HBG global map

any thoughts?

@Skyian_Leader: Any tips on game/map design? Like things to avoid doing? I might just need to finish up the map and post a photo of it so you experts can actually see it, instead of general assumptions. The best advice on this will come from the board’s various map-making people, like Imperious Leader.  I’ve never made wargaming maps, but here are a few thoughts for whatever they’re worth. I personally prefer area-movement maps (like in most of the A&A games) over squares and hexes.  They look more natural to me and better suited (in my opinion) to games that operate at the global/strategic level.  This is due to the fact that, at that level, things like combat and movement and the depiction of the military forces involved occur at a very high level of abstraction – so it doesn’t seem like a good fit to combine this abstraction with the kind of fine-scale movement tracking that hexes offer.  Hexes, to me, only work well for large-scale actions when tracking is a central game element, such as in hunt-the-Bismarck type games.  On another point, I find it annoying that hexes only allow straight-line movement in six of the eight main compass directions.  Hexes are better than squares in that regard (since squares only allow straight-line movement in four directons), but they still don’t permit movement in one of the two diagonal axes. One idea you might want to consider, on the issue of map zone size adequacy, is to use a split-representation system along the lines of the “task force markers” that were used in the original A&A Pacific game.  In such a system, the plastic sculpts corresponding to a particular group of forces are placed off the game map (on a side table) rather than on the map, along with a small numbered identifying marker.  A corresponding marker is placed on the map to mark the position of the force group.  That way, the map sections only need to be big enough to accommodate these small markers rather than a pile of sculpts, and you only need to move the markers from position to position rather than the sculpts. As a further refinement, you can even use this system (if you’re so inclined) to introduce partial blinding into the game.  This involves keeping your map markers face-down until they make contact with enemy markers (which are also face down).  Before the markers make contact (at which point they are both turned face up), each side knows the composition of the enemy’s various forces (seen via the groups of off-the-board sculpts) and the position of the enemy’s various forces (seen via the map markers), but remains unaware of which group of sculpts corresponds to which map marker. This makes possible the element of surprise, which is absent in a conventional A&A game in which you can always see every detail of the enemy’s forces.  The old Stratego game works a bit like that, in the sense that you know what pieces the enemy has and you know where on the board the enemy has pieces, but you don’t know the specific unit type of each piece until you make contact with it.

That’s OK, I just like messing about with maps. 

@Sime: For some reason he wrote to wizards of the coast to ask permission to post it. They denied, so he chose not to post it. It’s a shame, it looked really great. Here’s the thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22238.0 Thank you very much for guiding me there. Sucks to get posts deleted (same thing happened to me with my much improved handbook, something about copy-write or something)

I was refering to fitting them into G40. � I need to pick up G39 from HBG. Forgot to add that that during setup, the German units in Hungary and Romania should be switched to minors. The controlling axis players may purchase only their own units in the purchase phase, if they wish.  They can decide in the Place New Units Phase which ones the minors will get. As an afterthought, Hungary and Romania were larger contributers.  Maybe they can build 2 units per turn as long as at least one is an infantry. And for the rule lawyers:  If the minor is building in a factory outside its home territory, their home territory must have been friendly at the start of the player turn. � I.e. , no building Bulgarian units in Romania if Bulgaria is held by the allies. Bessarabia and Vyborg do not count as home territories of Romania and Finland for this rule. Thanks for the kind words guys. 

I purchased Ralph Boerke’s Large European Map a couple of years ago, and I kept in touch with him over that time, e-mailing questions I had about the game, interpretations of rules, etc.  I sent an e-mail to him several months ago but never received a response.  His web site also appears to no longer exist.  Does anyone know what has happened to him? From his e-mails, I know he has been very sick for the past several years–-and I do not know if he has taken a turn for the worse.  If someone has information about him, please respond to this post.  Thank you.

Hey All, Our group has gotten a chance to play several rounds of this game now and I have to say that this a GREAT GAME!!  In soo many of the games Italy gets a pretty glossed over look, whether you talk about Italy as a power or just that section of the map, but here, now, finally we have a game that really shows the scope, scale, and desperation that not only the Allies fought for, but that the Axis did as well, determined to keep Italy from being the ‘soft-underbelly’.  Special units, from Tigers to the dreaded Fallschirmjager and the good old American Airborne all are pitted together in a desperate struggle for Italy. We are working on a bit more detailed review to share here, but we quite enjoyed it.  It blends the classic AA style with special units, territory details, and supply correlation at a scale that is useful for it (read- makes sense) and works for play.  Patton or Smiling Albert, bring on the FMG Italy units and Italy is the battle ground!

I loved everything about the pieces and I like HBGs inf size more than FMGs which I believe is a little too small.