New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)


  • I have not received any responses to my China suggestion so let me explain it in more detail.

    I agree that Chunking should be a VC.

    I don’t think it should be an American VC.  The obvious reason it is not an American city or asset. Second, Fairness, the Americans already have a VC that is isolated on the Philippines, they don’t need another.

    The Chinese were supported by the Americans but not essential to the Americans.  I don’t think the American player should lose 10 points if they lose Chunking, but I do agree that it should have value for the Japanese.

    My proposal:

    China currently has its own color, roundel and production system.  Give it its own VC.  This way it is worth 10 points to the Japanese but the American player does not lose 10 points if it falls.

    I also don’t think that China’s IPCs should go to the Americans.  Did China really support the American war effort; I think not, so use the rules from AAP and allow them to produce troops themselves in a limited fashion.  Example: One troop for every two IPCs they control or something along those lines.  (China would not receive actual money)

    I would even be willing to make a reference card for China.

    So China will have all the elements of a player nation but on a smaller scale. (I am not suggesting that China be its own player nation, the US player will still control the Chinese.)

    This would also give the American player something to do early while waiting for the “giant to awaken”.

    Thoughts?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Thats right…

    1. no ipc to USA
    2. no USA Victory cities in China
    3. its a seperate nation (minor player)
    4. China is nothing but a road apple for Japan. Something for them to deal with with minor support via the burma road. Some IPC in aid shuld be able to get to China by the Burma road and as long as its open.

  • I agree with Imp on this one.  China gets men in a similar manner as in AAP as a minor player.

    Cheers,

    pdel

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Panama Canal must be a VC because its importance is unquestionable. If Japan had sunk any old ocean liner in the middle of the canal it would have cost the US another six months of time to get on track to get into a position to counter Japan. Going around SA would have been a joke. Remember oil reserves were on hawaii, but Texas supplied the Pacific fleet with about 85% of her fuel stocks.

    Plus a few VC need to be in the Americas anyway so that the US player will garrison something and the Axis have something to think about.


  • If Chunking is not going to be an US VC, then definitely put Panama City in for the replacement.  It was a big target, considered by both sides.

    The Burma Road ipc train that IL mentions adds a nice twist.

    The AAP rules for China would be a great way to handle China.


  • I do like Chungking as a separate China VC. Panama city is the best for the US, but Dutch Harbor could also work. Panama city could be an option for both Germany and Japan, while Dutch Harbor only for Japan. But I admit, it is both a longshot.

    AAP rules for China, well OK, but with some more options please… Like possible ART purchases… via Lend Lease etc…


  • Ok… how about this…

    China’s Production

    My point and one Positronica made earlier is that if we use the AAP rule “as is” the Chinese now get 10 infantry units instead of 3.  Is this appropriate/balanced?

    I am in favor of the AAP rules I just think it needs slight tweaking for this map.  I also agree with Micoom that they should have a few more options.

    My new suggestion:

    So something along the lines of every 2 IPCs they control round down the Chinese get an Infantry unit. That would be 5 units a turn plus the Burma Road at the current IPCs

    Burma Road provides X units. (Maybe 2)

    And as long as the Burma Road is open the Chinese can trade in two (new) infantry units for one artillery unit instead.

    Chungking

    Chungking should be an objective.  Make it worth 10 points for the Japanese (Axis) if they control it.  This gives the Japanese incentive to go get it and will encourage the Allies to defend it to keep the 10 points out of the Axis’s hands.

    OR

    Add Chungking as China’s only VC worth 10 points.

    My only concern is this gives the Allies one more VC then the Axis.


  • You could also choose to add one more VC to the Axis (Japan) in return then. Saipon on the Mariana Islands. This city was vital in WWII, because it was the first base that brought the Japanese homeland in reach of Allied B29 bombers, other then the Chinese mainland.

    Did you also have some thoughts on the OIL cities/territories IL’s suggested?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The China idea has been used in other varients. I think it could work. 2 IPC infantry… and conditional benifits from burma road are good. But now you have to worry about combat.

    You may find an issue with those 10 infantry attacking Japanese forces and causing too much damage and also the Japanese taking too many Chinese territories too soon to stop the infantry coming.

    I think Japan should be limited to one round of combat per turn representing the Chinese tactic of retreating into the countryside. This would be the only time a defender could retreat. Also, if Chinese attack you may want to make a rule that it takes 2 infantry to get 1 attack factor? Or you can go the Xeno route and say 1 combat for every 5 infantry.


  • yikes 10 infantry per turn with normal rules.

      I’m not familiar with the AAP rules too much, aren’t there specific Chinese Air Force (flying tigers) that come with the game?  would they factor in too?  I was thinking they would get 1 inf per 2 ipcs.  But maybe ipc values are factored into the Chinese territories, you might want to use traditional rules for them, if they could build like 3-4 inf per turn or art on their own (if each territory had at least a 1 ipc value, they’d get at least 15

    Why not just make Chungking a VC that does not count for the allies?   Saipon could work, like Mocoom mentioned, or maybe Naha, which is listed on the map already to give the axis 1 more to balance and make Chunking count for the Allies.


  • @murraymoto:

    or maybe Naha, which is listed on the map already to give the axis 1 more to balance and make Chunking count for the Allies.

    Naha is already a VC.  The VC post on the thread listed Okinawa, my mistake; it should have read Naha which is on Okinawa.


  • Are we ready to print this thing yet?

    -jim lee


  • I’m not sure if its worth the effort of giving China special rules.  It might just be easier to give China a decent number of men at the start, and make sure that they have infantry units spread throughout all the western territories.  The time it takes them to march their troops from the west to the front with Japan will approximate getting a few new men each turn.  For people who really want to seperate China farther from the rest of the US player’s pieces, a variation of the AAP rules could be included in the rules addendum.  From a gameplay perspective though, weather or not the Chinese men come marching in from the west, or if they just pop in at Chungking, I don’t think its going to make much of a difference.

    Also, if we do go with a variation of the AAP rules, I like the idea of control of the Burma Road giving China access to Artillery units in some way, however there aren’t any Artillery pieces in the chinese unit color.  (For those of you that don’t have AAP, China doesn’t use American infantry units to represent its own.  The game ships with a bunch of dark brown colored infantry units to use for the Chinese.  The Flying Tigers still use an American fighter piece, though.)  Also, in AAP there’s rules that prohibit Chinese units from going beyond any Chinese territories, or captured chinese territories that are held by Japan at the start of the game.  Furthermore, in AAP, these captured chinese territories are marked on the map so that if they are liberated by the US or UK, the IPC from those territories goes towards giving China men, instead of into the bank of one of the allies.  Also, in AAP, there’s no Russia.  In our map, Japan will very likely have to deal with a nearby, hostile Russia, too.

    All in all, I just don’t think adding in the China rules from AAP is all that worth it.  Its doesn’t really change all that much gameplay wise, and to make it work it will require the map to be marked up in ways that would be unique to just one area of the world.  One might ask, if China is getting such special treatment, why aren’t other minor powers getting the same?  I say just focus on the six main countries, (though Chungking should be a VC).  Just treat the Chinese units as American units like they are in Revised.  All we’d really gain from using the AAP rules is the need for another color of pieces.


  • Ok we have gotten a little off topic here.  Forget the China rule set for now.

    What needs to be decided is the status of Chungking.

    I like the VCs as they stand but also agree that Chungking should have value for the Japanese.

    Chungking as an objective worth 10 points for the Axis is the best option that does not require changing the current VC structure.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Chungking was never under japanese control but could be a starting Allied VC worth 10 points. Why not?


  • Chungking VC worth 10points sounds like a plan.


  • The group agrees that Chungking should be a VC in some shape or form.  So I will go ahead and change the font to the VC font.


  • It’s Friday!

    The fourth draft has arrived!

    I have made the following changes from the third draft:

    Added:
    None

    Changed:
    Replaced Budapest with Bucharest
    Western Ukraine and Byelorussia are now Russian
    Chungking is now labeled a VC

    Reminders:
    When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
    The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
    Unfinished elements have been removed.
    This is a work in progress.

    http://www.mediafire.com/?8jnm23jjm5j


  • Last Week’s Goals Review

    1. Victory Cities
    The VCs are set on the map.  (VC rules may need further discussion)

    2. Starting Territories, their borders, names and any final additions/removals. 
    The territories are set with one exception “Vichy”.

    3. Turn Order
    The majority of the group likes A) Axis aggressors so A) it is.

    4. Roads in or out?
    Out.  (There seems to be enough people that want a version with roads so I will make a second version with the current roads on it.)


  • One more question before we leave the VC debate.  The purpose of the Warsaw and Oslo VCs are what exactly?  I was thinking about this the other day and wondered if would be better to have VCs in Helsinki and Budapest rather than Warsaw and Oslo since Hungary and Finland were axis minors and those are the capitals.  Paris makes since for symbolism, Berlin as the capital of the Reich is obvious, and I agree with Bucharest as a VC due to oil, but it is also the capital of Axis minor.  Any other thoughts?


  • How much will a hard copy of the map cost? How can one obtain units for the new China and Italy forces?


  • In the version I plan on playing, I am going to use a combination of pieces from AA original, AAP, AAE and some miniatures thrown in for good measure.

    For Italy, I am using Fucile Modello (AAM) as infantry and Blackshirts (AAM) as elite inantry (similar to marines in AAP….I really really really hate the fact the USA has special troops, but no one else does, I mean, the Japanese had the Special Navy Landing Force, which are Marines, so why does USA get them, but Japan does not?)

    for tanks, I am using the L3/35 since they are the same size as the tanks in AAM.  Artillery I will use the Bohlers 47mm (which in the game belongs to Romania, but the Italians used as well)

    All other pieces are coming from AA original.  I am using Germany, which is a lighter shade of grey than in AAE.  The destroyers will be the Luca Tarigo from the new naval game.

    For China, I am using the AAMinis.

    In fact, wherever I can use the AAMinis and Naval Minis I will rather than the generic coloured pieces for each nation.


  • pdel21,

    All good points, this debate could go on forever.  All are good candidates for VC status.

    I prefer Oslo over Helsinki because it is easily accessible by an Allied invasion fleet.  But not easily supported by Germany itself.  This is currently the only German VC that is really at risk, the remaining VCs are within a stone’s throw from Germany.

    I don’t really prefer Warsaw over Budapest.

    Like I said earlier I think Germany already has an easy go at defending its VCs with their proximity to Germany; Budapest would just make it that much easer for Germany due to the fact it is land locked.  But this is a small issue.

    Just my thoughts on the subject.

    I would really like to close this topic soon so if anyone has a comment on pdel21’s suggestion lets hear it.


  • I think the current 5 VC’s for Germany are the best choice for game balance and historic importance. Though Helsinki and Budapest could also work…

    For your fase 5, please do change Vichy and add Corsica  😉


  • Goals for This Week. (Week of April 2nd)

    1. Finalize Vichy
    2. Start Sea Zones discussion
    3. Convoy Boxes

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

37
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts