[Anniversary Ed.] More Sea Zones between Japan and Egypt?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    One of the reasons the Allies need a bid in Anniversary Edition (either 1941 or 1942 setup) s that if left unchecked, Japan can easily move its forces to the center of the board to take Egypt & Trans-Jordan, which are very high-value territories. Even with just a standard expansion, moving at a reasonable pace, Japan can take Borneo / Philippines on round 1, Burma on round 2, India on round 3, and Egypt on round 4. Egypt isn’t a diversion; it’s just the next natural step for the Japanese expansion.

    Aside from the $2 for the Egyptian territory, Egypt is worth $5 for the Italians, and costs the UK its $5 ‘original territories’ NO. To take Egypt, the Japanese fleet moves to the Red Sea, and from the Red Sea, South Africa is only one move away, which means that the UK won’t be able to generate significant counterplay in Africa – even if the UK already has a factory in South Africa, it will likely need to build infantry there and leave them there in order to defend the factory from the Japanese.

    All of this feels deeply unthematic to me – as a matter of both history and drama, Egypt should be well out of logistical range of Japan in the early turns of a typical game. Egypt ought to be a fight between the UK and Italy, with the occasional assist from Germany. It’s fine if Japan attacks Persia (they had plans to do so if the war went well), and it’s fine if Japan eventually makes it to Egypt, around turn 6 or 7, but we shouldn’t be seeing Japan attack Egypt on turn 4 in 50%+ of our games. When Japan attacks Egypt early on, it spoils the drama of the UK vs. Italy see-saw. It’s exciting to see Britain and Italy desperately trading Egypt each turn…until Japan swoops in out of nowhere and renders the whole conflict moot.

    I’ve heard proposals to split India into two land zones, and that seems fine to me, but I think the more important fix is to split the Indian Ocean so that it is two or even three sea zones wide, depending on latitude. This would also help the British stage a credible “west Indian Ocean” task force either off the coast of West India or off the coast of East Africa…using the OOB map, Japan can stage a navy off the conveniently close west coast of Indochina and still threaten the entire supposedly distant coast of east Africa, from Egypt to Madagascar.

    Thoughts?


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

    An alternate solution to the Indian Ocean problem – and to the similar “Japan invading Moscow from the east” credibility problem – would be to implement a rule based on the secret military agreement reached between Japan, Germany and Italy on 18 January 1942, by which Germany, Italy and Japan defined their respective zones of military operations.  Basically, the rule would restrict each side to its half of the game map, without needing to modify the map itself.  The section of the agreement concerning the division of zones of operations said:

    The German and Italian armed forces, as well as the Japanese army and navy, will, within the framework of the zones allocated to them hereinafter, carry out the required operations.

    1. Japan

    a. The waters to the east of approximately 70 degrees east longitude up to the west coast of the American Continent, as well as the continents and islands located in these waters (Australia, Dutch East Indies, New Zealand, etc.).

    b. The Continent of Asia, east of approximately 70 degrees east longitude.

    2. Germany and Italy

    a. The waters to the west of approximately 70 degrees east longitude up to the east coast of the American Continent, as well as the continents and island located in these waters (Africa, Iceland, etc.).

    b. The Near East, the Middle East, and Europe west of approximately 70 degrees east longitude.

    3. In the Indian Ocean, each side may carry out operations across the above-agreed boundary according to the situation.


  • '14

    One of the things that’s kind of frustrating about the AA50 map is that the sea zone design in that region doesn’t really allow for Singapore or the strait of Malacca to be modelled with an HR.

    Unlike Gibraltar or the Danish straits which have a workable sz border that would allow for an HR some sort for straits, Sumatra and Malaya-FIC dont have a clear east/west divide that you could close off. Its too bad, because that might give the British a reason to try and hold onto that pearl and maybe fight forward sometimes.

    Short of that I guess dividing the sea zones for more distance would be cool


  • 2017 2016

    Adding a SZ but making Java Sumatra a natural frontier was one of my intent.
    The picture was based on DK’s which was based on AA50.
    Maybe this might help to have a view of the area.

    DKs Hybrid PTO SZs_36_BM_revised_Midway.png
    axis-allies-anniversary-3_Pacific SZs.jpg


  • 2017 2016

    @Black_Elk:

    One of the things that’s kind of frustrating about the AA50 map is that the sea zone design in that region doesn’t really allow for Singapore or the strait of Malacca to be modelled with an HR.

    Unlike Gibraltar or the Danish straits which have a workable sz border that would allow for an HR some sort for straits, Sumatra and Malaya-FIC dont have a clear east/west divide that you could close off. Its too bad, because that might give the British a reason to try and hold onto that pearl and maybe fight forward sometimes.
    Short of that I guess dividing the sea zones for more distance would be cool

    Based on your comment, I slightly revised the map, so to reach India in 2 SZs Move, from FIC East Coast you have to rather travel through Strait of Malacca (which would require to own both Malaya and East Indies). Or, turn around Java and Sumatra, so it would require 3 SZs Move, or be in Borneo SZ to make it to India via South of Java Sumatra in 2 SZs move.

    Is it this kind of thing your were thinking about?

    DKs Hybrid PTO SZs_36_BM2_revised_Midway.png


  • 2017 2016

    Just to give the whole picture of Indian Ocean, a picture of AA50 map.

    axis-allies-anniversary-3.jpg



  • @Argothair:

    I’ve heard proposals to split India into two land zones, and that seems fine to me, but I think the more important fix is to split the Indian Ocean so that it is two or even three sea zones wide, depending on latitude. This would also help the British stage a credible “west Indian Ocean” task force either off the coast of West India or off the coast of East Africa…using the OOB map, Japan can stage a navy off the conveniently close west coast of Indochina and still threaten the entire supposedly distant coast of east Africa, from Egypt to Madagascar.

    Thoughts?

    I like the idea

    Here’s a quick proposal via my rudimentary JPG
    India gets split into India and Banglaesh
    Kwangtung becomes worthless (except as a component of the Japans NO)
    That 1 IPC is now in Bangladesh

    Split SZ35 into 2.

    Not sure how the units originally put into India should be split for initial placement… leave to the allies to decide?

    India split.jpg


  • 2017 2016

    To help UK, East Indies should be link to India SZ so it allows to reach Indonesia in one move of 2 SZs.



  • @axis_roll:

    @Argothair:

    I’ve heard proposals to split India into two land zones, and that seems fine to me, but I think the more important fix is to split the Indian Ocean so that it is two or even three sea zones wide, depending on latitude. This would also help the British stage a credible “west Indian Ocean” task force either off the coast of West India or off the coast of East Africa…using the OOB map, Japan can stage a navy off the conveniently close west coast of Indochina and still threaten the entire supposedly distant coast of east Africa, from Egypt to Madagascar.

    Thoughts?

    I like the idea

    Here’s a quick proposal via my rudimentary JPG
    India gets split into India and Banglaesh
    Kwangtung becomes worthless (except as a component of the Japans NO)
    That 1 IPC is now in Bangladesh

    Split SZ35 into 2.

    Not sure how the units originally put into India should be split for initial placement… leave to the allies to decide?

    I really like this idea, I have been working on a set of house rules that does this and adds Ceylon as a territory like Formosa that touches both 35a and 35b; the idea being that the island was the main base of the UK Indian Ocean fleet and very strategically important.

    The split around FIC-Thailand can be fixed without changing sea zone boundaries if you subdivide the territory up by the Malaya-Siam border. I would argue that Japan needs to invade Malaya/Singapore too; there should be 2 british infantry at the 1941 start. I also add Singapore as a Victory City, give India more infantry and a factory.

    Still too new, so: imgur.com/a/hrFC7


  • 2017 2016

    Interesting idea for Ceylon into both SZs.
    But it becomes impossible to built there if it is a new TT.
    I cannot have both ways but still, I will think about this split island on my customized map.



  • Yeah, it lets UK use it as a bomber/fighter base to hit back in Egypt or project into the SZ around East Indies & FIC-Thailand.

    This only matters if there’s sufficient interest in the Pacific game. Played a game of 1942 Second Edition with the America 0 Turn house rule today and US was finally able to cause Japan some headaches in the Pacific. I don’t like that for 1941 because Pearl Harbor is an important part of the game; however, there needs to be some way to represent American mobilization and industry. Thinking that even just a headstart in terms of IPCs would be enough. Let US start with an extra ‘x’ number of IPCs (15-20) but they have to do a balanced buy between PTO and ATO. Then they can use the National objectives after turn 1.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Very interesting ideas, all around.

    Mr. Stucifer, I’ve posted your imgur image as “Split India”. I’ve modified it a bit and posted my version as “Split India 2.”

    In my version, sea travel (subs, transports, cruisers, etc.) between Sea Zone 37 and Sea Zone 38 would require your team to have owned both Malaya and Java at the start of your turn. I’m not sure how travel restrictions would work in your version. I’ve put Ceylon at the center of three sea zones, which allows Britain to fly fighters from Egypt, strike any of the three sea zones, and land in Ceylon, even if India has fallen. Also, East India is now a minimum of five sea zones from Japan, which in my opinion makes it a much more viable candidate for a factory spot. It can still fall to Japan if you’re reckless or unlucky or distracted, but it’s no longer an automatic Japanese territory. A West India factory is also an option if you want to play a bit more conservative. Burma is now worth only 1 IPC, which makes it harder for Japan to double up on factories in Burma and Indochina to crank out 4 units per turn in the middle of a non-industrialized jungle. Total value of all British territories in the Pacific is now 22 IPCs, up from only 18 IPCs OOB. Hopefully all of that together will do something to encourage play in the Pacific.

    If you still need more, you could give America 20 IPCs on America’s first turn that can only be spent in the California sea zone (no land builds, and no Atlantic builds). Those special IPCs are lost forever if they are not spent on the first turn. You could still spend your normal 40 IPCs all on the Atlantic side if you want, and use your special 20 IPC to just drop a battleship in the Pacific and swing it east if you really want to…but at least it makes it easier to build up a Pacific fleet, and gives you a nudge in that direction.

    Split India.png
    Split India 2.png



  • Beautiful, Argothair. I love the re-working. Ceylon gains some very strategic importance. I would venture to allow it being garrisoned with an infantry at the start. With the change to Australia, I can see UK buying a round 1 IC in Australia and counting on US support to hold it. That might still be crazy in a 1941 setup with how large Japan’s fleet is, but it’s at least an option now instead of lunacy 😄 And combined with some house rules for buffing China (especially 1941 start…5 infantry??)

    Do you play with any house rules on Battleships? The ‘repair at start of turn’ change in Global/1914 (disregarding the sea base part) seems to be the way to go.

    Going to get this into Triple A and play around. 😄



  • Also, with the re-working, would you put the UK starting DD+Tp in 35A? In 35B or 37, it will be a target for those two fighters on the AC in 61 still. In 35A, you can use them to either swing down and reinforce Australia (if buying an IC), or reinforce Egypt.  US can land its SZ 44 and Hawaiian Island fighters in Australia and buy replacements US1, giving Australia a potential 5 Inf, 1 Art, AA, 3 Fighters to repel a J2 attack. Unfortunately that may still not be enough to guarantee holding it, but it’s got good odds defending against something less than everything-and-the-kitchen sink. Japan can unfortunately hit Australia with around 6 fighters, 7 infantry and an artillery (depending on losses in the Phillippines), which does give them 88% odds against our stalwart defenders down under… However if the Japan player isn’t expecting it I would wager only 2 fighters would be in position to support; leaving it at a much more reasonable 33% chance for Japan (including a cruiser and BB shore bombard).

    You can even hedge bets with a double IC buy turn 1, India + Australia, since you’ll have 47 IPCs to start. Wait on rebuilding UK fleet until the US can stack with you. Then if you lose Australia you’re holing up in India still. USA in this strat will have a Pacific navy; so he can’t move too far towards India without opening up the money islands and Phillippines.  I’d personally go so far as to give UK a factory for free in India or Australia, and see how that changes balance in the Pacific since Japan is bonkers OOB.

    Oh, this change is beautiful! Thank you thank you!!


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I can produce a version of my AA50 map 2nd edition that includes the sz changes. Its up to you.


  • 2017 2016

    Nice of you IL.

    Thanks for the offer.

    Good draft Argo, I like all this configuration of islands.
    It will clearly inspired my Baron AA50&1942.2 inspired by DK’s based on IL’s.



  • @Imperious:

    I can produce a version of my AA50 map 2nd edition that includes the sz changes. Its up to you.

    I am working on putting it into Triple A. I actually just used your beautiful Anniversary map to print a 67"x33" vinyl board. Have a conference room at work and the table is huge, got some coworkers hooked on Monday night game nights now! I want to play some with it in Triple A before printing another one  😄


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well if you need a few edits, i can accommodate.



  • Thanks! I’ll probably take you up on that offer in a couple weeks  😉



  • Having a thought–if UK starts with a factory in Eastern India, would it make sense to let Eastern India touch our new SZ 35a, for a 1-space shuck into Egypt?

    If both Egypt & Trans-Jordan fall to Axis, it doesn’t affect UK worse than before; Italy could swing to hit it from 15 in a single turn instead of dropping in Western India first, but that’s no worse than OOB.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    I wouldn’t, no. I think the fact the you can’t sail from Crete to Calcutta in one turn is a feature, not a big.

    I’m also not sure the UK needs a free starting factory with these map changes.

    You do you, though. 🙂


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
  • 3
  • 6
  • 16
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games

31
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts