The modifications are the rules changes… I figured that if people had to goto the printers to spend 75.00 on printing the map… they would want to have the “original” version… YES i have made another map with modifications adding italy and new items (real flags) and the 3 new Victory cities (sidney, Honalulu, and Stalingrad)Â and a 20 value to germany to the map… just email me and ill send you the file as well… I will contact some moderator so everybody can download it… dont worry…
i think the 10 ipc allocation idea is not necessary. besides, if the allies get to divide 10 ipcs amongst themselves then they will (and should) just give them all to russia.
how about this... give italy 14 ipcs to start (8 for italy, 4 for balkans, 1 for libya, 1 for algeria)
give germany more units to make up for the ones converted to italian and have them start with 36 ipcs (germany now worth 12, eastern europe worth 4, and add a new territory: "low countries" worth 4)
this makes the axis start with 80 ipcs (instead of 70) = 36 for germany + 14 for italy + 30 for japan
I guess i missed this post… This is certainly another way to go… but you havent addressed what the Allies get to conpensate… If you use my idea its quite simple, since we only change germany to 20, allow Italy to “have” the aformentioned units, while we give US that lend lease money and allow the axis to attack it… IT solves balance, and it also adds something in the way of naval tactics to the game, perhaps giving the german player some consideration to build more subs which they never do.
guess i missed this post… This is certainly another way to go… but you haven’t addressed what the Allies get to conpensate…
i thought adding italy was to add balance, both in terms of 3 vs. 3 and in increasing the odds of winning for the axis. adding italy to strengthen the axis while keeping the allies the same is in lieu of a bid, etc…
Still working on the varient.
Hate to revive a dead topic but I am curious in if anyone actually figured out how to add in Italy.
Yes basically the idea is this:
we combine Italy for the axis with a lend lease for the Allies.
Germany loses southern europe, lybia, and the balkans=10 IPC and all the units that start in this these territories.
To compensate germany who was at 40 IPC … Germany itself ( the territory) is increased by 10 IPC so now you have the axis with a net 10 increase…
to offset this against the allies… The allies ( actually USA) gets 10 more IPC per turn and it must go as aid to either UK or USSR. The USA player decides in advance each turn how much he will loan to each nation. The money is transported by transport at the rate that would be equal to what a transport can carry… thus the amount to loan would be from 3 to 8 IPC ( 2 infantry, one tank-one infantry, one artillery one infantry)
Lastly, Italy plays concurrent with the German player.
We have not worked out Victory conditions for an individual Italyian victory… but soon.
ok sounds interesting
I like the split USA idea…I also like the italy idea.
Cons with the USA idea is you nerf the allies.
Pros with the Italy idea is you could give them Balkans, S. Europe, Algeria and Libya, increase the values of the territories there (maybe give them 2 infantry extra in Africa) and increase the land as such:
Bakans - +2 (Worth 5 IPC)
S. Europe - +3 (Worth 9 IPC)
Libra - +1 (Worth 2 IPC)
Algeria - +1 (Worth 2 IPC)
That’s 18 IPC around. Instead of the allies starting with a 26 IPC advantage over the Axis, they start with 17 IPC advantage over the Axis. And 18 IPCs isn’t something to sneeze at, I’ve seen classic games where the United Kingdom was down to 15 IPCs and still annoying the crud out of Germany. However, it is 11 IPCs less for Germany to use. Not a huge loss.
Order of play would have to change too.
Russia
Germany
United Kingdom
Italy
Japan
America
Pros with the Italy idea is you could give them Balkans, S. Europe, Algeria and Libya, increase the values of the territories there (maybe give them 2 infantry extra in Africa) and increase the land as such:
Bakans - +2 (Worth 5 IPC)
S. Europe - +3 (Worth 9 IPC)
Libra - +1 (Worth 2 IPC)
Algeria - +1 (Worth 2 IPC)
+++++ ok why does the map have to reflect that many changes? 18 IPC is nearly 50% of total german output in the war. I am too lazy to locate my book by Mark harrison " the economics of ww2" but the economy of Italy was about 25% of the 1942 german economy. Also algeria is not part of germany both in the game or in the war. Under Vichy France they controlled this territory a neutral nation
That’s 18 IPC around. Instead of the allies starting with a 26 IPC advantage over the Axis, they start with 17 IPC advantage over the Axis. And 18 IPCs isn’t something to sneeze at, I’ve seen classic games where the United Kingdom was down to 15 IPCs and still annoying the crud out of Germany. However, it is 11 IPCs less for Germany to use. Not a huge loss.
+++ by the same token according to what you propose is not to compensate Germany for losing 10 IPC… thus now they are at 30 IPC and italy is at 18 IPC… thats just insane!
Order of play would have to change too.
Russia
Germany
United Kingdom
Italy
Japan
America
+++++ I see some merits of this if we maintain the old system because it allows both the axis and allies at least one part of the turn order where 2 nations on the same side play one after each other. Thats the only good point however. WE have solved the time problem with all Axis all Allies movement sequence. This cuts down the wasted time by 35%. It also is more realistic because it does not allow the “lets see how we did in this battle here before we commit to that battle over there” because now its all done at the same time. This also allows better coordination of allies since we allow time for “conferences” on team strategy before each turn.
IL:
Germany is compensated by having Italy, landlocked to it, support it with 18 more IPCs. That’s 8 IPCs in units MORE then it would have had with it originally. It’s the same boat as having USA assist UK ='s navy or UK’s army bolstering Russian defense. Not as good as having the troops in your own uniform, but still a big help in the long run.
And yes, Germany didn’t own Algeria, but since Viche France is considered part of Germany anyway in this game, we may as well say Germany controls Algeria in AAR and thus they would loose control of that territory to the Italians. Mainly because Italy needs some real assets to make it a power. If you only give it Algeria, Libya and S. Europe they only get 8 IPC a round…that’s not even fun to play!
As for the order, I didn’t want Germany/Italy 1,2 punching Russia/England. Just like Russia/America really can’t 1,2 punch Europe or Asia until well into the game. (This would allow Italy/Japan to 1, 2 punch about the same time as Russia/America could 1,2 punch in any given game.)
Mainly because Italy needs some real assets to make it a power. If you only give it Algeria, Libya and S. Europe they only get 8 IPC a round…that’s not even fun to play!
Yeah that would be a problem.
We could let Germany have lend-lease with Italy.
Or we could make Italy big.
So its Playability vs. Realism until a better solution.
Yes currently its at 10… should we then increase S. Europe by 2-4 thus italy is at 12-14?
of course the allies would also get 2-4 more . Thats the direction to go and balance out. No matter what germany must stand at 40IPC.
another idea: we could make Southern Italy worth 10? a minimal of map changes must take place thus now it stands with germany getting 10 more and italy at 10
http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0302.htm
here is some information from the harrison book concerning Italy and here economic capabilities in 1942.
yep
so the table has 1942 values of
USA 1235
UK 353
France 116
Utaly 145
USSR 274
Germany 417
Austria 27
Japan 197
so it translates to
USA 1235
UK 353
USSR 274
Germany 560
Japan 197
so forget the USA, the ratios are
UK 1.8
USSR 1.4
Germany 2.8
Japan 1
very different to Axis and Allies
Thats just one index of economic factors but an important one.
Why’s the US so high? Just shear manufacturing power, or what?
look at the link. USA grows each year. The “Arsenal of Democracy” in full effect. BTW we put you on the credits for helping us design this.
and no… your avatar will not appear in the ruleset. :-D :-D :-D
AS you can see in 1942 Japan is at 197 and Italy is at 145… Japan had a 33% larger wartime economy than Italy. Japan is at 25 thus Italy could be at say 15 or 16 range… I really like that range because they can make most units or buy 5 infantry! What you think?
as you know the allies now will get 15 for lend lease to balance ( free money).
This really could work well because it would involve buying a greater assortment of units also due to the limits we placed on infantry builds under phase one.
Another reason Italy player represents Balkans too.
The book “Third Axis, Fourth Ally” puts the case that Romania is an important Axis. And the book thinks more so than Italy.
http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Article.asp?ArticleID=1111
I know that everyone talked about this more than a couple months ago, but if anyone is interested I have a triplea map that has been setup almost exactly like discussed in this topic. We did add a German transport to the sea zone with the italian ships; it seemed the only likely way for Germany to get troops into Africa.
luc
this is the text file for triplea, if you change it to an .xml file extension it will be recognizable through triplea
[attachment deleted by admin]
