I like the setup information for Axis and Allies Global Second Edition 1939 and was wondering if there is a setup for the global game for 1936 which include the Italian - Ethiopian conflict, or if there is global setup starting in 1937 which would primarily include China and Japan?
AARHE 1939 Edition
-
I think Flashman’s point is that since the game is starting out at 1939, Germany is already father away from Moscow. And the whole game is going to be different. The map that was play tested was based off 1942 not 1939. It may actually be a more balanced game if Moscow is moved one space closer to Germany. As it is, Germany is the same distance away as Japan is from Moscow in terms of spaces.
Perhaps play testing needs to be done on this map to determine if Moscow is in the right spot. I would hate to see the game turn into a battle of Japan vs Russia. Because if there are less units in the East, the axis may have a much better chance of winning the game if Japan dukes it out with Russia and Germany just fights off France and UK.
Either way the game is going to be a lot different from starting in 1939 to 1942.
-
Yea i see that point coming… but i intend to make the rules to be able to be used with many scenarios… not only 1939. I can now make 1940-44 scenarios all changing positions on setups. I suspect the Germans will have some compensation to be able to move forward so that the position of Moscow will be perfect. ( hence I will time the material advantages to allow for this to happen or as Tekkyy would say “to model it”
I always prefer to model the flow of the game by the rules rather than the map.
-
ok new version. Many aesthetic changes going into this.
please PNG.
-
As a history buff I want Moscow to be right where it is in Revised ed., even if Flashy dont like it. Western Europe had railroads and highways and it was easy to move. Russia had bad dirt-roads and lot of marshes and forests and snow, and this is best representet in giving Russia lots of territories wich will boog down movements of an attacking army.
Russia need 3 factories. If the total of placement is 12 units a turn, I would do it like this.
- Caucasus was the heavy industrial complex, and also the big oil source. Give it 4 IPC.
- Volga area too, located between Moscow and Ural, was a heavy industrial complex. This is the traditional Russia, give it 6 IPC.
- Leningrad, as named Karelia in Revised, also was a big industrial complex with lots of ship yards. Give it 2 IPC.
All territories between Moscow and Japan should be cut in two and double the range between this two antagonists.
Also Caucasus shold be split, and the southern part be mountains.
-
adlertag can you see the map? you got adobe viewer downloaded?
-
I found out that my computer came all along with an adobe viewer.
Interesting changes IL. I miss the nice circle things with the number inside. As from what I can see I only see the numbers. Perhaps it is my adobe viewer.
I like the Moscow zone split.
Not sure what the Oil Rigs are for but they look pretty good.
Everything looks good. I expect IPC values will be added in due time.
Keep up the good work.
-
the numbers have circles… i am not sure why you dont see them, but adobe does have problems. I will change IPC to reflect Mark Harrisons book “the economics of WW2” which is the bible for these things.
Oil will allow for plunder and lack of control of them may effect movement of specific units. Something allowing for bombing of these exceeding the value of the territory (double probably or by D6) I would like both Japan and Germany to try to get these places for economic reasons to model the reasons why they made blunders.
azores will allow possibly german bombers the ability to bomb texas oil . control will be important.
-
I think Flashman’s point is that since the game is starting out at 1939, Germany is already father away from Moscow. And the whole game is going to be different. The map that was play tested was based off 1942 not 1939. It may actually be a more balanced game if Moscow is moved one space closer to Germany. As it is, Germany is the same distance away as Japan is from Moscow in terms of spaces.
Perhaps play testing needs to be done on this map to determine if Moscow is in the right spot. I would hate to see the game turn into a battle of Japan vs Russia. Because if there are less units in the East, the axis may have a much better chance of winning the game if Japan dukes it out with Russia and Germany just fights off France and UK.
Either way the game is going to be a lot different from starting in 1939 to 1942.
Thanks, that was exactly my point. I assumed that the map was intended specifically for a 1939 scenario, but a “one map fits all” version is a different ballgame.
However for all sorts of reasons I still think Moscow should be where it really is:
1. I hate the boring and predictable German/Japanese “race to Moscow” playout that dominates standard games.
2. It places the Soviet player in a totally unhistorical position strategically. Moscow WAS this close to Germany; it’s up to the designer to solve this problem by looking at what happened in the real war; altering geography is cheating in my book.
They actually solved the problem by moving a huge amount of industry to the Urals, Kuzbas and Kazakhstan, out of range of German attacks. This meant that even if the principle line of Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad had fallen, the USSR could still have fought on from their eastern provinces and still produce huge quantities of tanks and aircraft.
I think the solution of moving MOSCOW hundreds of miles east which “Larry’s Gang” came up with is based on the assumption that you absolutely HAVE to have the “capture the capitol with the capital” rule which to me seems so outdated for WWII.
Remove the c-t-c rule (which most people seem to want modifying at least) and the loss of Moscow becomes less decisive and so the city can be safely placed in it’s correct location without breaking the game.My map has 5 Soviet ICs: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kharkov and Chelyabinsk. The later is the Urals centre which replaces the unhistorical Moscow, Kharkov (or Kiev if you prefer) represents the huge industry of Ukraine; in a 1939 scenario the Urals centre can be deleted but give the Russians the option of transporting this complex east. In 1942 it is of course German occupied, however I never allow players to use enemy complexes.
3. On a more historical map, Japan just isn’t going to get to Moscow that easily; mountainous and forested terrain, and numerous small Chinese territories would likely wear them down. That means that Moscow really has to be attainable for the European Axis, and placing it in the Urals just about destroys this, especially for a pre-1942 game.
Latest map:
Rio de O looks much better where it is, but my suggestion was that it should border Algeria/Morocco to allow units to move down the west African coast (it was known as Western Sahara for a time). Depends on how you interpret “passable”; does being a coastal territory (even though mainly desert) make it passable to land units because they’d get support from navy off-shore?
If it doesn’t link Alg-FWA RdO would still be a redundant area.You’ve called Gold coast Nigeria; the latter would be in the south-west of the FEA territory.
Where to place other oil fields?
Burma, East Indies, Borneo, Caucasus, Trans-Jordan (Iraq) would be the obvious ones, I don’t think there was significant extraction in north Africa at this time. Saudi? Mexico?Am I correct in assuming that the two Central USA parts are actually one territory?
Couple of reminders:
Libya (spelling)
French Roundel (red and blue need reversing) -
Remove the c-t-c rule (which most people seem to want modifying at least) and the loss of Moscow becomes less decisive and so the city can be safely placed in it’s correct location without breaking the game.
AARHE never uses that rule. In fact none of my games created since the beginning have this concept. Only france, Italy, and Germany have various degrees of effect when a the capital falls. I am not changing any roundels. forget it. Rio De Oro will not be changed a second time.
Also, AARHE does not support victory conditions that would allow Japan to attack moscow. They have national victory conditions to satisfy. Read AARHE > if people however want to play normal OOB then they can do that with this map.
And the map is in fact an “everything scenario”. I don’t like people having to waste money on different maps for each year. The modules will allow for different set ups.
Keeping India in one because it weakens it to break it up and its important for UK to protect the middle east oil.
considering making Germany into east/west but still don’t want to make territories too small. I could make a dotted line which basically says (its one territory but if the allies invade they can take just one half)
I don’t agree with this idea that if the western half of Soviet Union falls “they keep fighting w/o missing a beat” that is bogus reasoning. If they lost those 3 cities/territories they would cease to be a real major power and resort to something that was going on in China also with no effective military presence. Your quite wrong in that approach.
England would continue to fight in Canada but also with limited effectiveness.
france is france and surrenders when the wind blows too strong
Italy is the same…just add a full day of bad wind
-
ok using France as a base figure ( i think they have a perfect IPC level of 17)
we have this according to Harrison:
Germany 32 currently at 12 need 20 more
Italy 13 currently at 8 need 5 more
Soviets 31 currently at 34 need -3
France 17 at 17 good
Japan 16 currently at 14 need +2
UK 24 currently at 32 -8
USA 74 currently at 38 need lots at 36
China 7 goodok where to add and subtract???
ideas>
-
I think this is more playable
POWER ….WARMAKING POTENTIAL
USA- 42 %
Germ- 15 %
USSR- 14 %
UK- 10 %
Fran- 4%
Jap- 3.5 %
Italy - 2.5 %
others- 10 % -
I mistakenly added in dutch interests as the french base figure giving france 17 instead of 12… thus the divider is GNP divided by 16.58 ( using france at 12 IPC as my base figure) then i get
Soviets at 34
France 12
Dutch 10
Japan 12
Germany 24
Italy 9
Uk 27
USA 52 ( rounded down to 50)Soviets collect 17 IPC till turn 3 due to 5 year plan growth investment during peacetime and reorganize military industrial complex.
USA collect no income before turn 4 except they can loan 10 to UK each turn starting on turn 2
and a total of 20 to UK/Soviets starting on turn 4.USA income goes to 60 on turn 6 and 70 on turn 8
Soviets must maintain an eastern garrison until turn 4 (siberian army)
Japan cant attack Russia unless Moscow/and or Caucasus is captured and Soviet cannot attack Japanese occupied territories until Berlin is captured.
Under this model given actual Japanese and German/Italian historical conquests Japan will be at 30 and German Italian at about 51 = 81 while allies are about 47+32+26= 115 which is a difference of 34 which is about the same in revised= Balanced.
I am going to make more changes including stretching the map 12 inches to allow greater aesthetic of Pacific and Atlantic oceans to allow a better feel for naval battles. I may add another island group in pacific, but will try to keep all sea zones the same.
I will have a finished draft tonight. ( 4-5 hours or less)
-
@Imperious:
I am not changing any roundels. forget it.
Oh, dear. Just when I thought we were getting some sense, we get the very essence of lunk-headed bigotry. This is not an opinion, it’s plain simple fact: the French roundle has a blue centre and red outer ring. It always has. There is not one solitary good or ever defensible reason for NOT changing it, other than idiotically saying “I’m right, you’re wrong and that’s the end of it whatever the evidence”.
So we have:
France using the British roundel,
Fascist Italy using the post 1943 ALLIED roundel,
USSR using a fictional hotch-potch copyright Milton Bradley 1984As far as “Historical” is concerned I give up. It’s your map, do what you like. Just make it pretty.
Oh, and if your going to stretch the map consider the central strip - look at how squashed Kazakhstan is compared to a real map.
-
updates:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8gxy2hoaylt
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=42811bjy1yz
Big decision was made on adding a sea zone and accommodating Iceland. I dont want USA to be able to invade france from New York. (its now 3 spaces away forcing them to stage in England first)
However like in History they can invade Africa in the same turn from New York
The compensation for this will be to allow transports movement of 3 if moving to friendly territories (NCM)
so it wont trouble Americans too much.
I am going with flags to help get flashman off my back.
-
Looking good.
Just one question. How did you figure France to be making almost twice the amount that Italy is in terms of ICPs? Just wondering because I always thought that they were around the same. Perhaps this is due to a game balancing issue of some sort. Please enlighten me.
-
1939 numbers :
france 199
Italy 151Conversion 16.58 giving us 12 for france and 9 to Italy.
France lost a bunch of stuff to the Dutch that was figured in accidentally ( actually i was lumping them together but this is not correct).
see recent map file coming up.
-
-
I miss the nice circle things with the number inside. As from what I can see I only see the numbers. Perhaps it is my adobe viewer.
As mentioned earlier, acrobat reader won’t handle layers prefectly.
I’ll keep posting PNGs.@Imperious:
hence I will time the material advantages to allow for this to happen or as Tekkyy would say “to model it”
To clarify I like to model things so we do historic simulation, yet not historic replay.
@Imperious:
considering making Germany into east/west but still don’t want to make territories too small.
Yeah I would be against splitting Germany any further.
@Imperious:
Soviets collect 17 IPC till turn 3 due to 5 year plan growth investment during peacetime and reorganize military industrial complex.
USA collect no income before turn 4 except they can loan 10 to UK each turn starting on turn 2
and a total of 20 to UK/Soviets starting on turn 4.USA income goes to 60 on turn 6 and 70 on turn 8
Keeping in mind of AARHE income rules…it would be more practical to specify which territory takes the gains.
Are we going to do the peace time vs. war time thing with Russia?
Probably want to model Germany’s economic rationalisation too in addition to US.
@Imperious:
Soviets must…
Japan cant…We are putting in new income numbers from Harrison. We even have oil rigs.
Sure we can model the historic reasons resulting in it being unreasonable for Russia and Japan to duke it out in the game.
Prefer that then hard rules.@Imperious:
Big decision was made on adding a sea zone and accommodating Iceland. I dont want USA to be able to invade france from New York. (its now 3 spaces away forcing them to stage in England first)
Wait a minute. I don’t think you can invade Western Europe from Eastern US in OOB.
Giving Australia “mountainous” is probably unrealistic. I think at 3 territories its overly split up.
Why the new SZ? Are you trying to make it harder to going from Alaska to Far East? Otherwise realistically you would decrease the number of SZ to 1 not increase it to 3?
Why is Sahara that colour? Is it just desert?
What are we trying to do with Nigeria?
-
20070919 PNG version (50dpi this time)
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3660/20070919aarhe1939ds5.pngPut date in front of filename. Better than “copy copy copy copy copy copy.ai”. Yes you are up to 6 now lol.
I see you have a new North America continent.
And you want to do more in the Pacific.
I think you are half way to making a new map (as I sugguested earlier) anyway.Low-res PNG this time. Can you slice away the unwanted bits of the new North America continent. It just nudged it over the max dimensions. The big white box still gets exported…unless there is a way to set print-area or export-area…
-
Those flags look good, but the Japanese flag is the naval ensign - the national flag is a plain red disc on white.
http://www.atlasgeo.net/fotw/flags/index.html
Widening the oceans also makes the board look more like a real map of the world. But if you can’t reach France from Washington should you be able to reach England? I made my map so that transports are forced to either rest in mid-Atlantic (giving the U-boats a fighting chance) or take the longer northern route using Greenland/Iceland.
A quick point about the distortion: making Europe larger but not Africa is what causes the wierd shape to Trans-Jordan and the rather pinched look of south France. In the end I decided to widen Africa as well to make the map look better, and after all a lot of action can take place in north Africa. It’s a question of having enough room on the projection you choose to have (note the drastic solution of “struggle” where south Africa is shrunk to nothing.)
Suggested Topics
