This version is slightly different than the one I have.
No npc chart, setup. Spain neutral, neutral afrika = british, birma was one zone instead of 3.
What version is it then? :s
Skip to TL:DR if you hate reading.
Using my scientifically proven formula of game balancing I am reworking this map. Since revised this board was reworked twice by larry harris and the allies have been slammed with nerf after nerf making the map increasingly unpopular and I know few people who play this, I have overlooked the 2009 print because it was more like a travel edition.
First thing is first, I am going to unnerf the allies starting unit count and real unit TUV differentials (delete all buildings from both maps and look at the starting units and TUV you will see the axis is ahead in this board compared to revised the axis was behind). This is a big problem in a map that has seen nerfs to transports, which hurts USA the most + nerfs to uk seazones (no safe building spot) + nerfs to landing zones for the allies in a KGF.
TL:DR In this current version of the rework, the allies are still the weaker side, but I give them a fighting chance using my scientifically formulated rework.
Take the current board setup and make the following changes. Note: these are all additional units, think of it as a huge bid placement.
+1 infantry vologda
+1 infantry novosibirsk
+1 infantry yakut ssr
+1 infantry kazakh ssr
+1 artillery caucasus
+1 infantry united kingdom
+1 fighter united kingdom
+1 infantry french equatorial africa
+1 battleship sz 11
+1 bomber western united states
+1 destroyer sz 9
+1 infantry formosa
Your changes look reasonable enough, but what’s with the “scientifically proven formula of game balancing?” Are you just kidding around, or do you actually have a formula? If you’re using some kind of algorithm beyond just counting starting TUV, please explain it (or link to it) so we can see how it works.
Counting TUV, expected losses after a variety of round 1 openers, KJF and KGF both need some viability the additional russian units are necessary for an even remote possibility of KJF, assuming a 6-9 bid for the allies.
A heavily stacked axis map needed more to it going on many fronts. Kept the fun and minus the complete devastation. UK can sink Japan fleet by east indies with a sub bid and an infantry on egypt, the KJF becomes viable, at the same time, japan quickly catches up in income and can knock out india if it gets no support.
Lots of Russian players like to do ukraine, the added artillery smooths it out, Germany has plenty to counter attack no problem, nothing drastic. Taking london with tech roll LRA on round 1 non sense is out of the picture, tech players rejoice, as if LRA is germany is not devastating enough, plus even a carrier in baltic seazone and air on france… forces a huge turtle buy from uk, mitigating some of that still makes the baltic fleet thing strong just not so overwhelming. Basically all the germany strategies need some kind of drawback or investment. Like you should have to work for Africa if you want it instead of just getting it. The high risk high reward battles still there, because it comes under the assumption of an allies bid, even if you play without one there is still something for the allies to look forward to.
One of the key reasons this map is seldom played is because the allies really have nothing to look forward to for the first 3 rounds. So this just addresses that issue, it is still an axis favored map, the allies still have to make something happen, it is just they now have the tools to try to do something.
The germany destroyer may get removed, I added it to make germany 1 a bit more dynamic instead of linear. Players would also send 2 subs to sink usa transports, baltic subs to sink uk bship, go for egypt or protect bship at gibraltar, it is all the same stuff, now you can yolo attack usa and have a pretty even fight, block usa from landing africa, 2 sub sink uk dd trans and 1 dd to hit the cruiser or use dd to sink bship sub from russia, there is more decision making.
TL:DR More decision making for the axis instead of “this is the best option so I got to do this or I can risk this purchase if it does not work out oh well there will be no punishment anyway.”