Help with a map project



  • After I buy a few more expansions (The War Game, Table Tactics expansions, and Axis & Allies expansions I, II, and III), I intend to take all of the rules I like, convert everything to d12, make a map of my own, and basically have a huge game to play. Maps.com has a few World maps that I like. The one I’m leaning towards is 6.5’ x 5’. I want to include the US, UK, France, USSR, China, Germany, Japan, and Italy/Balkan Axis as players. I want a lot of territories. My question for you guys is how many territories is to many? How many territories can I squeeze into Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, France, etc? Should Italy just be N. Italy, S. Italy, Sicily, Libya, E. Africa, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary? Should Hungary be with Italy or Germany? For Germany I intend to have E. Prussia, Berlin, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and I’m not sure. I think I should include the Rheinland. What else? Should Poland be just E Poland and W. Poland like I see on most games, or should I include things like the Danzig strip? Please help. I have a tendency to go overboard on things like this. How many territories per country would be manageable on a map this large? Africa and the Americas should be fairly easy to do. What about Asia? Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated. Oh, and I want to do a 1939 start time.



  • so you’ll use some rules of each o those variants/house rules
    and a d12 system

    for the map, what are you trying to achieve?

    you might be able to just use the Global War map

    its sticky at the variants section of this forum

    New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7789.0

    that one has a lot of territories


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

    Make the rules …. then make the map… You have to actually have a blueprint before you build a house. Its the same with making games.



  • Tekkyy,

    We’ll use whichever house rules we like. We are not really doing a new game. We are just combining the best of what’s out there.

    For the map I am trying to achieve a few things. I want it to be a bit more difficult to knock someone out. I will definately be expanding the sea zones to get more naval action and force people other than Japan and the US to build naval units. I also want Italy/othe minor Axis to be more fun and not an afterthought. I don’t want the French player knocked out on turn 1. That’s no fun for him.

    Another consideration is we often do free-for-alls. Everyone gets an amount of IPCs to spend on their starting forces. Then everyone gets like 50 IPCs a round. Nobody is allied with anyone unless they make an alliance. That version is fun.

    I tried to look at that map, but it wouldn’t load for me.

    Imperious Leader,

    We’re not trying to create a new game. We’re basically taking in all of the rules from supplements and house rules that we like. Switching to d12 is just to allow more units and such from various supplements. The game should flow pretty much like regular Axis & Allies (probably a bit more like World at War or another more complex supplement) with extra units (half tracks, cruisers, etc). Of course income will probably be doubled, and costs will go up to allow for the additional units.


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

    ahh your preaching to the choir…. I have been using D12’s since 1995. MY own Advanced Axis and Allies system was based on the D12 system. I bug Larry since 2004 to use them wherever possible and finally in Bulge we got them. His own Advanced AA game if it ever comes out will use them too.



  • @Ddraiglais:

    I will definately be expanding the sea zones to get more naval action and force people other than Japan and the US to build naval units.

    You can use easily naval economic rules (like convoy zones or even convoy routes) to encourage US, UK and Japan buying naval units.

    But what do you have in mind to encourage Germany or USSR to build naval units?


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

    place limits on land builds. 50% land 50% air and sea?



  • Germany should be building subs. The USSR doesn’t really need a navy. China should be more concerned about surviving against Japan. France will want to protect her overseas empire IF she survives long enough. Italy could use battleships and transports to take Africa and other Med territories. The only powers that wouldn’t really be buying naval units is the USSR and China.



  • There is another route that I thought I might try. I saw a site where a guy uses real maps for A&A. I really like this idea. The problem I have now is where to find a 1930’s map of the World. Maps (dot) com has 1935 Africa, 1933 Asia, 1938 bible lands and cradle of civilization, Atlantic Ocean map 1939, Central Europe and the Med 1939, and Europe and the Med map 1938. All of these come close, but none of them are what I need. I need a map that shows the entire World just before Germany moved into Austria. I would like major territories/regions to be labelled (Normandy, Bavaria, Silesia, Walachia, Shangtung, Yunnan, etc). I would also like major cities and capitals to be on it. If anyone has any idea where I can find a map like this, please let me know. As far as size, I am looking for something that will fit an 8’ x 4’ area nicely (as close to filling up the area without going over the sides). If all else fails, then I guess I’ll have to try my hand at drawing my own map. I will need some help assigning IPC values to the territories though.


