New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)

[Deaths Head 420]

IF Germany starts so close to Russia on this map I DON"T want it. Might as well play revised cause thats what you got
In my opinion You have improved somethings which is great, thank you, but on the other hand you have ruined this map and it’s ability to be realistically different, game in and game out. Right now it is just not so. Please fix and put back the way it was or I will change this map with Photo shop my self.  I don’t want to sound rude sorry but I think Positronica definatly hit a home run on the first go, minus a few clerical errors.

[Imperious Leader]

Yea why not push back the starting date to june 41… then some of those territories that are under axis control in africa look a bit better… and the axis get the ability to begin her fight in the Soviet Union. This will keep out the US and Japan for a turn or two, while the Soviets have their space from germany.

It kinda solves alot of issues at the same time. It will probably give the balance in victory cities that are needed.

[Deaths Head 420]

Absolutly Imp. Pull GE back.

[deepblue]

The godfather returns!  Good to see you back on the thread Positronica.

Glad you like the changes.

You make valid points.

It brings us back to the underlining struggle of game play vs. historical fact.  Where do we draw the line?  This group seems a bit more vocal towards the historical rather then game play.  My view is to stay historically accurate as long as it does not sacrifice game play.  If I have to choose I will choose game play.

Counterpoints to your changes:
A.  Great point makes sense but…

1. I think murraymoto is right they are going to fight it out from turn one on no matter what.  We just get to decide where.

2. With the increase of territories this increases income, but we have not increased the cost of units so in theory Germany should have the extra income to support offensives in other regions of the world.

3. No matter where the line is Germany can choose to turtle and bleed the Russians as they come.

4.  I did not take into account the game play order, not to sure if I like it in its current order but give me some time to chew on it.

With all that said I am not averse to moving the date back a bit.  It will probably solve some other issues as well.

B.  When I started this project I moved the date back to accommodate Italy’s control of eastern Africa.  I like the idea of putting more conflict in Africa and it fits Larry Harris’s VC list better.  But I did not like the affect on other parts of the world and the fact that the US player is now removed from turn one.  But I am in favor of this setup with some creativity.  Micoom’s suggestion below could solve some of my concerns about the US.

C.  I agree all the additional rules and the setup we are planning to use (example China’s forces) need to be looked at in detail and will need modifications.

D. The roads and rails.  Your points are accurate.  They would allow for easier movement.  I just don’t think putting roads/rails on the map is the way to do it.  This is too granular.  Where are the roads and rails in Europe?  Don’t the Germans get to move troops between their two fronts?  Also wouldn’t the Russian sabotage/destroy their rails as they retreated?  Hindering the Japanese advance.  I think games like Europe Engulfed have solved this problem easily and effectively.  They use strategic moves.  This would be simple to implement.

Example:

Combats moves, resolve combat, non combat moves, strategic moves.

Each nation would get a fixed number of strategic moves that reflect the amount of transportation infrastructure they had.

They would get to move that number of pieces any where within their colored territory Red for Russian, Grey for Germany (this is a modification from that actual EE rule).  So the Russians could move troops to the east if they need to react to the Japanese, the Americans could move troops to the California coast if necessary and the Germans could react to an invasion of France.

This is a very simple system and I ask everyone to think about it.  Maybe download and read the rules for games like EE and give it a chance before dismissing it.

Also, the rule set can be modified to better fit our needs.

E.  It was my intent and I will do.

F. Not sure what to do with that island.  Hopefully the group will express their opinions.

G.  My first response is to make it one sea square by lowering the bottom boarder so it surrounds the islands.  I am trying to remove any vagueness from the map.  Players should not have to refer to the manual to see if a square is touching another.

H.  The battleship is not gone just displaced for the moment.  At first I was not a big fan of the images but they are growing on me.  I was going to address this later once we have discussed the sea zones in more detail.

[Deaths Head 420]

If you want GE to have it’ tactical advantage over Russia while pulling back the Russian front, just have Russia make a smaller portion of there income. This is to represent Peace time Russia not a full blown war economy. Once Russia is involved in the World War then they get there full Pay, or You could give them, GE,  two attack moves on the first turn, or both.

Roads, Put a Road in Europe and call it the Autobahn. I think that would be a great Idea. Would the russians destroy them from Japan, I’m sure they would. So make it so roads don’t give any benifits the turn they are captured.

[Imperious Leader]

Each nation would get a fixed number of strategic moves that reflect the amount of transportation infrastructure they had.

This is a much better idea its called strategic redeployment. here is where it would look like if using a balanced historical data approach:

Germany 9
Italy 5
France 5
Soviets 6
England 5
USA 9
Japan 6

9/5/6=20
5/6/9=20

The idea of puting rail lines on the map looks kinda strange, but i do like the burma road thing, perhaps you should make a trade route for murmansk convoys and lend lease from persia. if the Axis cut it off then Soviets are reduced on Lend lease payments?

[deepblue]

Imp,

I’m glad you like the idea.  Your numbers maybe a bit to high but I could live with them.

Also, if this rule is in place a player could choose to strategic bomb strat moves instead of IPCs, giving a player more options.

[Micoom]

@deepblue:

Also, if this rule is in place a player could choose to strategic bomb strat moves instead of IPCs, giving a player more options.

That would be a cool idea, to bomb strategic redeployment. Only decide then, if the dice is rolled for reducing the total, or just for blocking that specific area you’re bombing.

[Positronica]

Removing the railways and roads would probably work if you put in some sort of other strategic move.  Another simple option might be to just say that infantry and artillery can move two spaces during non-combat, however that might prove too unbalancing.  Also, the idea of having SBRs affect this tactical move ability is an interesting one, and might actually make SBRs more usefull.

As for the starting position of the eastern front, I stand by my suggestion to pull it back a tad, especially if Germany gets to move first.  Ideally Germany’s starting setup would put them in position to be breathing down Russia’s neck at the end of turn one, but doing so would leave Germany spread a tad thin.  Also, I don’t we need to get super hung-up on making sure the entire map ALL starts in the same month of 1941.  The turn order itself can signify the passage of time, and thus I think the European Theater can reflect a slightly earlier period than the Pacific Theater.  As for Italy, after looking at the new map a bit more, I don’t really regret the changes to Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland as much.  Giving Greece to Italy makes up for it enough, and I think Italy still has a lot of play options at its disposal.

As for the turn order, it could possibly be changed from what I have listed.  Whatever its changed to, though, there’s a few considerations that I think need to be followed.  First off, the turn order should always alternate between an axis player and then an allied player.  That would keep things more fair by not allowing either side to have two powers move back to back.  Secondly, USA should always have its move after Japan, assuming that the starting setup for Japan is right before Pearl Harbor.  Here’s a few other possible turn orders that I think would work well…

1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Italy
4. United Kingdom
5. Japan
6. United States

The benefit of this turn order is that all the real important stuff in the Pacific Theater doesn’t happen until the very end of the turn sequence.  This helps justify having the European Theater start at a slightly earlier date.  The downside of this order though, is that Italy gets to move before the UK, which depending on the setup might allow Italy to make more initial gains than would have ever been historically possible.  However, with Italy’s territories changed the way you have them on the new map, I think this turn order might work better than the one I originally had listed.

1. Russia
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. Japan
5. United States
6. Italy

This turn order would be closer to regular AA:Revised.  (The new order I put together for my map originally was based on combining the turn orders from AA:E and AA:P.)  If you went with this setup, I would still pull the eastern front one space back towards Germany, however don’t give Russia the front line power in its starting setup to have a realistic chance of pushing Germany back any farther on its first turn.  Instead the Russian player could either gamble on pushing Germany back, or he could reinforce his front lines and try to balance how many reinforcements he can put on the road to Moscow without leaving the road to Stalingrad wide open.  It would give both Germany and Russia more gameplay options on their first turns.  Having Italy go last probably wouldn’t be too bad either, and with the UK going before Italy, you could give Abyssinia and/or Italian Somaliland back to Italy and put the UK in a position to take them on the first turn if he chooses to.

1. Germany
2. United Kingdom
3. Italy
4. Russia
5. Japan
6. United States

This order would allow the Russian player to see what both Germany and Italy are going to do before having to make his move.  It would also put the allies in a better position to see how the UK if fairing before deciding what tactical routes to commit to.  The UK would still go before Italy, which could justify giving Abyssinia and/or Italian Somaliland back to Italy, and the Pacific Theater would still be kept at the very end of the turn order.

So, anyone else have any comments on which of these turn orders, or any other turn orders they think would be he best?  To be honest, I think we should try to settle on a turn order sooner rather than later, cause I think the turn order can greatly impact the allocation of starting territories.

[Micoom]

You could also go for simultaneous movement.

1. All Axis move
2. All All Allies Move

Japanese may not conduct combat together with Germany and Italy and Russia not with the Western Allies.

[murraymoto]

Regarding the railroad/convoy roads:   could you make them usable only by the power that controls them at the start?  ie-Siberian railway only for Russia, and if Japan takes those territories you would consider that the railway has been destroyed on the Russian pullout.  That could be a simple way to handle them, if they were included.
   Regarding rebuilding of them then would have to either not occur at all or occur once all the territories involved were captured for a complete turn.  This could be all the territories that are involved, similar to the naval port rules in AAP.

Regarding pushing total timeline back I don’t think it would be a horrible idea to take the US out of play for the first turn.  If layout would seem to bring about a potential Pearl Harbor too early. 
I thought that the Restricted Russia rule from classic accomplished the goal of Germany breaking the non-aggression treaty in a similar way. 
The more i think about it and look at the map, I am in favor of pushing Germany back towards the Fatherland to start.

[Imperious Leader]

You could also go for simultaneous movement.

1. All Axis move
2. All All Allies Move

Japanese may not conduct combat together with Germany and Italy and Russia not with the Western Allies.

yea this really cuts down on time.

[jim lee]

Hmm… maybe you could move the play back to 1937… No one is at war until someone attacks someone else. Like England attacks America thru Canada.

Would at least make for a really differnt game.

-jim lee

[deepblue]

After my first pass I would have to choose:

1. Russia
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. Japan
5. United States
6. Italy

No matter what order is chosen I think Germany and Russia should stay together and Japan should go before the US probably back to back.

If UK goes before Italy that would allow Italy to control East Africa, allowing Mogadishu to be Italy’s fifth victory city. Per Larry’s List

Thought;

If this is set before Pearl Harbor, maybe the setup should place Japanese units in the same square as American at Hawaii.  I know after talking with some members of my gaming group they suggested that if they played Japan that they would not attack the Americans to by time.  I really don’t like the sound of that.  Just putting that out there.

[Micoom]

Again, I would skip all those troubles of who goes first, and just use the proposed simultaneous movement per side.  And Mogadishu should really be replaced by Addis Ababa. See IL’s list, same point system but better historical cities…

[Positronica]

@deepblue:

After my first pass I would have to choose:

1. Russia
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. Japan
5. United States
6. Italy

No matter what order is chosen I think Germany and Russia should stay together and Japan should go before the US probably back to back.

If UK goes before Italy that would allow Italy to control East Africa, allowing Mogadishu to be Italy’s fifth victory city. Per Larry’s List

I think that turn order would work fine, however it does raise one issue.  By going with a turn order that has Russia moving before Germany, I don’t think the starting setup would end up being compatible with people who want to play an “All-axis move together, then all-allies move together” style game.  Granted, no matter what turn order you put together, if you setup the game with 6 seperate turns in mind and then try to switch to a 2 turn game, you’re going to have some issues, however the Russian/German front would be the most glaring.  If we went with say…

1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Italy
4. United Kingdom
5. Japan
6. United States

If you did that it would probably be easier to come up with a starting setup that would be compatible with both styles of the play.  The only major spot of concern really would be areas of conflict between UK and Japan, since in a 2-turn system, Japan would get to move before the UK instead of after.  Conflict between Russia and Japan would be a potential issue, too, but hopefully the starting setup would be put together in such a manner that neither side would have much ability to go offensive on each other.

If this is set before Pearl Harbor, maybe the setup should place Japanese units in the same square as American at Hawaii.  I know after talking with some members of my gaming group they suggested that if they played Japan that they would not attack the Americans to by time.  I really don’t like the sound of that.  Just putting that out there.

I struggled with the same issue when I put together my map originally.  In Axis & Allies: Pacific, there is a special rule that on its first turn, everything that Japan attacks only gets to defend at a 1.  This makes Pearl Harbor a very tempting target since all the expensive ships there are easy kills with a defense of only 1.  In my map I didn’t use those rules, and instead I tried to compensate by putting less american units at Pearl Harbor, so that the Japanese player would still have an easy time killing everything there.  Ideally, I’d like to use as few special rules and non-standard setup procedures as we have to.  With the right play testing, I think we can make Hawaii a tempting target with the following…

1. Make sure that Honolulu is an important VC for Japan to go after.
2. With its IC in Hawaii, the USA can add two more units there each turn.  If their starting fleet is of the appropriate size, and the Japan player then decides to not attack it, then the US player adding two more ships to the fleet on turn one should make that fleet strong enough to be a major thorn in Japan’s side starting turn 2.
3. Give Japan enough other forces at the start so that they don’t feel as if they really need to bring the Pearl Harbor attack fighters back towards Japan right away.
4. Don’t give the US more than 1 fighter in mainland Hawaii.  (I gave them a bomber there, too, in my original setup, but now I think we should maybe take that away.)  If Japan feels like the only way to do serious damage at Pearl Harbor is to attack Hawaii itself instead of just the Sea Zone around it, then it becomes less tempting of a target, since attacking the mainland drastically cuts down the range their fighters have when moving away after the battle.  (A fighter that only attacks the Sea Zone can make it all the way back to Bonin Island afterwards.  A fighter that attacks the Hawaii mainland can only land if one of the Japanese carriers stays close enough to Hawaii to put itself at risk of being sunk on USA turn 1.)

Also, even if Japan were to choose to skip attacking Pearl Harbor, it would be pretty rare for them to skip attacking the Philippines.  An attack there, while not as big of deal to most Americans as an attack on Hawaii was, would still probably have been enough for FDR to get America into the war.

[Imperious Leader]

Mogadishu

Italian Somaliland was not the focal point of the italian african empire.That was only part of it. The main effort to present legitimacy to the new Italian empire was Abyssinia because it brought the world attention to italy as a new rising power and secondly it came as a result of a major military effort to control. Mogadishu represents nothing to any military involvement until 1991. I think your varient takes the cities where major battles were fought over and uses then to become again the focal point of future battles. However, no military conflict centered around Mogadishu in the second world war. Addis Ababa represents the jewel ( well probably a better word could serve here) of what the invasion of abyssinia became… namely the final statement of saying the “italians have arrived on the world scene as a world power”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/abyssinia.htm

[deepblue]

Positronica,

Trying to have one setup to accommodate two methods of playing is a lost cause.  I think it would be best to decide on a play style and make a setup for it.  Then if it is not too much trouble have a setup for the other style.  My preference would be to make a turn based system with a setup.  Then list the modifications to that setup to allow for simultaneous movement.

I like the idea of simultaneous movement, but I know a few of the older guys in my game group would not like it and would probably turn down an opportunity to try this new version due to it.  They like slow and steady, gives them time to think, I guess.

[deepblue]

Micoom,

I like the idea of simultaneous movement as an option, but would also like to discuss/decide on a turn based system to allow a more traditional A&A play style as well.

If we go with Italy in Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa instead of Mogadishu is fine by me.

[Imperious Leader]

1. Germany/ Italy
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom/ United States

How bout something unique?

This simulates a number of things at the same time. Items 1 and 4 play together, while 2 and 3 are seperate. Also youll note the Japanese play before UK and this should be true because they are the aggressors, while UK was in no position to begin the game attacking Japan in any way.

If you think about this youll see some value in this approach.