What changes to the G40 map would you like to see?



  • What changes to the G40 map would you like to see?



  • @Young:

    What changes to the G40 map would you like to see?

    Make the world bigger so that fleets actualy mean something on the EU side.
    That or cut the movement of aircraft in half ( 50% in combat/50% non combat )


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    -SZ 110 divided in two halfs, so that the channel has an British and a Normandy/Belgium access.

    -Buriatyia becomes a territoty with a value of two.

    -Meds will have an additional sz where Malta is the Center Piece of it ,with it’s own suurounding sz.
    (similar to the Europe 1999 Edition)

    • Paulau and Carolines will be worth value 1.

    These are the changes I would like to see on the G40 map.



  • Well, where do you start YGH! But to be frank, anything that the board didn’t get done I have adjusted it for our game group, anything to make things more clear visible ( Convoy & Kamikaze zones for starters ). It takes a bit of a heave-ho but, makes the game more fun to be more creative to get it adjusted for your own group.

    BH


  • 2018 2017 2016

    A few blow up boxes for a crowded Europe would come in handy. They had them on the original game board and should have never gotten rid of them.


  • 2018 2017 2016

    This includes some suggestions from others that I’ve read over the last few years:

    -Sierra Leone being a UK territory, a no-brainer
    -Re-arranging Balkan borders: remove Black Sea access from Greece and make Albania smaller so Yugoslavia touches Greece. At this point it might make sense to split Yugoslavia into two territories.
    -Have Greater Southern Germany (Austria) divide Western Germany and Northern Italy.
    -Since it’s already on the map, Corsica should be a French island.
    -Splitting Turkey and Spain into two territories each so powers can’t just roll through them to valuable targets.
    -Make the combined British Columbia/Yukon Territory 2 IPC. Opens up minor IC possibilities for a Canadian power.
    -Cut out South Yemen from Saudi Arabia for the UK. Can make it 0 IPC but a place to land at least.
    -This one is also a reach but the Lesser Antilles could be removed from West Indies and given to the UK as a 0 IPC island. Of course there are French and Dutch Islands there too but UK is the logical caretaker.



  • Those are all great observations.

    My biggest pet peeve is that the edges of the map don’t line up. Re-do the edges so North America and all the sz’s line up. I was disappointed when they did 2nd edition and didn’t fix that (lazy IMO). I would have bought 2nd edition if they would have fixed the America’s I think they really lost out on extra sales.

    Have the Suez pass though Egypt (like Panama Canal and Turkish Straights are controlled by one territory) instead of between Egypt and TJ (although the Suez was probably purposely placed between two territories so the axis have a chance to close the gateway to the Eastern Med w/o taking Egypt).

    Air & Naval bases printed on the map. Maybe even have a naval base for a territory linked to one particular sz instead of to all adjacent sz’s (some territories would start with multiple NB’s).

    YG the following would require rule changes (house rules I guess) but if you are talking about redesigning the G40 map (maybe on your own or with help) these would be awesome additions IMO:

    Rail lines printed on the map that allow some limited movement in NCM (susceptible to SBR)

    To add to Bravehart:
    Convoy zones (convoy/lend lease routes)

    I would not only like to be able to see convoy zones better, I would also like to see convoy’s redone (new zones/rules). Need some allied convoy “routes” added to the Atlantic and Med, and maybe some in the Pac as well. Add some open waters convoy zones in the mid Atlantic between Canada and UK that can be attacked (say 3 IPCs for sz 107, & 108). Also other convoy routes that go from UK-Gib-Malta-Egypt-Persia-India (and around the horn Gib-S Africa-Egypt) that can be attacked for like 2 IPCs each sz (instead of just a handful of sz’s along those routes). The way convoys are done especially in Europe (easy to defend next to IC and/or air bases) are lacking in ability for the axis to put up any real sub warfare aspect. Subs need to be spread out to force the allies to build destroyers, not concentrated in one or two sz’s so they can be easily killed.

    A trade off of sz109 convoy zone  (8 IPCs of raiding that rarely gets raided) for a convoy route that includes sz106, 107, 108, and 109 for 3 IPC each would make the Atlantic so much more fun IMO. I would like to credit Oztea because back in the day I believe he fought very hard for Mid Atlantic convoy zones in the Alpha project that just didn’t happen. It’s a little fuzzy but I think he wanted Larry to place UK roundels in certain sz’s (107 & 108 I think) that could also be raided.

    Could have convoy/lend lease routes that pass through UK or Iceland on the way to Russia that the Germans can attack in the Atlantic (maybe even other lend lease “routes” to Russia that pass through Persia and and Amur).

    To aequitas:
    Although I think there should be a 2 ipc territory east of Moscow to represent Russian industry moving east (maybe even a contingency rule), I think you would just be giving the Japanese a gift if you made Buryatia a 2 IPC territory (would more of a benefit to Japan if they took or built a minor IC there) . A Siberian Rail would be helpful though to get units back-n forth out there, but even that could be a gift to Japan if they were allowed to also rail as they took those territories. Would probably need a sabotage or scorched earth rule that would destroy the Siberian Rail as the Russians lost those territories (maybe allow the Japanese to repair them for 2 IPCs each territory?).


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

    One suggestion I’d have would be to change the map from an A&A Global 1940 map to an A&A Global WWII map.  By that, I mean de-coupling the geography of the game from the chronology of the war.  It could be done very simply by getting rid of a design feature that is used in the current Global 1940 map: the use of colour to show what territories are under enemy occupation at the game’s hard-wired starting date.  The current map does this in two ways: it shows occupied territories either as being solidly coloured in the same shade as the occupier’s home country (example: Norway) or as having borners coloured in the same shade as the occupier’s home country (example: Kwangsi).  By getting rid of the colour-as-an-occupation-identifier convention, you’d be creating a map that would be more easily adaptable (through the simple addition of roundel tokens) to any game starting date – 1940, 1941, 1942, or whatever.


  • 2018 2017

    The G39 2ed map covers many of these objections, given how much time and effort was spent on it, its $160 bucks and means integrating another ruleset and acquiring tons of custom stuff, probably too daunting I think I’d rather learn Twilight Imperium its a 4X not a 3X.

    Changing even a few single territory layouts would alter all the gambits and transit routes that took 2 years to hash out, without fixing much else that is less than optimal about the game engine itself.  Don’t fix whats not broken.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    I think the map is pretty good as is in terms of territory placement and division. One thing I’ve never like about HBG’s 1939 map is it have too many territories, slowing down the game immensely.

    But if I were to make changes, it would would be to correct some of the bizarre IPC values.

    – Byratia (sp) should be 2 to allow an MIC
    – Hinan should be 1
    – Cylon should be 1
    – Sicily should be 1
    – Ireland should be 1
    – Turkmenistan should be 1
    – Novosibirsk should be 2
    – Iceland should be 1
    – New Foundland should be 1
    – Yukon should be added back and worth 1
    – New Ginuea should be 1
    – all the worthless SA countries should be 1
    – and finally a harbor in Panama


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

    Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, 2nd Edition, FAQ
    November 24, 2014
    Errata
    The Map: Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It is originally controlled by the United Kingdom.



  • I guess I should have been more clear and asked how the map could be better, didn’t really anticipate a house rules discussion but that’s ok.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    In addition to territories that should have value having no value (Karl7’s list is very good), there are territories that have value that should not have a value. For example, much of eastern Russia has a one IPC value and it should be zero.

    Ditto on the Europe complaint. Take some space from Africa and give it to Europe!

    Ditto the Greece, Turkey, and Egypt comments.

    It can be argued that Rome is in the wrong spot, but the game division of Italy into north and south is arbitrary. Many people feel that the position of Rome should be in the Northern Italy territory though. Personally, I think Italy should be divided into at least four territories – northern, central, southern, and probably Venice. You could also include Milan as a 5th.

    Russia, China, and India are too small. The Pacific is also too small. I get that we’re working with an abstraction for playability, but especially in the case of Russia/China the condensed map introduces new strats (Crushia!) that were not viable for the Axis historically. The map issue could be fixed by making the territories smaller and adding new zero IPC territories.

