I think you should drop the Axis&Allies logo and just call it Global War.
-jim lee
Gentlemen,
I apologize for my absence from the thread.
Life just gets busy sometimes.
Now back to the map. I have not had a lot of time to work on the map.
So to get back on track.
Seems that everyone is happy with the map itself and it is time to move on to the things that go “on†the map such as Ports, Airfields, etc.
This week I would like to discuss Ports and if we get finished with them then Airfields.
First,
The Port Icons themselves.
I think that the icons themselves are too big and that they distract from the map and don’t need to be so large.
I propose reducing the icon down to maybe the size of the IPC icons. In my opinion this would look better.
Second,
Ports are a game mechanic. So keep that in mind when discussing this topic. Yes, some historical accuracy should be involved but we can’t put a port on every territory, or represent every port that participated in the war. Also ports only function when they are within three sea zones of one another.
I look at ports as something that adds value to a territory.
Example: Morocco does not have that many IPCs nor is it really critical to any master invasion plans. But if you give it a port then that changes every thing. With a Port at Morocco the US can (once captured) transport troops across the Atlantic in one turn, making Morocco very valuable.
Third,
Instead of associating a port with a sea zone why not associate it with the territory?
This would save us from putting two ports on territories like Japan. Instead just put the port icon on Japan and that would represent that any sea zone touching Japan is considered to have a port.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
I think that the icons themselves are too big and that they distract from the map and don’t need to be so large.
I propose reducing the icon down to maybe the size of the IPC icons. In my opinion this would look better.
At their current size, the airbase and port icons will print on the map to be the same size as they are on the standard Axis & Allies: Pacific map. Personally I don’t have a problem with their size, but if you want to shrink them a bit, that would be ok. I wouldn’t go as small as the IPC icons, though. At that size they might bleed too much if printed on a lower quailty printer, and if someone wants to do a reduced size print of the final map, the icons might end up too small.
Instead of associating a port with a sea zone why not associate it with the territory?
This would save us from putting two ports on territories like Japan. Instead just put the port icon on Japan and that would represent that any sea zone touching Japan is considered to have a port.
That might work, but I’m not sure if its necessary. On the original map there’s only one spot on the entire map were a territory has two naval ports on it. Also, I’m not sure if its a good idea to have a territory with a naval port get that bonus for every sea zone it touches. From a gameplay standpoint, naval ports are handy and add to the game, however they also tend to slow turns down a little bit, since they give players more options to think about. I think the primary purpose of naval ports should be to steer the game in certain directions. For example, the sea port in Morocco encourages the US player to try and invade North Africa, rather than just skipping over it and just going straight for mainland Europe. The Naval ports in the pacific also help to guide both Japan and the US into the south pacific. If you think you can accomplish these same sorts of things by having a naval port apply to every adjacent sea zone, than go for it. Also keep in mind, that the more we deviate the rules from how naval ports work in A&A:P, the more potential confusion there will be amoungst new players.
Gentlemen,
I started adding the ports and realized that with the new sea zones most of the ports are broken.
So… We need to decide what the new ports are going to be.
When thinking of port placement you must think in pairs. Ports are useless, if another port is not within three sea zones of it.
Also don’t suggest port pairs, just to add port pairs to the map, please think of the game ramifications for adding the pair and to a lesser extent the historical accuracy.
So, group. What port pairs would you like to see on the map?
What I have so far:
Washington to Great Britain
Great Britain to Gibraltar
Washington to Morocco
Capetown to San Paulo
Capetown to India
India to aus
Hawaii to San diego
Puget to dutch harbor
Yokahama to truk
port moresby to canberra
dakar to lisbon
Suez to capetown
suez to gibrater
archangel to england
gulf of mexico to new york
Gulf of mexico to NY would make the transition from the Atlantic to the Pacific to easy
Wow, group, low turnout this week. One post with suggestions? That’s it?
Is everyone happy with what has been suggested?
The following are only two zones apart.
Hawaii to San Diego
West Africa to Portugal
Pacific Northwest to Aleutian Islands
I have added the following ports pairs. I don’t think this will be the final list, I’m still not sure about some of them.
Cape Town to Brazil
Cape Town to Madras
Madras to Australia
Japan to Caroline Islands
New Guinea to Canberra
Lower Egypt to Cape Town
Lower Egypt to Gibraltar
Archangel to Great Britain
Washington to Great Britain
Great Britain to Gibraltar
Washington to Morocco
Tunisia to Crimea
Malay to Shantung (or anywhere on SZ 106)
Other thoughts:
Port on Java??
Needed 2 port icons: (I still don’t like the way this looks)
Great Britain
Lower Egypt
It’s Friday!
The Seventh draft has arrived!
I have made the following changes from the sixth draft:
Added:
Sea Zones have been numbered.
Ports
Ocean Names
Changed:
Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.
Forgot:
San diego
Puget Sound
Mariana islands
Vladivlastok
Port in Iraq- basra route of Lend lease for Soviets in south
Ceylon ( not that place on tip of india)
Calcutta
Dakar
One in texas
Southern Italy
Turkish straights
Kiel
western france
southern france
My friends and I want to play the Global War variant. Should I print v7 of the Map or wait for more refinement? How balanced is the game? Has it been play tested much? Is there a ‘normal’ opening bid for the axis?
Why not make China its own nation instead of an american subsidary?
What impact does Italy not moving at the same time as Germany have on the game?
Thanks!
Craig
Wait they have two craigs? Brothers?
Is the full resolution Paint Shop Pro files for version 7 of the map available? Any recommendation if I should spend the $$$ to print v7 or wait for a later revision?
its not finished yet… wait for the final version.
Deepblue, my suggestion would be to start putting seaports in every spot the people suggest one should be from a historical perspective. Then go back and take off any that don’t pair up with at least one other port that’s three spaces away. After that looks for ones that only link up at three spaces if you take an indirect route, but are only two spaces away if you take a direct route. Most of those ones can be removed, too. After that, you can look for ones that might need to be removed for gameplay reasons.
yes good approach!
I don’t care what the actual names of the ports are.
When referring to ports refer to the territory the port will be attached to. This will hopefully speed things up and allow people to follow the thread more easily.
Currently there are 29 port icons on the map.
Almost every territory that a port before has one now with a few exceptions.
The major exception is the west cost of the United States it is just not far enough or too close to everything.
One idea is to put a port on Kamchatka. What do you think?
Their was no port there. The only warm water Soviet port that could qualify was Vladivlastok.
It’s Friday!
The Eighth draft has arrived!
I have made the following changes from the seventh draft:
Added:
Airfields
Changed:
Ports
Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.
Starts to look better and better! Maybe add a harbor to the north of Norway (Narvik) and an airbase to the Azores. (it was used for that only)
