• '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    axis_alies_COLD WAR update.jpg

    Some map Updates

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    axis_alies_COLD WAR update.jpg

    Some updates

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    axis_alies_COLD WAR update.jpg

  • No island should be surrounded by only one sea zone and its better to remove unnecessary islands

    Sahara desert should block Algeria and Libya only to move south

    Why Eastern Germany is more valuable than Western Germany? Why Italy is more valuable than France or Britain? Azores and Libya do not deserve these values

    Portugal should not touch to sz 16, Germany slo should not touch Italy.

    There should have been less sea zones in the Pacific.

    Some territory names are wrong.

  • @Navalland #1: I completely disagree. Just because an island is small doesn’t mean it’s not important. The startegic value of staging areas was very important in nearly every war, ever. And just because a island is important, strategically, doesn’t mean that it should get it’s very own seazone. Like I said above, size does not correlate to importance.

  • @Navalland #2: The Sahara does block movement for everything but planes.

  • @Navalland East Germany is more valuable because that’s how it is in other games. I assume that is based on the natural resources and industrial ability of that area and would therefore still hold true in the 50’s. The fact that East Germany was worse off historically had more to do with economic neglect from the soviet government, something that players get to control in this game.

  • @Navalland #4 Again this game stems from a ww2 game where I believe, Italy is it’s own power. Because of this, I assume Italy needed a boost. I saw no reason to change it, especially since Britain was already diverting much of it’s war funding to it’s pointless conflicts, and france was extremely unhelpful during the cold war. You can attribute the IPC gap to that.

  • @Navalland #5 Azores is to valuable, yeah your probably right, however, it’s not something so earth shattering that it warrants making a change unless Gen wants to

  • @Navalland #6 You’ve got to be joking. Libya was one of the greatest untapped oil reserves of the area, not to mention being in the center of almost every trade route, and strategic access to the med. I mean, sure, most of that money was wasted, however, it’s still worth it.

  • @Navalland #7 It doesn’t touch NA-16. If your referring to NA-14 then yes you are right, however, territories almost entirely contained withing other territories are stupid

  • @Navalland #8 That little tail that austria has the divides up germany and italy is so small that it shouldn’t be put in

  • #9 Your wrong. there’s no other way to put it. You cant make baseless accusations with no actual evidence supporting your claim, if you actually want to be taken seriously.

  • #10 You would have to be more clear about that last one. I have no idea what your referring to

  • I didn’t say small islands are unimportant, just better to remove islands if there is no reasons to fight for them like new hebrides and fiji which surrounded by only one sea zone. One of them is redundant but might be reasons to fight for one of them only.

    In a board game every piece of territory (even if worthless) and sea zones have a reason to be exist hence distortion becomes handy because having too much territory not always impact positively. For example if it was a WWII map, these extra sea zones between Britain and N.Africa would cripple torch option.

    Its impossible to justify these values other than balance purpose. Western Germany has always been, more populated, industrialized and richer even if we assume its value decreased due to Allies bombing in WWII Western Germany was also richer in terms of steel and coal production.

    Lybia wasn’t the leading nation in crude oil production either. They were USA, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia the letter three deserve more value also.

  • @Navalland #1 If having multiple small territories in effectively that same area were redundant, then why would the professional game designers that made Axis & Allies 1940 2nd Ed include British Guiana, French Guiana, and Suriname?

  • @Navalland #2 They do have a reason. It is to prevent NATO from coming across the pacific and steamrolling china.

  • @Navalland #3 In the 90’s, this is 40 years of massive reindustrialization and financial aid mind you, West Germany was only a few million dollars richer then its Eastern counterpart. When this game begins, it is in shambles.

  • @Navalland #4 You’re right Lybia had no oil value, mostly because Lybia does not exist. If you meant Libya, then your right it wasnt a leading oil producer, hence the word, untapped. Secondly, of course the USA and the Soviet Union produced more because they are way bigger then Libya, and have more infrastructure. Iran owned effectively none of its oil. They were primarily owned by the Seven Sisters. Saudi Arabia didn’t start using its oil until much later in the cold war. And Venezuela didnt actually make that much oil compared to other countries. They just made a lot of money off of it when middle eastern countries began refusing to provide oil to us, causing the price of oil to skyrocket.

  • @Navalland And while I do appreciate your feedback, maybe next time your planning on criticising the work of three people who are working thanklessly on a super massive game for free distribution, without any hope of reward, you try and be a bit more polite, and possible take the time to use a spell check.

  • The board game designers in Avalon Hill are no better than most of custom game designers and their games are far from being perfect. Thye even totally gave Eastern Prussia to Russia an A&A 1914 which unhistorical and bad for playability for such a thing in main combat zone but nobody objected where is the New Zealand or Vladivostok.
    Better map means giving the most strategic options to combatants with the least amount of territories as much as possible while achieving the war feeling. Redundant territories decrease strategic options not increase. Like how every pieces and territories have a reason to be exist in chess and backgammon this should be applied board war games too.

    Of course some areas and most of small islands should be worthless in terms of Pu but you need to give reasons for combatants to control these worthless areas. If there is no way to create a situation like this, they should be removed even there is nothing wrong to remove Madagascar, Corsica, Cyprus or even New Zealand in most of scenarios.

  • This post is deleted!

  • @Navalland Just because a territory is 100% necessary doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be there. It does not detract from the map in any way and it provides more options to players.

  • Here are the updated rules. Much of the current map didn’t make sense with the old ones. I’m posting it as a google doc so that I don’t have to attack a million separate pdf files.

    separate document mentioned in the rules

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 14
  • 2
  • 13
  • 1
  • 41
  • 76
  • 1
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures