Fan Edit 1940 Map Re-Painted

Very good looking map  :-P

You might want to keep an eye on the release of the new map for Global War - due in November:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36323.0

Might give you some inspiration (or another map source)

@lthaut:

Thank you for the comment Munck. I’m pretty excited for HBG’s 1936 map it’s looking a lot better than when it first appeared as an alpha. For people not being that much into flash art is actually perfect for my intentions :-D Don’t worry though they’ll still be the one that’s up now probably with the added in neutral markers. As far as the grind-house style I’m going for on the next project it’ll be a dirty torn up filter overlay to make it look old, decals for the tackiness and aftermarket look, definitely blood- coffee- and ink stains, then last on the list is sexual appeasement. Still very rough thumbnails but an idea. Figures from Aurora model.

No worries, I just know that variety is always good, because not everyone is the same, but you seem to have a grasp of what your trying to accomplish, so I hope it appeals to all types. :-D

Looks great, lthaut!

@lthaut:

Some decals for the map done by tracing Tamiya for speed in art rage. I’m thinking of doing stukas, u-boat, b17, zero, Japanese fleet, and a British destroyer next.

I like these and the style. Unsure if I would like them on the map or not, but there are plenty of other places you can put them.

Map looks great, i like your style.

Haha, Apocalypse Now style huh?

Other places would include the box or container for the game… if you were planning to use something other than the G40 boxes. Unless you are not having a box for it.

The main thing that I was thinking of would be the nation specific setup/National Objective charts. Lots of people have re-done these to their own liking and include some sort of country specific artwork like tanks, planes, ships, leaders, flags, etc…

If you are changing the map I assume you may also be making rule changes? A rule book would be an apt place for more artwork too.

So the G40 map and territories are staying mostly intact but you are placing these victory point medals on it?

I like the 3-tier medal approach, adds a good flavor. However, it could be a little confusing to add up during gameplay, especially when viewing from longer range. Numbers or colors on the map would be much easier, though not as interesting.

I also think they are a little small based on the picture. You may want to make the medals bigger so they stand out and don’t get missed. Some territories may get kinda crowded with names, markers, victory points, IPC value, victory cities and bases (i.e. Novgorod).

That is cool. I like your thought process here.

It may be a long read to catch up, but part of what you are doing is being discussed here over in House Rules: G40 Redesign http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.0

Discussion of late has been less focused on Victory Conditions, but I think a few of us at least have agreed that Victory Conditions are the most central element of game play. If you want to shape how the game is played, the most immediate way would be to modify the Victory Conditions.

I would love a more nuanced game that has multiple paths to victory and a more complex strategic structure. Unless you enlarge the map even more than G40 is, it will be difficult to achieve this I think. Because map size (# of territories) is directly related to how complex you can get. That must be balanced with simplicity and ease of play so that the game is not overly ponderous and technical.

I have never before considered a three faceted motivation system like you describe here. At least I have never recognized it as such. Tactical decisions, Economic decisions (includes NOs) and Victory decisions. Many times all three of these factors are combined within a single territory. However, the Victory point system you describe could be considered a sort of second currency in the game. If you can make it Victory Points sufficiently valuable to compete with the other two, I think there is real potential here.

@lthaut:

How it works is that as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win and if they lose too much the Allies win. This more closely reflects the end game stages of chess or checkers. Struggle for Europe and Pacific already had this system in place so it was pretty convenient to see how they distributed the points in this system which I’ve mostly converted over. One point of note though is that because they have a different movement mechanic feedback will probably be necessary to figure out what the right winning number conditions are. So far straight from the Struggle for Europe and Pacific global game the numbers will loosely be in these ranges:

Summer 1942 37(lose) -65(win), Winter 1942 37-64, Summer 1943 33-59, Winter 1943 28-52, Summer 1944 23-40, Winter 1944 17-27, Summer 1945 12-12.

This scale assumes that the Allies will inevitably grow and become harder to defeat as the game goes on. As long as that is inevitable then this method shouldn’t be an issue… but if the Axis have one really great round in, say, Winter of 43, they could win the game before the Allies are truly defeated.

What I do not quite understand is how the Axis could be considered to win later in the game by having less territory than they had in the beginning or the middle. Say the Germans took Stalingrad in 1943 but did not have enough points for victory… if it comes to 1945 and they have lost Stalingrad and are pushed back closer to Germany they could still win? This puts great onus on the Allies to consistently make large gains so that the Axis do not win simply by existing in a stalemate.

You haven’t finished yet and I do not fully understand the rules, but these are just my initial questions.

@lthaut:

How it works is that as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win and if they lose too much the Allies win.

I’m having trouble understanding this.  The part that says “as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win” seems to imply that the more territories the Axis lose the easier it becomes for them to win.  The part that says “if they lose too much the Allies win” seems to imply the opposite.  Is it one or the other?  Or is it something completely different that I’m not grasping?

@CWO:

I’m having trouble understanding this.  The part that says “as the game progresses the Axis have to be in control of less and less territories to win” seems to imply that the more territories the Axis lose the easier it becomes for them to win.  The part that says “if they lose too much the Allies win” seems to imply the opposite.  Is it one or the other?  Or is it something completely different that I’m not grasping?

It took me a second take too, so correct me if I am wrong here Ithaut…

To win early in the game the Axis have to have a huge number of victory points because this is where they will have the most territory. Theory being to make them need to do very well to achieve victory when they are at their most powerful.

To win late in the game, the Axis must successfully hold some level of territory even though they are less powerful and being crunched. Sort of a proportional with greater power - greater success needed and with lesser power - less success needed. But if the Axis do not hold enough territory they lose.

I understand it that way, but this presupposes two things: (1) the Allies will unavoidably grow larger and more powerful and beat back the Axis and (2) that the Allies would acquiesce to Axis demands or quit the war when they clearly are going to be cleaning their clocks.

Unless you script the game, (1) cannot be guaranteed. And I do believe that (2) is patently inaccurate.

@LHoffman:

And I do believe that (2) is patently inaccurate.

Agreed.  And the Allied senior leadership – in the closing couple of years of the war, if not earlier – understood clearly that they would have to fight the war to the bitter end.  I think it was Eisenhower who said (if I recall the quote correctly), that the Axis powers were not going to jump into the abyss on their own…that they would have to be pushed into it.  This was a frank assessment of the opponents the Allies were fighting, and also a recognition of the fact that the Allies themselves had guaranteed this outcome by adopting a policy of unconditional surrender.  The idea that the Allies would quit the war when they were on the brink of complete victory is simply unimaginable.