    Historical inaccuracies on the map should be fixed. For example, Iceland was occupied by the US in mid-41 and was not controlled by the UK ever during the war. And while I was going to avoid the “rules controversy”, I do think other historical inaccuracies should be fixed. I want my Scapa Flow!

    Marsh


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

    @Young:

    I guess I should have been more clear and asked how the map could be better, didn’t really anticipate a house rules discussion but that’s ok.

    “Better” is sort of an open-ended concept.  At one end of the scale it could cover purely aesthetic map elements that have absolutely no effect on game play (or on anything else).  As one travels along the scale from that starting point, one starts getting into things like geographical and historical changes that correct factual errors, and which potentially affect game play.  And at the other end of the scale one gets into map elements that are purely rule-related…things like territory IPC values, for example.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    @Karl7:

    I think the map is pretty good as is in terms of territory placement and division. One thing I’ve never like about HBG’s 1939 map is it have too many territories, slowing down the game immensely.

    But if I were to make changes, it would would be to correct some of the bizarre IPC values.

    – Byratia (sp) should be 2 to allow an MIC
    – Hinan should be 1
    – Cylon should be 1
    – Sicily should be 1
    – Ireland should be 1
    – Turkmenistan should be 1
    – Novosibirsk should be 2
    – Iceland should be 1
    – New Foundland should be 1
    – Yukon should be added back and worth 1
    – New Ginuea should be 1
    – all the worthless SA countries should be 1
    – and finally a harbor in Panama

    hear, hear;

    Very good points.



  • If not already suggested – JAPAN needs to be more than just 1 territory PLEASE!!!


  • 2019 2015 '14

    I agree with Marc’s suggestion, about designing a map which supports multiple start dates/scenarios.

    My main suggestion, which I have made a number of times, is to begin with a base 1 ipc system for all territory tiles, rather than base 0 ipcs. In other words, every territory given representation on the map should be worth at least 1 ipc. The value of all other territories, the production restrictions, overall game economy and overall unit count should scale from that baseline. Territories should be collapsed into each other or omitted entirely, if they don’t meet the 1 ipc threshold.

    This would necessarily involve increasing many values across the map, but would at the same time provide a much greater range of values within which to work, so you could create a more interesting nexus of tiles.

    I believe almost all of the major issues with G40, stem from having way too many territories at zero or 1 ipcs. No/Low value “speed bump” territories don’t provide much in the way of gameplay interest. And when the baseline value is so low, there is no room to break up those large low value regions of the map with territories at the much more strategically interesting value of 2 or 3 ipcs. The whole Soviet far East, and Asia Pacific region suffers from this problem.
    The game needs more 2 or 3 ipc territories, in regions where they would actually advance the gameplay possibilities.

    Although there might be other ways to correct those issues, I think the simplest and most effective would be to adjust the printed values on the game map directly, and then build the rest of the game out from there accordingly.



  • For gameplay, I would have Manchuria border not only Amur but also Sakha and Buryatia, the Soviet Far East is too static, and I’m quite shocked that no one here bothers to notice that (The point of 1940 was to open up options).
      Maybe more VCs, like Kiev, Vladivostok, Singapore, but not much else, modifying the game too much eliminates it being 1940 anymore and we might as well just get a new game altogether.
      Add a Urals impassable territory, with behind it a 1/3 IPC territory, that initially is just 1 IPC, but adjusts to 3 when USSR goes to war.
      The only other things I would consider is making Eire Strict Neutral (As they despised the UK and did not want to be part of an alliance with them), and remove many territories that add nothing to the game typically, like most of those South American regions (Ecuador and Uruguay), Sierra Leone, and at least one Mongolian region (perhaps make one of them worth 1 IPC). I would much rather have less regions and more space to work with than do the opposite, even if said regions will likely never play a part in game.

    Everything else is just adjusting region size a bit (such as Normandy), modify the North American and Pacific regions to border from opposite sides of the map (while still stating adjacent regions listings), make the Kamikaze/Convoy zones more visible, remove the territory borders in Sahara, and include a new IPC chart in a similar manner as 1942 Second Edition did.



  • Pet peeves:

    • change territory names with double or even triple components, e.g. Newfoundland Labrador or Alberta Sasketchawan Manitoba (!)
    • Holland -> Netherlands (or combined with Belgium just Low Countries)
    • Volgograd -> Stalingrad

    Other, more speculative:

    • change Ireland from pro-allied neutral to strict neutral?
    • change West Indies ownership from USA to UK?

  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Along with Karl7’s most excellent list I would like to see the Caroline Islands with a 1 IPC value.

    It has an airbase, naval base and is in a valuable positon in the Pacific.



  • @Hambone:

    Along with Karl7’s most excellent list I would like to see the Caroline Islands with a 1 IPC value.

    It has an airbase, naval base and is in a valuable positon in the Pacific.Â

    I think it was CWO Marc who saw IPC value of territories as a resource worth, and bonus IPC given through national objectives as a strategic worth. This made sense to me because Midway is a worthless piece of rock with zero resource value, but worth way more as a strategic value represented in national objectives (although I agree that the Pacific island national objectives don’t promote fighting over them).



  • Here is my A&A wishlist without changes that need house rules:

    IPC adjustments:

    Ulaan Baator and two other Mongolian and the zero IPC South American territories become 1 IPC.
    Vyborg and Bessarabia 1 IPC
    Urals, Novosibirsk, and Buryatia 2 IPC
    Tobruk and Alexandria 1 IPC
    Sicily and Sardinia and Crete 1 IPC and add Corsica 1 IPC (I don’t like seeing everybody ignoring these)
    British and Italian Somaliland 1 IPC
    Eastern Persia and Northwest Persia 1 IPC
    Ceylon, Hainan, Carolines, Solomans, Dutch New Giunea, New Guinea, Marianas 1 IPC
    Newfoundland Ireland Iceland 1 IPC
    Turkmenistan 1 IPC
    India 5 IPC
    Burma 2 IPC
    French Indo-China 3 IPC
    Yunnan 2 IPC

    Territory changes.
    Add three zero IPC Cinese territories in between them and Russia.
    Add 1 infantry to the empty Mongolian territories.
    Add one infantry to South America that is empty.
    Give UK Canadian roundel on Western Canada and Sierra Leone.
    Fix Albania/Bulgaria/Yugoslavia/Greece.
    Make Yugoslavia 2 territories total worth of 3
    Finland no longer reaches the sea in the North and add an impassable territory between Norway and Russia.
    Northern Italy doesn’t touch France and Western Germany.
    Corsica French territory
    Add Balaeric Islands name.
    Iceland Pro Allies
    Greenland Pro Allies
    Ireland Neutral
    Cyprus neutral
    Japan 3 territories (Honshu, Hokkaido, and Shikoku/Kyushu)
    Thailand touches Malaya.
    Japan controls Anhwe.
    Neutrals need help but this is more a house rule thing.
    Change some of the misnomers.

    Now that I am done ranting, keep in mind that this is everything I want.  I only get about 1/5 of that usually.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    @Young:

    @Hambone:

    Along with Karl7’s most excellent list I would like to see the Caroline Islands with a 1 IPC value.

    It has an airbase, naval base and is in a valuable positon in the Pacific.�

    I think it was CWO Marc who saw IPC value of territories as a resource worth, and bonus IPC given through national objectives as a strategic worth. This made sense to me because Midway is a worthless piece of rock with zero resource value, but worth way more as a strategic value represented in national objectives (although I agree that the Pacific island national objectives don’t promote fighting over them).

    Although this makes a lot of sense, given that the reward in both cases is IPCs, I think it’s simpler to just modify the territories on the map directly and say that all tiles have a certain minimum strategic value. Think of it as an Objective you don’t have to memorize, baked into the map from the get go.

    The relative values of territories and objectives are all over the place (by which I mean they’re pretty arbitrary in many cases.) I think the map should function on a basic level without the need for any objectives, and the objectives should be added afterwards to encourage  (not force) historical play patterns, and to balance the game by sides.

    For a shorthand, consider that all territoris are worth 1 ipc, meaning that they all have a basic positional strategic value which holds regardless of whether there are any additional resources or production to be had.

    Any territory worth 2 is consider to have either some basic production/resource potential, or it is just extremely advantageous/prestigious to hold.

    Territories worth 3 or more have a value that matches the localized significance of the production/resources at that tile. Leaving some freedom here to vary the value based on the gameplay needs of one region over another. (i.e. you don’t need to create a system that necessary weights all regions of the map equally.)

    This way your territories can scale up according to the needs of the gameplay, without breaking the internal logic (as seems to happen when you consider IPCs drawn on the map as purely representing production alone.)

    And of course any territory might have an objective attached to it.

    But this way, at least at the low end, you have a system that gives every tile an in game value, and a range within which to work up to 2 ipcs, before you have to start justifying it in terms of some specific industrial rationale.


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

    My feelings about territory values are basically as follows.  I can understand the argument that all territories should have some sort of value, and I’m not necessarily against the idea that this “some sort of value” should take the form of IPCs, but I would argue that modifications of this type should be thought out carefully and should take all relevant points into consideration.  Here are my thoughts on what those points are:

    • Different territories indeed should have different values, as Black Elk has said, though the reasons I’ll give are somewhat different.  Let’s assume – purely for discussion purposes, to explain the point that I’m making – that every single territory on the map had the same IPC value of 1.  In such a situation, we’d end up with a game that had no sense of direction and little relationship to WWII, since capturing random territory X would have the same value as capturing random territory Y.  The actual map has IPC values that vary considerably rather than being uniform, for two very good reasons: partly to give players incentives to capture some of the territories that historically were highly fought-over during WWII (and to ignore those that weren’t), and partly because in real life not every part of the world has equal value from an economic point of view.  An extreme example would be the New Siberian Islands (they’re not an A&A territory), which are isolated and resource-poor and have a severe Arctic climate; as far as I know, nobody lives there, few people have even visited them, and their practical value is essentially zero.  Saudi Arabia is to a large extent a barren desert with a severe climate of its own, but it sits on top of major oil reserves and is easily accessible by land and by sea from multiple directions (for example, it borders the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and it’s close to the Arabian Sea and the Mediterranean), so it has great strategic importance in today’s world.

    • The second point is related to the one I’ve just mentioned.  It’s been argued that places like the Soviet Far East should be given more value, as an incentive for the Axis to conquer it and as an incentive for the Soviets to defend it.  My feeling is that this would distort both the map and the game play overall.  The criticism that “such-and-such-a-territory doesn’t normally see much action in the game” misses the point that there’s a good reason why this is so: because some territories are genuinely more important than others (both in real life and in any game that has clear objectives), and competent generals don’t waste their valuable time or their limited resources fighting unnecessary battles over useless territories.  The goal of the players should be to defeat their opponents, not to make sure that every territory on the map sees its fair share of action; all the players in an A&A game should have a good time, but territories aren’t people and their feelings won’t get hurt if they end up being peripheral bits of the world that everyone ignores.

    • All that being said, I agree that there are territories on the game map (specifically most of the Pacific islands) whose low overall value in the game (and here I’m not specifically talking about IPC values) grossly under-represents their actual high importance in WWII.  I think players should be given stronger incentives to capture or defend those territories.  As YG alluded to, however, I don’t think this should be done to the Pacific islands via IPCs because those islands had no economic value.  Their value was as strategic naval and bases: allowing the airspace around them (and the sea lanes under that airspace) to be dominated; serving as forward bases for the deployment of naval task forces (example: Ulithi Atoll); serving as launching points for bombers to prepare enemy-held islands for amphibious invasions; serving as launching points for US bombers to engage in strategic bombing over Japan (example:Tinian); and serving as emergency landing strips for damaged bombers returning from such mission (example: Iwo Jima).  None of these functions would be represented adequately by IPCs, either hard-wired as territory values nor as bonus points tied to national objectives.  They would be better expressed by game mechanics, such as (perhaps) special air base and naval base rules that would apply only to Pacific islands.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    I can see maybe buying an airstrip for 5 icps and thats the only time u can land planes on a island unless u have an airbase.
    As far as naval bases just keep them the same.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 9
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 14
  • 4
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

42
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts