Do you think these 2 maps were drawn at the same time?



  • Is it just me or do the Europe and Pacific boards seem to have large variation on how territories and seazones connect?

    On the Pacific40 board I can only find 3 territories that touch multiple seazones (Alaska, Soviet Far East & Shan State)

    On Europe40 there are 30! (Alberta, Quebec, southeast mexico, central america, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, French West Africa, Gibraltar, Spain, Normandy, Erie, Scotland, UK, Denmark, Western Germany, Germany, North & South Italy, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Novgorod, Turkey, Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia)

    It makes blocking Amphibious landings much harder and naval bases are much more valuable on one of these territories. The two maps just appear to be made by completely different design teams.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I think that the variations arise mainly from the fact that the A&A boards have always used multiple scales within the same world map.  A completely realistic map of the world wouldn’t work well for A&A because its proportions wouldn’t be convenient for placing pieces on the board: Europe, for example, would be much too small, and the Pacific would be much too big and would contain too much wasted empty space.  So the A&A maps compensate for this by artificially inflating the size of the areas that saw the most fighting in World War II (like Europe and North Africa), shinking the ones that didn’t see much action (like South Africa) and completely eliminating parts of the Pacific Ocean (especially to the west of South America).  It’s not accurate cartography, but it’s practical game design.  I do wish, however, that the Pacific and Europe halves of the global map would wrap around properly in both directions.  The difference in scale between the two halves of North America is quite large, and there’s no way to make the whole continent fit together properly along its whole height.



  • I’m not certain, and I’d need to look closely at the maps, but I believe that the background image is more or less the same from AA50 to 42 (I know this is true) and then they took that image with slight tweaks for the 1940 maps.  Boundaries changed and color fills for countries, but I think the background texture is the same, just enlarged, with more islands.  After that though, I think they took the image, split it, and handed the pacific half to the graphics folk and developed it independently and ahead of Europe.  North america was dragged further north than previous versions probably because several seazones were likely too compressed in the south and too stretched in the north with the original layout, and without too much coordination with the Europe side seazones that would connect.

    I don’t think the design teams were different though.  The Europe side of the boards has always had fewer seazones, which means more landzones touch each SZ.  On the Pacific side this is most likely to emulate the Island Hopping campaign, one island at a time on a slow push.  The Allied invasion pattern telegraphed more there than in Europe, where the targets were closer and Germany had to guard the coasts, while the Allies relied on deception in landings (ala the normandy bluffs to the north)


  • TripleA

    great observation cressman. that is a weird sz design.


  • 2018 2016 '13 '12

    Good point. Remember though that the Europe board has 4 large contintents to deal with and much more coastline than the pacific board. The territories also seem to be larger on average (Africa, Canada etc) versus the small chinese territories and islands in Pacific.

    I think its just a matter of having more coastline and more territories.

    What I really can’t wrap my head around though is how the entire Japanese archapelago manages to be in a single seasone (with the inherent ability to scrable) while the UK spans across 4 spereate zones.  :?



  • @Canuck12:

    Good point. Remember though that the Europe board has 4 large contintents to deal with and much more coastline than the pacific board. The territories also seem to be larger on average (Africa, Canada etc) versus the small chinese territories and islands in Pacific.

    I think its just a matter of having more coastline and more territories.

    What I really can’t wrap my head around though is how the entire Japanese archapelago manages to be in a single seasone (with the inherent ability to scrable) while the UK spans across 4 spereate zones.  :?

    Maybe London is suppose to fall, while Japan is not 🙂

    If UK could scramble, the axis would never be able to attack their fleet. All those sea zones force the allies to maneuver a bit and plan ahead logistically. If it was all one sea zone, the fleet would have no need to move. Most of the Europe action occurs near London.

    If Japan could not scramble, it would never be able to secure its sea zone from the U.S. without keeping its fleet stationary during the whole game. Most of the Pacific action does not occur near Japan.

    Seems like a small issue to me, as the axis have a hard time winning in our games.



  • @JamesAleman:

    @Canuck12:

    What I really can’t wrap my head around though is how the entire Japanese archapelago manages to be in a single seasone (with the inherent ability to scrable) while the UK spans across 4 spereate zones.  :?

    Maybe London is suppose to fall, while Japan is not 🙂

    If UK could scramble, the axis would never be able to attack their fleet. All those sea zones force the allies to maneuver a bit and plan ahead logistically. If it was all one sea zone, the fleet would have no need to move. Most of the Europe action occurs near London.

    If Japan could not scramble, it would never be able to secure its sea zone from the U.S. without keeping its fleet stationary during the whole game. Most of the Pacific action does not occur near Japan.

    Seems like a small issue to me, as the axis have a hard time winning in our games.

    It is also rather strange that Germany can sink the entire British fleet on G1, and can keep the Brits from building new ships around England for several turns. I don’t think UK (not an island by game standards) should have the same scramble abilities as Japan (for game play as stated above), but should have some limited scramble ability. When you take into consideration that UK was more advanced in radar (with stations all over the English channel) then anyone else.

    Maybe just allowing 2-3 units to scramble into a coastal sz from any AB, as long as that sz is also serviced by an NB. The UK would be able to def the 2 southern sz (109 & 110), but not the Scottish to the north (111 &119). This would allow Germany to destroy UK ships north of UK, but if it wanted say hit the DD & BB in sz 110, it would have to commit more units, therefore not able to completely wipe out the UK navy.

    The axis would also benefit by limited scrambling. Germany into part of the Baltic, and North Sea (112 &113), but not the Normandy coast unless it builds an AB there. Italy would benefit, making the Taranto raid more risky for UK.

    Edit: Even allowing just one unit to scramble into each sz from a coastal AB would make more sense than none at all.



  • Short answer…… No!



  • i think yes 🙂

    Or at least partly.

    But the printing clearly has been done seperate



  • It is true that the scrambling rules in this game make absolutely no sense. They were introduced on the historical premise of fighters launching from air bases to fight over the seas, yet the single greatest example of this concept is negated! The Battle for Britain is the most well-known, and the largest, example of fighter defense over the seas, specifically the English channel.

    If these British fighters cannot scramble, with their higher technology, why can the Japanese scramble? It makes absolutely no sense.



  • but the battle of britain was air v air.  there was no amphib component.



  • @MaherC:

    but the battle of britain was air v air.  there was no amphib component.

    If the Germans did invade with a fleet, the RAF would have attacked the fleet.



  • Right.  But the problem we get into then is, there would have been a fighter screen inbetween the ships and the incoming British planes.   SO, to make this work correctly, you have to have an air battle, then if any remaining British planes survived they could carry on to attack the ships.    problem is, which fighters roll at a 3 and which roll at a 4?   I would argue the German planes are defending, and get the 4.    This would be a huge mess as if your fighter cover for your defending bombers which are actually attacking were shot down, then the German defending fighters would have to battle against the attacking bombers.

    Further, this game waters down air units into 3 categories (up from 2, granted) but all the planes are in the swarm.   This is a game.   IRL, Spitfires would not be attacking the surface ships.  Mosquito variants (about 25+ which could attack, not counting recon/trainers) could do this, but then which do you have?   When you buy that tac bomber, is it a Fighter/Fighter-Bomber/Torpedo-Bomber/Bomber?

    The game is dumbed down a bit in this, and we have to deal with it.   Stukas and Vals shouldn’t be 3/3s.   Mitchells weren’t going to be taking down Zeros.  Oh well.

    Stack em up, roll them all at once, and in an Allied heavy game please don’t give the UK the ability to scramble from the home island.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 18
  • 4
  • 5
  • 16
  • 4
  • 18
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

13
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts