New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)

[pdel21]

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.

[murraymoto]

I would be in favor of Vichy being a different color (whether slight or more), but being German occupied with German forces.  The different color would allow for house rules to make it neutral.  (and if voting, i would vote for either of the 2 on the left)

Definitely game play is an issue.  Following the store-bought A/A game setup gives most of the Vichy territory to Germany, even though that game starts early '42.  However, as IL pointed out, Germany didn’t attack Vichy until August '42.  The gameplay comprise I think wins and house rules can be developed by whomever wants them.  The color change can better allow it, but wouldn’t mandate it.

Too many rules can be kill the fun for many more casual players.  And if we changed so much along the eastern front of Europe to allow Germany more options than just attack USSR, then we have just taken them away and forced them to invade Vichy.Â

I agree that to make Vichy neutral and more historical, then you do have to implement a number of special rules mandating how they are played and all that deepblue mentioned about when the allies attack or how many turns it even takes before the US can enter the war.  I don’t mind the Germans getting funds from far south vichy territories, i think it adds variations and the potential of what could have been, which I mentioned before.  I have a friend dying to start with a sub base in Madagascar because on the current setup of ipcs, germany has about 55 while UK has almost 80.  Though IPC values haven’t yet been finalized, Germany could use all the help it can get… but, I digress…

Vichy=German

[murraymoto]

I know it’s not a seazone issue, but what about combining the Northern Territory and Southern Australia territories into one?  Is 5 territories in Australia too many considering three of them are basically unihabited, outback and unlikely to even be invaded?

[Micoom]

Pdel21, I really don’t understand why you make such a big point out of it for not adding Vichy…. Yes Deepblue is doing a great job with the map and already has made good changes, and looking at what he has done so far, Vichy is just a minor change…

German in controll of Madagascar and South of the Sahara is to unrealistic, both historic and for gameplay.

Vichy rules;
If attacked by either side, all Vichy territories immediately join the opposing side.
Pro-Axis Neutral, Vichy France and Corsica territory income go directly to Germany until Vichy is drawn into war. Germany and Italian forces are allowed to fly over all Vichy territories.

Setup: Vichy France 3INF, all other 1INF

This is easy and much more historic then just German colored and under their control.

Further, shouldn’t East Poland also be Russian BTW?

[pdel21]

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.

[deepblue]

Gentlemen,

How about a compromise.

I will change the color of the Vichy territories south of the Sahara to one of the following:

A) Neutral

OR

B) British (Free French) controlled.

Please vote and tell me which option you like best.

[Micoom]

Then I would vote for British (Free French), because Allies are probably not allowed to attack Neutral territories??  If Alllies are allowed to attack those Neutrals, then option A.

Pdel21, I never said that you did favour German controlled Vichy territories south of the Sahara… But don’t let us get into a fight here. We all want the same, a nice gameboard!

[Imperious Leader]

Oh god thank you. Ill take option A. At least its something

In the case of the Levant States,Madagaskar, and Morroco these were attacked by UK/USA forces and turned from Vichy to Free French. The fighting didnt last long because the French had no stomach to fight her natural allies… or her enemies for that manner. :roll:

[pdel21]

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???

[Imperious Leader]

Lets call them free french like they have in revised… Free French is what they became and of course supported by the british. Id even give them a unit or two.

BTW Id like to have my Nazi U-boat base in Antartica… any chance a few icebergs can be drawn in the far south atlantic?

Another thing… you know if you made this as a 1939 version you could have the maximum utility from it allowing players to create many scenarios for it.

I can promise that i wlll do something for you all on this…

When you make a map like this you will be surprised how people love to make it suit their needs and tastes. THis will allow the varient to grow in ways you never imagined.

I would place the final project on BBG when its done.

[murraymoto]

@deepblue:

I will change the color of the Vichy territories south of the Sahara to one of the following:
A) Neutral
OR
B) British (Free French) controlled.
Please vote and tell me which option you like best.

A) Neutral is my vote

I’ve seen film footage of German commerce raider ships avoiding icebergs off the coast of antarctica during the war, so we know they were near.  alas, no Antarctica on the map…

Nazis, Polar Men, u-boat bases, 2 allied excursions to find them, sounds like a good reason to have Antarctica

[Imperious Leader]

Their is an interesting story in 1947 where the US sent a huge fleet to Antartica to check it out and part of the report was of some secret nazi U-boat base or installation.

were talking about carriers, cruisers, destroyers …. LOTS of WARSHIPS…

The germans did set up such items in Greenland and the Soviet Artic Islands but they were for weather forcasting… while the antartica thing was possible given a number of U-boats that left germany near the end.

[murraymoto]

DeepBlue, 
  For the convoy zones for the week, are you thinking that there are too many of them, not enough, or just open to discussion?
  My bigger question is what their values will end up as, but that is probably later discussion.

One seazone question?
  The territory of Borneo, it touches the large seazone that surrounds most of it, mainly south of the island, but there is also a very small part of it that is in the seazone to the north with Brunei and the Philippines.  That puts Borneo within reach of the Japanese homeland in one turn.  I think it is ok to be that close, just wanted to ask.

Great job!

[deepblue]

Convoy Boxes

I have not played a version with the convoy boxes yet but I like the idea.  It pulls conflict into the oceans, cool, but…

I think this map has too many of them especially for the British.

I am assuming that the boxes are use in some part to augment the “off map” resources of the nations for these smaller theater games.  So adding all of them from both games into one map is a bit over kill.

My suggestions:

Britain (Remove 3 boxes)

Remove the top British box off the coast of Spain.  Move the American box of the coast of the Eastern US forward to the newly vacated spot.

Remove the British box off the coast of West Africa.

Remove the British Box off the coast of Madagascar.

Japan (Possibility remove 1 box)

Move the Northern 2 boxes out away from the VCs, especially the box that touches the sea zone adjacent to Japan.

Maybe even remove the center box altogether.

America

Move the American box of the coast of the Eastern US forward to the newly vacated (British) spot.

Move the box near Alaska further away from the US’s western cost.

(I also think the IPCs for some of these boxes are way too high, but that is for another discussion.)

[deepblue]

Murraymoto,

Thanks for the support,

Borneo will probably be a bit further away from Japan then it currently is when I am finished.

[Micoom]

On Convoys
No don’t remove any, I would say…  Convoy rules could be for the Optional rules.

British
Move the Spanish coast convoy box to the western Mediterranean. This to resemble all the British convoys to Malta and Egypt via the Medd. Will make Gibraltar and Malta more important for the British to keep.
Don’t remove any! Britain was just like Japan depending on the Convoys. The U-boat war wasn’t for nothing.

Soviet
Place the Soviet convoy higher and closer to Norway

Place a new Soviet convoy box off the coast of Kamchatka to resemble far east supply.

Japan
Keep them.  Only make Philippines two sea zones. Or possible move the box that is close to Japan to between Sumatra Java Borneo or better add it. Japan was very depending on convoys especially from the Dutch East Indies.

US
These are all fine.  The US must not be to vulnerable to Convoy attacks

Italy
Fine

German
Maybe create a small German convoy in the Baltic to resemble the ore deliveries from Sweden to Germany.

[Imperious Leader]

Yea id also keep with Micooms sugestion… UK had nearly 50% of her GDP generated by her colonies and they need to be attacked by subs to simulate an ability to starve the British into submission.

Likewise Japan merchant fleet was totally crippled by 1944 and they suffered as well thanks to American subs.

Micooms convoy box ideas are spot on correct.

UK convoy box in indian ocean, cape horn, and south atlantic are needed.

[pdel21]

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.

[murraymoto]

@Imperious:

UK had nearly 50% of her GDP generated by her colonies and they need to be attacked by subs to simulate an ability to starve the British into submission.
UK convoy box in indian ocean, cape horn, and south atlantic are needed.

Not looking to start the IPC discussion here, but the need for convoys is based in IPCs, so I will mention them here.
The only way to starve the UK into submission here is going to be to take away all of her land.  If you count the current on-board IPC values for each country you get the following:
Germany-52
Japan-34
Italy-27          Axis total-119
Russia-37
UK-74
USA-71          Allied total-184

Just compared to Revised and Classic, UK is not that much of an industrial powerhouse, and I think that bares out historically too.

Now, this is large part because many territories have been changed/added since the original inception of this variation
but deepblue was right when he said,
@deepblue:

Convoy Boxes
I am assuming that the boxes are use in some part to augment the “off map” resources of the nations for these smaller theater games.  So adding all of them from both games into one map is a bit over kill.

In both AAP and AAE, the rules state that convoy zones represent income and materials from other parts of the globe.  Here we have just about the entire globe and all of those countries are represented.  So, if Convoy Zones are to be kept in the game, then the territories that the materials represent must be in some way affected, or else there is double materials coming from somewhere.  I think that this has to be part of the rationale for having convoys or not.

Currently, UK has 9 convoy zones totalling 22 ipcs.  italy has 12 territories and 1 convoy totalling 27.  UK certainly had more income, industry and trade than italy, this is more to point out the amount of ipcs that the UK is gaining from these convoys while still gaining IPCs from the 65 territories (Axis have 60 total) that UK controls on the map.
 In the smaller scale variations of AA, the Axis were able to attack the supply routes of the Allies via the Convoy Zones because the territories with the materials were not on the map.  Here we can actually take over the country that they are shipping from.

I like the Convoy Zones, but I wonder how much they are needed when you can take the actual territory.  And to use Convoys, I think you have to adjust the value of territories to balance, otherwise the Allies are getting double payment when they control territories and still getting payment when they have the convoy and not the territory. (In AAP, there is a Russian Convoy that is out of play when a particular territory is taken, Karelia I think)   In some cases this might mean that there are numbers of territories without value, or much value, like I could see happen in Africa.  Are they going to be a worthwhile target with that depleted value?

I could see if a Convoy represented materials from South America, which is neutral and not going to be attacked by the Allies, though it could be attacked by the Axis and if the Axis took Brazil, then the Allied Convoy didn’t count anymore.  In a way, the German Baltic Convoy would line up too, from the ore from Sweden.

On the current convoy locations:
USA
the Alaskan convoy needs to be moved farther out from North American coast.
move the Caribbean convoy to take the place of the UK one

Germany
Baltic convoy for Germany

UK
Moving convoy from Spain to West. Med

Russia
Move convoy northwest towards finland

Japan
no change

[Positronica]

In the original version of this map, the starting IPC values were as follows…

Germany - 50
Japan - 40
Italy - 24

Russia - 44
UK - 75
USA - 85

I intentionally gave the Allies a much higher IPC total than the Axis for two reason… One, its more historically accurate, and two I think it leads to better gameplay.  If both sides start out with similar income, then the game can easily turn into a stalemate that drags on forever.

As for the UK’s income, I realize that this seems a little high, but this high income only really lasts if the UK has a way to defend it all.  After the first round of the game, the UK can easily find itself down 10-20 IPCs due to loss of territory and convoy zones.

As for the convoy zones themself, I really like them and think they add a lot to the gameplay.  If you’re not familiar with the rules for them, here’s how they work…  Each convoy zone is a seperate territory.  If an enemy ship enters the convoy zone a control marker is placed in it.  The original owner of the convoy zone does not collect any income from the zone as long as this marker is in place.  The original owner of the zone, or one of his allies, can clear it by entering the zone with one of his own ships.  (Transports can’t capture or clear a convoy zone.)  Also, the enemy doesn’t need to keep a ship inside the captured convoy zone to maintain control of it.  Even after he leaves the zone, the control marker is left in place until someone from the other team clears it.

Also, if it bothers anyone that there’s both convoy zones and pretty much the whole world, just look at it this way…  The IPCs generated from convoy zones don’t just represent natural resourses and labor.  They instead represent the increased efficiency gained by global trade through a willing network of colonies and partners.  Or think of it like this…  If Germany captured all of the UK’s territory in WWII, would Germany have been able to increase its industrial output by the same level that the UK had prior to its capture?  I think the answer to that would be “no”.  A bunch of subjugated territories aren’t going to work as well together as a group of willing trade partners.  The convoy zones, while not perfect, help to represent this portion of a coutry’s income that can be blocked, but not captured.

Linking convoy zones to specific territories, sort of like how its done in AA:P is ok, but I’m not sure if its worth the effort and extra hassle involved with keeping track of all of it.  Plus, its hard to say that a single convoy zone represents the trade with just one territory and not a whole region instead.  If we assume that convoy zones represent everything from smugglers, to trade with neutrals, to trade with remote parts of normal territories, then I don’t see anything wrong with keeping the convoy zone in play even though some of the territories in the region near the convoy zone might have been captured by enemy ground forces.