesting that sz 27 is as big as it is.
Yeah, at an earlier stage I may have had SZ 27 split in half, however I wanted to make sure that during non-combat an allied ship in SZ 25 could get to SZ 23 in one turn without having to take some convoluted route that involved going between Nova Scotia and Quebec first.
Did you contemplate splitting the Black sea into two sea areas to cut down on air ranges.Â You could have bombers in Romania and/or Bulgaria bombing Stalingrad by going over the Black Sea.Â They couldn't make it near there at all by trying to go over land.
No, I didn't contemplate that, but thanks for pointing it out.Â To be honest, though, I'm not sure what I would have done even if I had noticed it.Â I don't have enough knowledge of WWII history to know if German bombers flying such a route would have been possible or not, plus I'm not sure if such an option would be bad for gameplay or not.
It looks like sz 124 actually borders the Manchuria territory.Â Is that true?
That's a good question, and to be honest I don't have an answer.Â In A&A:P, the Manchuria territory doesn't touch the equivilant of SZ 124, however in A&A:Revised it does.Â If it doesn't touch SZ 124, then that means that Vladivostok touches Korea, however if Manchuria touches SZ 124, then Vladivostok doesn't touch Korea.Â Which do you think would be a better option from a gameplay point of view?
As someone else stated, maybe there needs to be an impassable area representing the Sahara.
I thought about doing that, but I didn't think it would add that much to the game.Â Even without an impassable area below north-western Africa, there's still very rarely any reason for any player to actually try going through that region.Â Also, I'm not sure if the Sahara would have proved an insurmountable obstacle if one of the powers in WWII had put their mind to overcoming it.
On the topic of impassable areas, can air units fly over impassable areas?
For the sake of simplicity, I would say no, however if you wanted to alter the rules to allow aircraft to fly over impassable areas, I don't think it would hurt the game.
I know that you put out the files for us to work with (and I finally downloaded them) but I put these questions up so as to get your thoughts as to why you made the choices that you did.
I have printed out the country charts and will set up the parts to see what it looks like.
Well, thanks for pointing these things out.Â However, to be honest there wasn't a ton of deep thought put into some of the choices I made.Â This is the first time I've map a custom Axis & Allies map.Â It was hard enough for me to get friends together for play testing even just one time, and at some point I just decided that it was best to go with what seemed interesting and figured that any major problems could be corrected later by altering the starting setup.
Basically, my main goal with this map, besides just creating something new, was to try to put together an A&A where bad dice at a few battles or a few bad mistakes in strategy here and there wouldn't mean certain defeat for your side.Â I also wanted to make a game where either side could still conceivably overcome the loss of one of their allies, i.e., a rich US and UK could still potentially recover from the loss of Russia, or the Axis could potentially recover from the loss of one of their members, assuming the other two were in aggressive strategic positions and had increased their income a decent amount already.