Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Sz and Map mod for 1942.2


  • '14

    I was playing around with an alternative 1942.2 map projection and thought I’d explore some modifications in the process.

    Ideas so far, a redraft of sz 16 to split the black sea.

    More Soviet territory to defend (not sure yet how much to divide up the far east of Russia, the map below is at the heavy division end of the spectrum, but could easily be collapsed into fewer territories) but this would allow them to have  a greater income and might provide a stronger buffer against the tank drives.

    China with a stronger choke point

    And, probably the most Major, a redesign of the northern Pacific. The idea here is to push shorten the distance between Alaska and W. USA, and from Alaska to the Soviet Far east, and instead pushing the distance onto Japan itself. Basically this way you can springboard across the Northern Pacific, but in the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific (where all the money is) the distances are longer. Basically this is to combat the defense by distance approach that players seem to take towards the pacific. Since Japan cannot effectively mount any real threat on W. USA under the OOB 1942.2 map. Under this division, they could springboard across from the soviet far east, or likewise could be attack along this route by USA. So both Nations must take defense and power projection into account, instead of running away from each other in opposite directions only to meet up again towards the center of the board on the far side of the world. I think this rework of the sea zones would encourage both Japan and the USA to fight for the pacific in earnest, since you can’t afford to drop your guard. (If Japan races to the Med, USA can launch up to support Soviet Far East. Likewise if USA abandons the sea zones around W. USA and Hawaii, Japan can spring across to threaten. Right now its just a theory, on territory and sea zone divisions, but I think I like the potential.

    Also 20 total VCs
    10 to each side, so that victory can be fixed at some set number. I think the spread and contested cities are fairly well distributed and reflect the war aims.

    Italy, just for the novelty of it and to try a 1d6 variable start to the turn order. Though I think it makes sense for game flow if they were positioned in the turn order right after Germany. In the same way that USA/Russia get the 1-2 punch, Italy should be like German’s left jab (knock a hook or a knockout uppercut!)  Basically, they are on the board more as a target, and I think could be comparatively weak.

    In AA50 Italy was rather powerful (especially with NOs). I don’t think this is necessary. With just a few starting units even collecting at a mere 7-10 ipcs initially, they could still be potent under such a turn order (with avenues for African expansion.) This would also accelerate the gameplay, as opposed to alternating, or going after UK. I guess it depends on how strong you want to see Italy as a player nation. If weak then I suggest a 1-2 turn order with G, if stronger then they could alternate.

    I left the ipcs values blank at present, because I wanted to focus just on the divisions.

    Some potential factory locations are layed out here, and also the possibility of a destroyable factory, which I rather like.

    Perhaps some other adjustments as well, but basically I just wanted to play with the map. Here’s a jpeggy and very simple outline draft. I was thinking the compass rose turn order wheel on the left, in empty sea area west of South America, and perhaps the unit Key on the right side, in the empty south Pacific space. Here’s a vague idea I what I was thinking…

    Any interest?
    NewA&A_Jason_Clark_with flags and italy sz.jpg


  • 2017 2016

    Would you introduce more ICs?
    I’m thinking about Australia and, then, Korea…

    And why not something in the Soviet Far East… (a seaport) to let Russia having some ships in the Pacific, at least?


  • '14

    Yeah I am definitely open to the idea of more industrial complexes. Especially if they were the sort that could be destroyed.

    I really do like the idea of giving the Russians some kind of option on a navy. My thought was for a Black Sea mini fleet (so we could give them a shiny red battleship, for like the first time ever!) hehe  😄

    But I have always mused on the possibility of some kind of Russian fleet option for the far east. I mean, it would likely just be destroyed, but fun to have the choice. The logical location for a port of call in the Soviet far east would be Vladivostok with an IC and a value of 2 (danger zone right next to Japan, but could be fun for the same reason.)

    The question is how many territories to retain in the far east, and how many to collapse into each other? The map above has more than we need. I think it makes sense to give 2 choke points that can balance against each other (like in China) so for this area perhaps the spaces roughly corresponding to Evenki and Yakut in 1942.2 are the two chokes, with a Siberian space up north to reach across to the far East, Irkutsk, Buryatia etc. I think this might make for a more shapely trade too (since you’d have some reach across the north). This way Russia has a way to launch tanks or push inf out of their Ural factory, but can wall up in Yakut or Evenki if Japan comes heavy with ground along the northern route.

    Check the map below, for one way this could be achieved…
    Note how it is 5 moves from the coastal Japanese territories to Moscow, (except along the southern path, but that path has India in the way.)

    Also what to do for the IPC spread? My thought here would be to try and put the Russians around 30. Since even with a couple spaces collapsed they still have enough territories to distribute it across.

    Another question to ponder, how much to make the major IC produce. How much to make Moscow worth? 8 like Revised and 1942.2, or 6 like AA50?

    I think 6 ipcs might prove more interesting than 8 ipcs, for Moscow, Rome, and Tokyo. In general if these capitals were worth a bit less, it would likely encourage less turtling and make it a bit easier to make a run on a capital. But I’m not sure I was considering 8 for UK, because of the sea lion threat and the fact that 6 is very narrow for a power that needs to maintain a fleet and produce ground units to threaten G, but then one could make a similar argument about Japan. The difference I think is that Japan can support Tokyo production out of Manchuria or off the islands still in the same basic region, where as London is totally isolated from other regions that can produce (with the exception of Norway or France) both of which start in German hands. To me this is a tough call, as the capitals all have a way of balancing against each other based on how much production they have.

    The interest in lower production with higher money, is that players are encouraged to purchase more powerful units because of the production limitation on placement. On the other hand, in a pinch, its always nice to be able to drop 8 units at home instead of just 6.

    If W. USA was worth 8 rather than 10, and E. USA was worth 10 rather than 12, it might actually be possible for Japan to cross the Pacific and threaten North America. Not sure yet what numbers I like, but its important I think to have some territories that make factories viable. It might also be advantageous to collapse Thailand, Malaya, and French Indo China into a single territory, to prevent Japan from collecting too heavy. Or at the least making some of these territories worth just 1 ipc, in order to include the islands at 1. I think 35 ipcs for Japan at the start is a good target. About the same for UK. Germany and USA evenly matched somewhere around 45. And Russia at 30. But how to divide the spread is the question, and how to then support it with a unit set up, that doesn’t depart too dramatically from the spirit of the boxed game.

    I really like the idea of somehow encourage attack options across the Pacific in both directions, because I think everyone is a bit tired of a Pacific dynamic that only works in one direction (and even then, at great cost to the campaign in Europe.) Instead I like the notion we might set up a Pac game where, if USA does nothing to defend, W. US can fall. Or similarly if Japan bolts south and leaves the home island empty, USA can start launching into the Soviet Far East. I think that would make the cat and mouse game over Navies a lot more exciting. (Especially if there was a mini Soviet Pacific fleet. Perhaps a crusier or destroyer to keep Russian far east hopes alive haha!)

    NewA&A_Jason_Clark_rusky far east.jpg


  • '14

    This is another way the Soviet Far east might be worked. To provide a similar choke point but a deeper reach on the Pacific. Under this scheme the main far east territory would be a combination of Siberian Yukutka and Chuckotka. Basically it could represent the industry of the broader Soviet far east (with a value of 2 and an IC it would be worth defending and could reach the Bering Sea for a Pacific fleet option. Realistically this could just be interpreted as the fleet moving around along the whole of the Soviet Far east coast, but the actual dropzone is a bit safer than if the factory is located in Vladivostok Buryatia or Magadan Kamchatka. But basically I would interpret the starting factory here as representing the whole eastern soviet union.

    More like that?

    The interesting thing about an arangement this, with normal factories (that aren’t destroyed on capture) is that they might serve as a springboard against USA if captured by Japan

    NewA&A_Jason_Clark_with soviet far east rework.jpg


  • 2017 2016

    @Black_Elk:

    This is another way the Soviet Far east might be worked. To provide a similar choke point but a deeper reach on the Pacific. Under this scheme the main far east territory would be a combination of Siberian Yukutka and Chuckotka. Basically it could represent the industry of the broader Soviet far east (with a value of 2 and an IC it would be worth defending and could reach the Bering Sea for a Pacific fleet option. Realistically this could just be interpreted as the fleet moving around along the whole of the Soviet Far east coast, but the actual dropzone is a bit safer than if the factory is located in Vladivostok Buryatia or Magadan Kamchatka. But basically I would interpret the starting factory here as representing the whole eastern soviet union.

    More like that?

    The interesting thing about an arrangement this, with normal factories (that aren’t destroyed on capture) is that they might serve as a springboard against USA if captured by Japan

    You got it right I think.
    It adds a lot of interesting features.
    Probably the main problem is that Allies factories (Australia IC and Eastern Soviet Union IC) can turtle up many Infantries and dug-in so Australia can be unconquerable.
    Maybe a sufficient Japanese group should be near South Pacific to create an incentive for USA launching hastily warships toward Guadalcanal trying to protect the Australian IC.

    What do you think?


    I know it is not standard but maybe the Guadalcanal/Solomons islands should be on the line of 2 Sea Zones.
    (Just take a look at the UK’s island and Japan’s island to see what I’m thinking about.)
    So you can put warships and make a landing from both SZs to reach the same islands.
    Marshalls islands should be part of this north east SZ.
    On the south-west SZ there will be direct contact with IC.

    This way, it will become a strategic zone, and get an historical background about building aircraft landing zone. And fighting over this “lost paradise” so far away of USA and Japan.
    Because putting fighters on these islands make them in reach of the IC in Australia.

    Any thought?


  • 2017 2016

    Wake island should be lower on the south.

    https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=wake+island&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&ie=UTF-8&ei=s7R-U4XGJuTw8AG47YHwAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ

    You should move westward the frontier zone between east and west Australia.
    This way, the Eastern Australia will include Darwin.
    Why?
    Because I just learned that Japan makes some bombardment on this city (Australians call it their own Pearl Harbor).

    So, in conjunction with splitting Solomons Islands in two Sea Zones, everything will be much aligned with this idea of making SBR on Australian IC and being able to provides Fgs escort from Solomons.

    https://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&q=darwin+australie&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x2cc0a0fc9f59043f:0x30217a82a247c20,Darwin+NT,+Australie&gl=ca&ei=jcB-U-TlPIfO8wG4_IGoAw&ved=0CLIBELYDMBA

    Around 10,000 Australian and other Allied troops arrived in Darwin at the outset of World War II, in order to defend Australia’s northern coastline. On 19 February 1942 at 0957, 188 Japanese warplanes attacked Darwin in two waves. It was the same fleet that had bombed Pearl Harbor, though a considerably larger number of bombs were dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbor. The attack killed at least 243 people and caused immense damage to the town. These were by far the most serious attacks on Australia in time of war, in terms of fatalities and damage. They were the first of many raids on Darwin.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin,_Northern_Territory

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Australia,_1942-43

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II


  • Customizer

    @Baron:

    I know it is not standard but maybe the Guadalcanal/Solomons islands should be on the line of 2 Sea Zones.
    (Just take a look at the UK’s island and Japan’s island to see what I’m thinking about.)
    So you can put warships and make a landing from both SZs to reach the same islands.
    Marshalls islands should be part of this north east SZ.
    On the south-west SZ there will be direct contact with IC.

    This way, it will become a strategic zone, and get an historical background about building aircraft landing zone. And fighting over this “lost paradise” so far away of USA and Japan.
    Because putting fighters on these islands make them in reach of the IC in Australia.

    Any thought?

    Yeah I have a thought. Baron, where do you come up with such weird ideas? The Solomon Islands should NOT be in two different sea zones. The very definition of an island or island chain is a land territory within a single sea zone.
    Also, don’t compare the Solomon Islands to Japan or Great Britain. On this size map, at this scale, the Solomon Islands are tiny. Meanwhile, Japan and Great Britain, in addition to being quite a bit larger, are also national capitals. It would make sense for either of them to border multiple sea zones.
    If you want to cut the Solomons up into different sea zones, play Guadalcanal. This map covers too much area and is at too big a scale to go breaking up little island chains like that.


  • '14

    I think it might make more sense to just return Australia to a single territory rather than two.

    I have tried games before testing the idea of splitting islands across sea zones (basically a reverse definition) it has the effect of making bombardments more significant, and fleets less likely to engage on attack (they tend to camp defend  relying instead on amphibious.) Splitting islands also increases fighter movement in a somewhat overpowered way, so you have to be careful. I think with an interesting starting unit placement you can accomplish a lot. Australia as a single territory would have greater reach for any fighters landed there, and the scale of the territory warrants it a bit more then solomons.

    I think the best approach is to tilt Japan slightly counter clockwise at the southern tip of the island to make more room for ships. And then put the alignment for the smaller islands based of the relative distance between Australia Hawaii and the three major island territories (East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines). I will play up the focus on the key islands (though some of those chains were involved Palau and the Marianas and such. On the whole though I think the stepping stones out of W. USA would be the most interesting way to change the Pacific dynamic. Force both players to defend their coastlines instead of drop south so easily with everything.

    Will redraft it sometime on Tuesday when I get a break from work.

    Have a nice memorial day


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

55
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts