This post will be dedicated to present the project I am working on for several months and that I humbly decided to name Ironclad, after the the allied operation to capture Madagascar in May 1942.

This name reflects the addition of Vichy France and the Commonwealth, as well as the emphasis on amphibious assaults I tried to put in this variant of the 1942 scenario of the Anniversary version of the game.

It is played on a modified circular map (azimuthal equidistant projection about the North Pole) that I initially presented and discussed here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39054/custom-map-for-aa50

It is played without technologies and national objectives, but with a few additional house rules and with 3 optional new powers : France, the Commonwealth and Neutrals (each of them coming with a set of specific rules). The idea is that players can choose to play with or without (one or all of) them, depending on the kind of game they want to have.

I created a (still unperfect) mod on TripleA to test these ideas, and I’ll be glad to share a beta-version if anyone is interested.

Hello!

Thanks to a fruitful discussion with @Black_Elk, I managed to solve the zoom issue I had because of the square format of the map. It is now possible to display the full map on the screen. And as I gained some extra empty space on the right, I implemented… the victory cities board of stamps!

Isn’t it neat?

Well, I should still work on it, because it’s hard to find the right balance for transparency. But it is working well: see below examples on how Singapore’s stamp is changing depending on whom managed to occupy the city ;)

Hi ! First of all, I am new here, so apologies if I do anything wrong ;)

I wanted to share (a draft - low resolution) of my custom map for the anniversary edition (that I never saw or played). The original is a 155 cm diameter vector file - which is the size of my round table. I am planning to print it soon on neoprene, but wanted to check for eventual feedbacks before ;)

Despite Europe being already slightly oversized, the territories there are still quite small. Not smaller than the original though, so I guess it could do the job. I wanted to do it as historically accurate I could (with a focus on spring 1942, but the 1941 scenario can still be played in principle), so some territories are further splitted with dot lines - for cosmetic purposes only. Oh yeah, and it is labelled in French, apologies for that.

I wanted to keep it as close as possible to the original game, not to hamper the balance. Nevertheless, I made some changes that I hope don’t change much. In a nutshell :

• Changed names of many territories, just for fun (and/or accuracy)
• East Poland became Ukraine and Ukraine became Crimea, so I switched the IPC value between them to keep 2 IPC in Ukraine.
• Eastern Ukraine got an access to Azov sea. Planning to set a Kerch Straight rule with the need to own Caucasus to enter Azov sea (making this access pretty useless).
• Sea zones 15 and 16 are not connected (which should be irrelevant with Dardanelles rule).
• Panama is not connected to East Coast (no way to do that on a real map !) - but I don’t see how it would really impact the game.
• Himalaya and Sahara are not territories anymore, but replaced by a black line forbidding access (which should give exactly the same result) - added also Alps to restrict access between Italy and Germany without cheating with Switzerland’s size.
• Added a couple of additionnal neutrals (again without any in-game effects).
• Added Guianas as extra UK territory (but a 0 IPC territory on that corner of the map should really change anything)
  All the rest is purely cosmetic OR room for optional house rules (not yet fully decided - can discuss them separately if anyone is interested) - but can be ignored to play the genuine game. For example Free French territories are by default administered by UK.

One last thing I am wondering about is SZ 26 (very ugly) - is it really used ? Can it really make any changes ? Otherwise I’d like to get rid of it.

Glad to read any kind of feedbacks if it inspires anyone ;)

@barnee Thank you :)

No I haven’t uploaded it yet, but I shared the files with some people. There are still a lot of details to clean (it’s endless…)

I am developping two games using the same map, “Ironclad” and “Fall Blau” (further modded, with a reviewed units roster) - so the name on the map is very generic, with the idea that the name of the version will be displayed dinamically below. But this is still WIP.

Very interesting post, thank you for sharing.

I was independently “brainstorming” on some of those changes for my own map (https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39054/custom-map-for-aa50) with the same questionning (@vodot “how many map changes can happen to AA50 before it becomes a totally different game?”).

For info, here are the changes I already incorporated from your list:

• Australia split West 1 - East 2 (not sure yet about IPC values)
• Italian East Africa
• Malaya split off from FICT
• Cairo and Singapore added as VCs (like them to be 20 in total)
• Turkish border extended north of Bosporus
• Greece (1) split off from Balkans (2)
• Morocco (1) split off from Morocco Algeria (1)
• Caspian SZ ;)

Now additional changes I am considering (feedbacks are welcome):

• Danemark (1) split off from Northwestern Europe (Belgium/Netherlands 2) and Danish Straits rule
• Irak (1) and Syria (1) split off from Transjordan (1) --> Stop blitzing into India from Sinai !
• Thailand (1) split off from FICT
• Nigeria (1) and Gold Coast (0) split off from French West Africa
• Korea split off from Manchuria
• Guianas (0) as a (mostly useless) British territory in South America

Some of those are also thought to accommodate the option to play with Vichy/Free France HR (hence the need of having Syria/FIC/West Africa as separate territories).

@Black_Elk Great, that’s exactly what I had in mind ;)

I think it is possible to find what is the exact minimal ratio to minimize the empty space on the right. And I already have some ideas on what to put there. It’s great how sometimes technical constrains give you the opportunity to develop nice stuff!

@jkprince thank you for your interest ;)

If you send me an e-mail address or alike, I’d be glad to share the folder for a “beta-version”

@goekawar, well, yes. But I suppose you can identify most of the names, can’t you?

Hello,

I would like to understand better how this rule is usually applied by experienced players:

Before the general sea battle takes place, both attacking and defending submarines can choose to either make a Surprise Strike die roll or submerge. A player may choose to submerge all, some, or none of his or her submarines.

Clear. But practically speaking, I would expect:

• the rule never to be enforced for attacking subs (otherwise what is the purpose to bring them into the battle?)
• the rule to be applied for defending subs only if no other defending units, because the ability to be used as canon fodder and save better/more expensive units always prevail otherwise (unless the battle is so dramatically hopeless that it is clearly wiser to save at least the subs).
• the option of submerging only some of the subs never to be used (cannot figure out a situation where it could be an interesting choice)

Or are there other parameters/situations I’ve not considered for this rule to exist?

And side-question about TripleA: the engine doesn’t give the option to partially submerge, right? Are there players still enforcing this option? And how?

Thanks!

The Commonwealth

The Commonwealth can be added as a separate player from the United Kingdom. It comprises Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (6 territories, 10 IPCs), as well as the territory of Papua (no IPC value). It will never grow bigger than that, as Commonwealth troops conquer new territories on behalf of UK. It has no capital and can produce units as long as it controls at least one of its core territories. It has no factories and cannot build any, but units can be placed on any core territory (and adjacent sea zones) with the limitation of 1 unit per IPC value of the territory.

The Commonwealth play first in the game (before the Japanese), which may well upset the usual opening strategies of Germany and Japan.

New Zealand has been buffed with a fighter and a cruiser… But they are so far… (newly added Sea Zone 66 is partially out of the board)

Billion Dollar Gift
Each round, before Purchase phase, the Commonwealth can decide EITHER to give ALL their IPCs to the United Kingdom (who can use it directly during their turn) OR to use them for national production.

Save the Empire
If London falls to the Axis, and if the Commonwealth still controls at least one of its victory cities (Ottawa or Sydney), they collect additional IPCs for all territories still controlled by UK at the end of their turn. This money can be used to produce units (but the same restrictions regarding placement of units apply).

If London is later liberated, money collection reverts to normal rules.

@shadowhawk Thank you!

This is one of the reasons I don’t really like games with politics, because it creates or allows “weird” situations and tactics that hamper (to my very personal opinion) the relative “purity” of the game’s mechanics.

The reason why I asked this question is that I am struggling a lot when playtesting my custom map on TripleA with some of these “side” rules. Meaning that I can create very rare situations that my game cannot handle . So trying to go deeper in the rules to understand when these kind of situations may happen (with the hope to find ways around). Currently, the problems are with:

• Players starting with enemy sea units in the same sea zone (what I asked above)
• transport starting the turn already loaded (and on my way I seem to have discovered a bug in TripleA with them)

@SuperbattleshipYamato fully agree about subs, but they are part of my headache as well, hence the mention

Anyway, just sharing.

Thanks!

Hello,

The rules give the following example:

For example, an enemy may have built new sea units in a sea zone where you have ships.

I am trying to make a complete list of the situations when a player starts the Combat Move in a Sea Zone with enemy units:

• Just after war declaration (can be any Sea Units on both sides, but happens only once in the game)
• with a submarine that was attacked during enemy turn (alone or as the only survivor of a bigger fleet) and managed to submerge.
• with a submarine or a naval transport that were ignored during enemy Combat or Noncombat Move.
• with any ship and an enemy submarine that attacked and submerged, OR moved into during Noncombat Move (this doesn’t make the Sea Zone hostile and thus doesn’t allow to move to a friendly Sea Zone during Combat Move)
• …

Do I miss anything?

Thanks

@Krieghund Thank you for these clarifications ;)

In between, I re-read all the complex rules about transports and submarines interactions and understood my mistake. And also understood that the above-described situation is a result of all these rules that is not easy to avoid without adding a lot of complexities and exceptions.

Nevertheless I persist to think that this is a loophole which exists to keep the rules coherent and “simple” (as perfectly described by @shadowhawk), not something intended for the richness of the interactions.

Or one should explain to me why (out of which principle), in the situation described above, the rules allow:

• On one hand to perform both a full scale amphibious assault (let’s say) into Western Australia with the transport+Java units and a sea battle against the sneaking sub
• But force to choose, on the other hand, between a “simple” reinforcement of the Philippines and attacking the sub.

(I am discussing these points because I find them interesting, not because I have any pretensions against the game rules or its developers - Please don’t get me wrong)

@surfer Thank you, very interesting.

It doesn’t exactly answer my questions, but still.

So to summarize (or rephrase) about your example:

• the initial plan is not blocked: it is still allowed to ignore the sub in SZ 42 during CM, and to load the Java unit and offload it to Philippines during NCM (sub don’t make a SZ hostile, so loading is allowed)
• but the japanese sub cannot be attacked (neither by warships in SZ 42, nor by neighboring fleets) without cancelling the transport’s ability to follow the plan (non-combat amphibious move)

Is that correct? And additionally, this all becomes irrelevant if the allies transport already carries units, right? (in that case, it can move during CM to avoid the battle with sub, and offload during NCM)

Sorry to say that this all sounds like an exploit… None of the detailed steps are - per se - forbidden by the rules. But the total manoeuver is disrupted because of its chronology - most probably not something that was initially intended.

@shadowhawk Thank you, it makes (some kind of) sense for convoy raids.

Nevertheless, the rule is phrased exactly the same in other versions of the game (Anniversary, and most probably 1942, hence I haven’t checked the later) whilst they don’t have convoy rules.

So I remain puzzled.

But the main reason why I don’t know well these rules and their applications is that in my limited experience, if there is another ship, then it is a destroyer in 90% of the cases, and then the rule doesn’t apply at all.

@Cernel said in A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules:

Thanks for the clarification.

because the simple fact that no air can land before the current Noncombat Move phase

I remember looking long and hard for an exception to this statement in the anniversary rules, precisely because of this wording (that I interpreted as an evidence that there were cases when planes landed before NCM).

But fair enough.

@Cernel said in A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules:
I would be interested to know the answer to your question. And additionally, I have always been confused by this wording:

unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere

As the rules state that Retreating air units remain in the contested space temporarily, I don’t understand how they could have landed already. Shouldn’t it be:

unless the air unit can safely land elsewhere

?

Hello,

I would like to understand better how this rule is usually applied by experienced players:

Before the general sea battle takes place, both attacking and defending submarines can choose to either make a Surprise Strike die roll or submerge. A player may choose to submerge all, some, or none of his or her submarines.

Clear. But practically speaking, I would expect:

• the rule never to be enforced for attacking subs (otherwise what is the purpose to bring them into the battle?)
• the rule to be applied for defending subs only if no other defending units, because the ability to be used as canon fodder and save better/more expensive units always prevail otherwise (unless the battle is so dramatically hopeless that it is clearly wiser to save at least the subs).
• the option of submerging only some of the subs never to be used (cannot figure out a situation where it could be an interesting choice)

Or are there other parameters/situations I’ve not considered for this rule to exist?

And side-question about TripleA: the engine doesn’t give the option to partially submerge, right? Are there players still enforcing this option? And how?

Thanks!

@jkprince indeed 🙂

Thank you both for your interest!

@barnee Thank you :)

No I haven’t uploaded it yet, but I shared the files with some people. There are still a lot of details to clean (it’s endless…)

I am developping two games using the same map, “Ironclad” and “Fall Blau” (further modded, with a reviewed units roster) - so the name on the map is very generic, with the idea that the name of the version will be displayed dinamically below. But this is still WIP.