[AA50] Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!

[Argothair]

@vodot Looks fabulous, well done! This map would be much more fun to play on than the standard Anniversary.

If you’re looking for still yet more improvements, here are some thoughts I’ve had over the last couple of years after reading up on more WW2 history:

• Oil was more important to everyone’s war effort than is really appreciated on the A&A maps. In particular, valuing Trans-Jordan (Basra/Kuwait) and Persia (Bandar Abbas) at only 1 IPC each is a huge underestimate. I would want to bump Trans-Jordan to at least $2 and Persia to at least $3. However, they don’t make good factory sites, because despite the important oil production, they weren’t really industrialized and they weren’t places where it was easy to recruit infantry. So, possibly this is something that needs to be handled through national objectives rather than just adding IPCs on the map.
• Along similar lines, Rumania needs to be worth more than just 2 IPCs for Germany. I would probably just make Poland worth $2 and Rumania worth $3. Rumania is a perfectly reasonable place to build a factory because the Rumanians did send their own armies, tanks, and planes into battle on behalf of the Axis.
• Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine were hugely important to the Russian economy in terms of their industrial and agricultural production. I would probably bump them to $3 and $2.
• The Chinese map is still set up to allow the Japanese to quickly and reliably conquer all of China – there’s just not quite enough defensive depth. Everything except Chinghai is 2 spaces away from Shanghai, and if all you’ve got left is Chinghai then the Chinese have no income. I’m not sure of quite the right solution, but I guess I’d ideally like to see three ‘corners’ for the Chinese to hide and regroup in, each of which requires a separate angle of attack for the Japanese – a northern region that the Russians can easily reinforce, a southern region that the British can easily reinforce, and a western region where the Chinese themselves can generate their own units that won’t be immediately blown up. Part of the answer here might be to get away from the “every Chinese territory is worth $1” setup. E.g. if you add a Chungking region worth $3 in the far southwest, and bump Ningxia to $2 and add a buffer territory to the east of Ningxia? There’s still the question of how to physically get Russian troops into China; right now Ningxia is at least 3 moves away from the nearest Russian factory, yet only 2 moves away from a hypothetical Japanese factory in Manchuria. Somehow that ratio needs to be reversed.

Finally, I’d love to see victory cities in South Africa and Brazil – less because of history and more because it’s nice to have that region of the world acknowledged as part of the game. It takes a long time for the Axis to penetrate that deeply into the Allied south/west, which means that if we’re playing for any reasonable number of turns, there won’t be enough time to build up forces, take those territories, profit from the extra IPCs, turn those IPCs into new units, and use those new units to seize a victory city. Unless we’re literally playing to concession, I probably have to ignore those regions of the map to focus on victory cities, which is less fun. The map is there to be played on; I don’t want to ignore any part of it! :-)

[vodot]

@argothair said in [AA50] Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, DEI, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Singapore, and Malaya; Recruitment Centers and more!:

• Oil was more important to everyone’s war effort than is really appreciated on the A&A maps…

Yeah. I do think at the AA50 level some very simplified oil rules would be great for this. You could plunk down an ‘Oil Derrick’ or two on these TTs, and then go:

During the “Collect Income” phase of your turn, each Oil Derrick you control grants you +1IPC.

Prevents the factory exploit while still attracting the masses?

• Along similar lines, Rumania needs to be worth more than just 2 IPCs for Germany. I would probably just make Poland worth $2 and Rumania worth $3…

Same solution as above, although I agree that B/R makes good sense as a factory site. The recruitment center I added there is intended to cover that historical factor (as well as give some balance to just popping RCs everywhere for the Allies alone).

I’ll also note here, since I’m not sure where else to note it, that my plan for all these new RCs is to make the rule that they can both recruit infantry ala AAZ and also that they additionally reduce the cost of building an IC in their territory by, say, ~7 IPC. Essentially, they can be ‘upgraded’ to ICs, even during a turn where they continue to recruit Infantry. This is intended to allow any of these territories to be platformed quickly if desired.

• Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine… bump them to $3 and $2.

Yep. I actually want to add a cute little Grain resource (with identical mechanics as the “Oil” rules above) to some of these TTs.

• The Chinese map is still set up to allow the Japanese to quickly and reliably conquer all of China – there’s just not quite enough defensive depth…>

What about something like

“Every attack against a Chinese territory preemptively raises 1 free Chinese infantry there (prevents blitzes).”

Or, different and perhaps even stronger:

“During the ‘Assign Casualties’ step of every combat round occurring in a TT with a Chinese nationalist roundel, the Allied player may ignore one hit. (doesn’t prevent blitzes)”

Finally, I’d love to see victory cities in South Africa and Brazil…

Yeah, the lonely, boring south of the board. :( @Imperious-Leader wants me to include Antarctica… maybe he’s on to something…

I mean there’s no reason at all why Rio isn’t a VC, at least, and why not Cape Town as well? There were something like a half-million people there in 1940. Adding them, though, and we really do need to do something about VC thresholds; that’s +4 starting VCs for the Allies including Singapore and Cairo. But that’s easy, and we’re powering up Italy by 40% already, so maybe it’s not wholly unreasonable for Germany to expect some more southern hemisphere results out of them. :smiling_imp:

EDIT: You know, as I think more on it, there is a big reason not to include Rio as a VC. Like literally a big reason - my A&A dice tray is huge, and South America is where I usually put it. :grin: Like Europe during a game of RISK - that’s where the snack bowl goes.

[Argothair]

@vodot Sure, that all makes sense to me. There’s no in-game reason to separate the wheat and oil resources if they’re both just +1 IPC, unless you happen to have all the different resource tokens lying around and you’re looking for an excuse to play with your toys…not that there’s anything wrong with that. :)

I favor the preemptive raising of 1 chinese infantry that stops blitzes – tanks have no business blitzing through the dirt trails over the forested mountains of central China in any case. And it helps to suggest the omnipresence of chinese irregulars and partisans and half-trained regiments that were constantly rising up to resist Japanese occupation. Possibly some rejiggering of the territory borders would still be useful in addition to the guerillas; I’ll chew on it.

I think the answer to the VC issue is just to say that there’s a new threshold for Axis/Allies to win the game, and the number is not necessarily the same number. No reason you couldn’t require, e.g., 16 VP for Allied win and 12 VP for Axis win (or whatever the correct numbers turn out to be after you’ve chosen your victory cities).

[vodot]

@argothair RE: Wheat, well, I do happen to have the resource tokens lying around. :) But rules-wise, totally - they would both want to just fall under a “Resources” heading with identical simple mechanics, like:

---

Resources (optional rule)

Securing special resources like oil, wheat, iron, and rubber was crucial to the war effort for every belligerent power. Territories where these special Resources were particularly abundant are marked on the map with a corresponding symbol or figure.

During the “Collect Income” phase of your turn, each Resource you control grants you +1 additional IPC.

Resources do not increase the number of units that can be mobilized in a particular territory, and they cannot be moved or destroyed by any power.

---

RE: China, I’ll try the ‘guerillas/no blitz’ rule in my next solo game, along with the ‘Version 3’ map above.

RE: VCs, I agree different thresholds is fine and totally historical.

I may also try adding a Siberian territory and re-jiggering those IPC levels as well. Buryatia goes to 2 for Vladivostok and lend-lease, and maybe Far East stays at 1, but the rest could be zeroed out in favor of the Ukrainian resources discussed above, or a boost to Archangel for lend-lease?

I love convoy rules, of course, but I think that’s too much for AA50.

[Argothair]

@vodot Yeah, zeroing out Siberia is another one of those hard design choices that you have to make at this level of complexity. On the one hand, it’s cold and snowy and thinly populated and you want the map to reflect that in a way that’s clear to new wargamers. It’s no good having Yakutsk generate more income then, e.g., Yugoslavia.

On the other hand, the Soviets did relocate most of their industry to the Urals as the war went on, and much of that industry was fueled by mines and workshops in Siberia. They didn’t put all their millions of prisoners in the gulag just to be cruel; they were also mostly doing work vital to the war effort, I believe.

If you squint you can say that Moscow + Urals + Kazakhstan together cover the cities like Kuibyshev and Perm and Chelyabinsk where all that Ural manufacturing was taking place, but it seems to me that at least some of that industry was really in the Siberian part of the AA50 map. Perhaps more to the point, if the Axis conquer Moscow and Stalingrad then there is really nothing important left in the Soviet income, which is very ahistorical. In real life something like 40% of Soviet economy was in Moscow/Stalingrad and points west, but on the AA50 map it’s closer to 80%. Zeroing out Siberia would make that even worse.

[vodot]

@argothair working on a Soviet reimagining now. What I really want to get to is a SZ redraw to put islands between, not within, SZs. All of this makes me wonder if you ever got much further on your middleweight map… * reads thread * OMG you released it and I missed it!

I think that project is awesome and I want to steer clear of it’s much grander scope, but I will definitely leverage some of your SZs for an attempted AA50 redraw. Honestly, your Pacific and Indian Oceans look pretty germane to AA50 already.

[vodot]

@argothair here’s a china update; this moves Chinghai to where it actually belongs (by splitting Ningxia in two), and then adds Xinjiang and Tibet in the West by splitting what was previously Chinghai. Net of +2 chinese TTs. Manchu-Xinjiang and FICT-Tibet distances (across-the-top and across-the-bottom) remain 3, but the FICT-Xinjiang diagonal is now 4, at least. The +2 TTs means an extra infantry for two turns or more, and gives a “corner” where Xinjiang is adjacent to both Novo and Kazakh + three last-ditch Chinese TTs.

[Argothair]

@vodot Majestic. I think that’s the best anyone can do while retaining the spirit and overall contours of the AA50 map. :)

[vodot]

UPDATE: Added a version 4 full map with China, Rio, Cape Town, and Siberia changes. Also tweaked the Aleutians to visually justify giving them an IPC=1 to match the rest of the pacific.

[Argothair]

@vodot Gorgeous! I love the way the Aleutians bridge the two sea zones and have a land connection to Alaska. Really gives the Japanese a reason to play in the north Pacific – not only can you now realistically capture a total of 3 IPCs, but the Aleutian landing zone poses a danger that fighters built in Tokyo can land on carriers, while fighters taking off from carriers can land in the Aleutians – in other words, if America loses the Aleutians, they might also lose control of the San Diego sea zone. Chef’s kiss

[vodot]

UPDATE: added Overlays 16 & 17 to post #1

• NW China changes
• Add Rio and Cape Town as VCs

I also redrew the Burma Road (#15) and added an improved overlay.

[vodot]

UPDATE: in the first post, I’ve now added some ‘before’, ‘after’, and in-process pics of printing and applying the overlays :)

[conquisitore]

I combined your map and the AA50 Academy Edition by Grasshopper to get this version of the game. Not tested yet, but already printed.

The multiple options for IPC values just reflect the work in progress nature of the map. Ultimately I would like to have a setup and map that allows multiple strategies for each side with equal opportunity.

[reloader-1]

@vodot

Nate, could I ask a huge favor - could you edit the Version 4 map file for me and remove all of the RCs? No other changes, I’d like to print it out but without those as a very nice vendor on Etsy (ummm… you!) made me a buttload of 3d printed pieces :)

[vodot]

@reloader-1 said in [AA50] Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!:

@vodot

Nate, could I ask a huge favor - could you edit the Version 4 map file for me and remove all of the RCs? No other changes, I’d like to print it out but without those as a very nice vendor on Etsy (ummm… you!) made me a buttload of 3d printed pieces :)

Added Version 5 (no RCs or TSR) to the second post above. Thanks and enjoy!

[Imperious Leader]

@vodot Can we begin on a 1942 map based on the Beamdog style or at a minimum the OOB map?

You do know the greatest benefit to mankind will be not AA50, but the main title of the franchise 42.2

[vodot]

@Imperious-Leader Yes, that would be a worthy successor project.

[Erocco]

The map looks great, I love the changes especially interested on V5, gives you more content and options, hopefully a bit more balance from the anniversary oob map and setup. Are you working on a revised setup? Have you tested this map?

[Azimuth]

Very interesting post, thank you for sharing.

I was independently “brainstorming” on some of those changes for my own map (https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39054/custom-map-for-aa50) with the same questionning (@vodot “how many map changes can happen to AA50 before it becomes a totally different game?”).

For info, here are the changes I already incorporated from your list:

• Australia split West 1 - East 2 (not sure yet about IPC values)
• Italian East Africa
• Malaya split off from FICT
• Cairo and Singapore added as VCs (like them to be 20 in total)
• Turkish border extended north of Bosporus
• Greece (1) split off from Balkans (2)
• Morocco (1) split off from Morocco Algeria (1)
• Caspian SZ ;)

Now additional changes I am considering (feedbacks are welcome):

• Danemark (1) split off from Northwestern Europe (Belgium/Netherlands 2) and Danish Straits rule
• Irak (1) and Syria (1) split off from Transjordan (1) --> Stop blitzing into India from Sinai !
• Thailand (1) split off from FICT
• Nigeria (1) and Gold Coast (0) split off from French West Africa
• Korea split off from Manchuria
• Guianas (0) as a (mostly useless) British territory in South America

Some of those are also thought to accommodate the option to play with Vichy/Free France HR (hence the need of having Syria/FIC/West Africa as separate territories).

[Argothair]

@Azimuth My personal philosophy is that an AA50-style map should aim to incorporate additional territories if and only if they’re needed to improve the functionality of the game.

So, splitting Iraq off from Trans-Jordan to avoid blitzing from Trans-Jordan directly to India…sounds great; that’s an important change that helps provide a richer game that adequately separates the Middle East theater from the South Asian theater. Splitting Syria off as well…I don’t quite see the need. Yes, Syria is fun to have, but it is not obvious that it changes the gameplay. Sure, Syria is part of the Vichy French network, but it’s not like Vichy France becomes unplayable without Syria. You can just add a French infantry to Trans-Jordan or something like that, and you get close enough.

Similarly, splitting off Nigeria makes sense because the British really did have significant holdings in west Africa, and if you just color the entire region as French then that’s a gross oversimplification. However, splitting off Gold Coast as well adds very little additional value. It’s not worth any money. What does having a Gold Coast let the British do that they can’t already do just by having Nigeria? How does Gold Coast change the strategy of the game?

Of course it’s historically defensible to add all these extra territories in, but if you add in every historically justifiable territory then the map will wind up looking more like Global than AA50. Still potentially fun, but you’re aiming at a different target; the game ceases to function as a medium weight map. Just my two cents.