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

    dude just buy www.thewargame.com its a 6x3 foot map ( thick cardboard i may add) and it comes with pieces all for $100.00 you could never ever make a map for so cheap. Its accurate. If you don’t like the territories i guess you can bust out a marker and and add a few.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Imperious:

    place limits on land builds. 50% land 50% air and sea?

    I thought a fun house rule to play for Revised would be 100% naval builds on turn one for each country.  Just imagine . . . a Russian battleship?!  Or additional Russian subs (it would seem you would have to allow an off-IC build for round one only to allow Russia to build these units off Karelia instead of in the Black Sea, where they would be sitting ducks).  The Graf Zeppelin would make a regular appearance.  With an 8 IPC bid, Germany could build a CV, a BB AND a transport.  All in all, fun to think about, eh?

    G


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

    Id rather see a free roll for a unit ( use one d12)

    1= infanty
    2= armor
    etc…

    or allow some cards that draw extra forces

    or allow a fixed free unit(s) at specific turns

    or lastly, before the game each player has to buy X amount of units with a set treasury before their first turn.


  • Customizer

    This is a pretty good source:

    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/axis.htm

    Loads of diplomacy maps:

    http://www.diplom.org/Online/maps.html

    Do your own thing, but here are a few golden rules from Flashy;

    Decide FIRST if, and how much, map distortion you want.  Western Europe and Japan are hopelessly small on a world map, so most of us use projections that exaggerate their size.  It’s no good basing your outline on a real map, then discovering later that you don’t have room for enough territories in Europe.

    THINGS TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS

    1. Rio de Oro is in NORTH Africa. Mark that point.  It is VERY important.
    2. Moscow is in EUROPE. That is, nowhere near where official A&A boards put it.  If you can live with such an outrageous falsehood as Moscow-in-the-Urals, go ahead.  But in that case abandon any pretence of creating a historical map.
    3. The Sinai penninsular is in EGYPT. There is therefore no need to complicate the board with having two territories controlling access to the Suez canal.
    4. Countries such as Pakistan only came into being AFTER the war. You should NEVER include them, it is prefferable to use geographical terms such as “Western India” or “Indus Valley”.
    5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.
    6. Regarding IPCS, an important factor is fuel. Using GDP figures gives you a starting reference, but remember that areas such as Romania, Caucasus and the Dutch East Indies were much more important than their GDP value owing to their crude oil production.


  • Customizer

    This purports to be a realistic map, and is useful in that it lists IPC values AND oil production separately:

    http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html



  • Talk of assigning IPC, the topic (in the other section of this forum) that I linked to had substantial discussion on that.
    And yes GDP is hardly an indicator. Oil and metals. Democracy vs. dictatorship. Total war culture…

    @Flashman:

    5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.

    But we can’t give it too much value neither considering the low recruitment. I am thinking “minor Allies” that you can use diplomacy dice to bring onside.

    As for China, also populous but realistically you would have to include neutral territories for the warlords. The central government did not have good control of the country and to say they are onside with US only means maybe 3 of 6 territories onside.


  • Customizer

    What do you mean by low recruitment?  India raised half as many troops as the UK itself, and they fought in many theatres.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II


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

    But only 399,000 served outside of India… a little less than the Canadian effort. They had an army of 2.1 million but only .4 million actually fought the war outside of India ( Africa, and Europe).

    And they served in the British army anyway ( under British command). They fought alone only when Japan pulled that spoiling attack to thwart the British own offensive in Burma in 44’


  • Customizer

    I still think most people don’t divide up India through sheer ignorance.  It’s usual to see “French Indochina” divided into Burma/Indocine and Malaya because you can see this on any map, but with India people just get lazy and slap on “Pakistan” and that’s it.
    How many troops were raised in “Indo-China”?


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

    Indo-china is part of Japans concern… its the reason why the oil embargo was started by USA.

    It also represents the garrison from Japanese empire



  • We thought about troops when we decided on the infantry raising power for each territory in AARHE.
    I arrived at the idea that UK didn’t fully utilise India or South Africa due to political reasons.

    Imagine a map with multiple resources. Oil, metals and population.


  • Customizer

    @tekkyy:

    We thought about troops when we decided on the infantry raising power for each territory in AARHE.
    I arrived at the idea that UK didn’t fully utilise India or South Africa due to political reasons.

    Imagine a map with multiple resources. Oil, metals and population.

    Reasoned?  Churchill would have SOLD India 1n 1940 if he thought it would’ve won the war.  It certainly contributed more, in manpower alone, than a miserable 3 IPCs worth.  And again, why is it just left as one territory compared to Indo-China which is usually divided into 3 or 4 territories?



  • To measure massive manpower in India (and China) which at the same time can’t be utilised directly by UK/US you could give it some neutral troops which cannot leave the territory.


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

    The Chinese army was much larger than the Indian army. Also Japan was fighting the war with China since 1931…of course China is more important. Also, India was not really in the war except for its 400K contribution. Otherwise until the last full year of the war  its just shucking a few men to the British, and secondly, helping them repel the Japanese who were really just preempting the coming British offensive in Burma et al.

    China bled and lost millions of citizens and soldiers…they were acutely effected in a way that India could never be compared too… thats why India is only 3 IPC ( which is commensurate with their contribution. Of course if they were assaulted by Japan for 10 years prior to the war… i suppose they would have fully mobilized and committed their entire army for this effort… but thats only potential. The game must serve what actually happened…Otherwise , the income basis that was assigned at the starting territories would have been higher…but they only represent what the world was in spring of 42 and THAT potential.



  • @Imperious:

    dude just buy www.thewargame.com its a 6x3 foot map ( thick cardboard i may add) and it comes with pieces all for $100.00 you could never ever make a map for so cheap. Its accurate. If you don’t like the territories i guess you can bust out a marker and and add a few.

    I’ve already decided against that. I was set on getting it, but I’ve had a change of heart.

    @Flashman:

    This is a pretty good source:

    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/axis.htm

    Loads of diplomacy maps:

    http://www.diplom.org/Online/maps.html

    Do your own thing, but here are a few golden rules from Flashy;

    Decide FIRST if, and how much, map distortion you want.  Western Europe and Japan are hopelessly small on a world map, so most of us use projections that exaggerate their size.  It’s no good basing your outline on a real map, then discovering later that you don’t have room for enough territories in Europe.

    THINGS TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS

    1. Rio de Oro is in NORTH Africa. Mark that point.  It is VERY important.
    2. Moscow is in EUROPE. That is, nowhere near where official A&A boards put it.  If you can live with such an outrageous falsehood as Moscow-in-the-Urals, go ahead.  But in that case abandon any pretence of creating a historical map.
    3. The Sinai penninsular is in EGYPT. There is therefore no need to complicate the board with having two territories controlling access to the Suez canal.
    4. Countries such as Pakistan only came into being AFTER the war. You should NEVER include them, it is prefferable to use geographical terms such as “Western India” or “Indus Valley”.
    5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.
    6. Regarding IPCS, an important factor is fuel. Using GDP figures gives you a starting reference, but remember that areas such as Romania, Caucasus and the Dutch East Indies were much more important than their GDP value owing to their crude oil production.

    Thanks for those links.

    I hadn’t thought about distorting the map to help with more territories in Europe. That does make sense.

    Since I would rather have a 1939 start, keeping Moscow where it should be shouldn’t be much of a problem.

    I like the idea of one territory controlling the ditch. I’m not sure if Egypt will be 1 territory or more.

    I was going to include Baluchistan, Sind, Punjab, etc. Neither Pakistan nor India will exist. I want more territories, and the subcontinent is a great place to add some.

    I’m not sure about IPCs. You can argue for fuel. What about iron and coal deposits? What about better scientists? Weapons developement is a part of the game, and the US and Germany excelled there. Where do you draw the line, and where do you add to the game as far as IPCs go? Others have already mentioned people power. How does that apply? Some of the game has to be abstract. I think a lot of things need to be considered when assigning IPCs, but I don’t think there is a way to nail it. If you could come up with realistic numbers, then the already disadvantaged Axis would never win. Showing the US’s industrial might might be more realistic, but it wouldn’t be much fun. There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.


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

    There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.

    If you want playability then make India impassible and a non-factor in the game

    If you want fun make the map without India, assuming a tidal wave took it out just before Dec 41…so you don’t have to deal with it.

    Make Sinai into two parts

    And Rio De Oro now has nukes.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 3
  • 9
  • 1
  • 34
  • 5
  • 9
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts