How will AA42 promote a Mediterranean Theater?


  • Everyone agrees that the Eastern front dominates Axis and Allies, which is stupid because that front only uses half the units in the game. so along with making the pacfic front more important, how should AA42 improve the mediterranean front.


  • It should break up North Africa more, and add some IPCs


  • @bbrett3:

    It should break up North Africa more, and add some IPCs

    Morocco/Algeria should be split in two territories.

    Middle East got pretty big oil resources, and this should be better modelled in the game. Like in A&A Europe the middle east have an total of 8 IPC income. Larry did blow up East Indies and Borneo to 4 IPC income each, so why not make Persia 3 IPC and Trans-Jordan 3 IPC.

    Also add some convoy zones in the Med. Or have Malta as a 2 IPC port.

    Cairo or Malta as VC.


  • defenetly break Morraco-Algeria into algeria and tunisa

    and what if instead of adding cairo you had tunis as a victory city?


  • Personaly I like the feel that Africa should be the “crap, I have to devote resources here even though I don’t want to”.  But in order to promote it more, it would have to be easier for the UK, US, and Germany to hit it/re enforce it.  Perhaps a few more units in South Africa and an Egypt that won’t fall T1 could help this, along with maybe 2 transport ships in the Med for Germany.  Maybe an Indian IC.


  • They should also add Malta, as well as giving it and Gibraltar some kind of “fortified” special rule

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    The game would be better, if they just mashed 3x more units on the board, and more IPC’s

    I’ve played home versions on custom maps where guys are making 200 to 300 IPC’s a turn… Dice don’t matter anymore, stacks of 30 fgt’s disappear in one round of naval combat, It’s a total BLOODBATH. It’s awesome, and I highly recommend it 😄  More pieces means more excitement 😛


  • @Gargantua:

    The game would be better, if they just mashed 3x more units on the board, and more IPC’s

    I’ve played home versions on custom maps where guys are making 200 to 300 IPC’s a turn… Dice don’t matter anymore, stacks of 30 fgt’s disappear in one round of naval combat, It’s a total BLOODBATH. It’s awesome, and I highly recommend it 😄  More pieces means more excitement 😛

    ……and endless hours determining the results of a single battle

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

    Piece density is an issue and if high leads to longer games. NO’s even takes longer to play as more IPC= more units=more rolling=longer play.


  • I agree that Malta and Gibralter should be modeled into the game and even oil resources

    These two important fortresses should be add IMHO. I am trying this idea in my next AA50 game: adding a fortified Malta and a fortified Gibralter.

    I also have added HO scale oil barrels to AA50 and added, from the Caucasus, a new southern area: Baku where the oil barrels are located. The barrels will sit there as a 15-20 IPC incentive for the Germans to drive there. If they take the barrels they get the IPC’s.  A lesser IPC incentive for Iran.

    The same goes for Borneo in the Pacific theater for Japan, but at a lesser IPC incentive.

    Haven’t played these variants as yet but looking forward to adding it to the next AA50 game.


  • Both AAR and AA50 promotes a Mediterranean theater already, to some extent, b/c the most effective strat is KGF, and so the US will usually be strong in the Med.
    If allies don’t get Africa, allies will usually lose, and axis will often try to get a foothold in Africa, at least Egy, as long as possible, so even if the Med/Africa theaters usually belongs to allies after a few rnds, these theaters are always attempted and contested, although not so much as the eastern front, and France.
    It seems that Africa is a must for allies, but axis can win w/o it, both in AAR and AA50.

  • Moderator

    I think the Med is handled pretty well.  I could see splitting Mor/Alg but I don’t think they need to do much more with IPC values.  One more seazone might help to keep some ships alive longer too, but I wouldn’t do too much.  As it is I think you get a good 3-5 rds out of N. Afr/Med action (not counting any J influence).  That seems pretty good to me.

    @Adlertag:

    @bbrett3:

    It should break up North Africa more, and add some IPCs

    Morocco/Algeria should be split in two territories.

    Middle East got pretty big oil resources, and this should be better modelled in the game. Like in A&A Europe the middle east have an total of 8 IPC income. Larry did blow up East Indies and Borneo to 4 IPC income each, so why not make Persia 3 IPC and Trans-Jordan 3 IPC.

    You can’t make Per worth 3.
    Turn 1 = UK IC = game over, Allies win.

    I believe this was one of the factors in limiting IC production with new ICs in 2nd edition.  I think in First Edition a common tactic was to buy a UK IC in Per and just place troops there.

    With a 3 IPC Per, I don’t think the Axis ever crack it.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Syria/Iraq/Persia should be worth alot of IPCs, as it was considered very valuable by British High Command and worth defending.

    Split North Africa into more territories to make more of a war there (maybe Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt–-ie make it at least 4, possibly 5 territories instead of the 3 in Revised).

    The rest of Africa shouldn’t be worth much.

    Also, split the Balkans up to make that a more tempting place for the Allies to land (ie Greece and Yugo).


  • @DarthMaximus:

    You can’t make Per worth 3.
    Turn 1 = UK IC = game over, Allies win.

    I believe this was one of the factors in limiting IC production with new ICs in 2nd edition.  I think in First Edition a common tactic was to buy a UK IC in Per and just place troops there.

    With a 3 IPC Per, I don’t think the Axis ever crack it.

    Yes, I remember that strategi from MB Gamemaster series. It was called “The Persian Plunge”. In first edition, UK placed a factory there and pumped out infantry. In second edition, with a unit limit, UK would still place a factory there, and when the axis conquered it, Uk would bomb it, bomb it and bomb it.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    I think the Med is handled pretty well.  I could see splitting Mor/Alg but I don’t think they need to do much more with IPC values.  One more seazone might help to keep some ships alive longer too, but I wouldn’t do too much.  As it is I think you get a good 3-5 rds out of N. Afr/Med action (not counting any J influence).  That seems pretty good to me.

    @Adlertag:

    @bbrett3:

    It should break up North Africa more, and add some IPCs

    Morocco/Algeria should be split in two territories.

    Middle East got pretty big oil resources, and this should be better modelled in the game. Like in A&A Europe the middle east have an total of 8 IPC income. Larry did blow up East Indies and Borneo to 4 IPC income each, so why not make Persia 3 IPC and Trans-Jordan 3 IPC.

    You can’t make Per worth 3.
    Turn 1 = UK IC = game over, Allies win.

    I believe this was one of the factors in limiting IC production with new ICs in 2nd edition.  I think in First Edition a common tactic was to buy a UK IC in Per and just place troops there.

    With a 3 IPC Per, I don’t think the Axis ever crack it.

    It would make sense if they made it so that the territories income could increase without increasing the amount of og units it could could produce.  For example: increase Persia’s income to 3 IPCs and make their production only 1 unit


  • A simpler way of modelling resources than NOs or changes to IPC-values (that might have other effects as you describe) is to have oil wells such as in AAE. It could work for AA42 and shouldn’t be too hard to implement. Just put an oil well in vital territories, and make the owner lose 5 IPCs immediately and then for each turn not controlled. Also doesn’t disturb game balance as much as IPC-value since the aggressor doesn’t gain the money. Oil wells could be placed in: Balkans (Bulgaria), Persia, Borneo, Caucasus and Central USA. Maybe the capturing of an enemy oil well could offset for the loss of your own, so you only lose IPCs if you control no oil wells at all.

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

    yea thats what i say. Add places that if taken give the enemy some income or take away from your income.


  • yeah, sorta an across the board NO.  take the enemy’s oil fields, and you gain the territory value, plus an oil bonus.
      in such a logistical styled game, you couldn’t penalize the original owner too much as they’d be even harder pressed to retake it.  More incentive to hold yes, but some of these areas are more difficult to believably be able to reinforce to hold in the first place, like Borneo or Transjordan…
      -5ipcs in '42 would translate into 10 plus from the original AAE idea I’d think…because of the magnified view of AAE.  but in something AA42 or 50, it would translate out to need to be only 1 or 2 and that wouldn’t affect the incentive as much either way. 
    -bonus the capture of the fields.

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

    ok then you just keep the extra money. its not gonna sap IPC to the original controlling owner.

    Now just take the existing No’s and replace/add a number of these localities to the map.


  • You could have two types of resources that would be on-the-map-NOs, so to speak. Better for a simpler game and easier to learn.

    1. Oil well: 5 IPC value areas that adds to your income, you can have several but start with one only.
    2. Convoy zone: UK: group of Central Atlantic sea zones, Japan: group of West Pacific sea zones, USA: group of East Pacific sea zones, Soviet Union: two North Atlantic sea zones, Germany: Central mediterranean sea zone. One sub or other warship in any of the sea zones means you lose 5 IPCs/turn. Maybe subs could have the ability to fire shots at convoys and if they hit the enemy loses 5 IPCs, they wouldn’t need to hold the territory in this way.

    Trade zones would mean those expensive ships of yours can have economic impact without needing to take territories, something missing in the game.


  • are these convoy zones like the ones in AAP? that correspond to a particular territory(s)?  Then you could cut off Borneo on one turn and take it the next if you had to delay, but you would deny UK the income.
      or a bonus income ipc?
      or just a place to conduct commerce raiding?

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

    Well lets just take Italy for example:

    if the Axis take Egypt (cuts off British supply from India) they get income one D6
    If they take Persia oil well one D6.
    If Italy keeps Lybia and takes Gibraltar or Malta one D6

    I think this is more effective or realistic than keeping “British ships out of medd”

    The only other thing is to have a free give-away to fly to Greece to see a new movie “promote a Mediterranean Theater


  • so that would be more unlike AAP then where you would cut off Indian income by taking convoy zone/sea zone near India, but taking a midway point between UK and it’s resources.
    If I remember correctly, much of the convoys went around the horn because of the Axis in the Med, which is why German commerce raiders were off the coast of Antarctica during the war. 
    maybe zones to attack or capture up to a value that hurt the owner each turn would be simpler than attaching them to territories.


  • a 5ipc value of oil in a 1 ipc territory like persia seems a bit steep compared to a 2 ipc valued Romania (AA50 values at least, 1 and 3 respectively in AAR) when you compare their ability to output during the war.  So would a potential Oil Well in Romania would be 2 d6 or 10 bonus from Lynxes’ thought to be fair to values and such…
      Certainly making oil areas all the same value of 5 or 6 will change the strategic nature of areas, but will it over value areas in comparison to others?  will the Middle east become a  freeway and become a bigger deal than through eastern europe and such that it’s out of proportion and outside the ability of the Allies to hold…


  • are these convoy zones like the ones in AAP? that correspond to a particular territory(s)?  Then you could cut off Borneo on one turn and take it the next if you had to delay, but you would deny UK the income.

    All this is speculation and probably we won’t see any of it in the game. The same effect can be arranged by just moving IPCs from territories in Africa to Middle East and Southeast asia. But the idea would be that a convoy zone lost means that number of IPCs lost for the owning player, so not like in AAE where convoys represent off-map income but rather like transport networks that can be disrupted. Maybe subs could have the special power to fire a shot at a convoy and you then lose that number of IPCs directly, since subs have such poor defence values. Number of IPCs on convoys could be fixed at 5 per country or even better range from 10 down to 2 IPCs depending on how vital sea routes were for each power.

    I would really like to allow subs to ignore DDs when moving, it would make for more a chance for subs to be bought by Germany. If we don’t have convoy zones, at least that would mean something more like an Atlantic war.

Suggested Topics

  • 20
  • 4
  • 73
  • 35
  • 15
  • 27
  • 3
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

46
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts