@HHFrenchRepublic12
The conceit in “East & West” is that minor powers just bond to a major power, once they become active in the war. So, what I had suggested was that France would become part of Western Europe, and the Arab League would become part of the UK, if/when they’re at war with the USSR.
It just keeps things a lot cleaner, in terms of not having to reinvent the turn order, and other stuff which might add overhead.
Axis and Allies Complete
-
On previous versions I included icons for mountainous regions and winter weather, but boy did IL not like that!
Because you only need rules to outline this in your rule set rather than delineate where weather effects each territory…(e.g. say all territories in Soviet Union and Scandinavia are effected by snow…etc.)
If you have too many ports in your game you can say… all territories have a major port as long as they also have a printed IPC value and are in non-snow effected sea zones and territories.
That would remove the need for 1,000 port tokens. I do notice you made efforts to remove the aesthetic of the tokens color so that it blends better with the map.
This is also part of playability aspect because the difference is doing it both ways is so marginal as to render the difference negligible.
-
It possible I may delete the ports altogether in the future. For the moment I want to keep options open, for example the possibility that ships may only be built in ports, with only one per port per turn so that the number becomes critical. I agree that each territory should have port facilities for refueling, but the bases are meant as places ships can take refuge from air attacks and avoid naval combat, which clearly cannot apply to any territory. Somewhere like Borneo may be worth a lot, but I don’t believe it had a naval base of much use. The placement of some ports over a seazone boundary is deliberate; a ship can enter the base and leave into either seazone covered by the base.
-
Ah yeah I recall now how you said the map is a schematic. In that case lets do the polishing and make a print version.
I didn’t check about the island sizes. Just wondering what system you had in place.
Definitely a stacking limit. No sky scrappers on islands hehe. An airstrip compared to facilities for an infantry division isn’t that big after all so airstrip doesn’t say enough. And these miniature airstrips better not whole 5 air division too haha.
Desert rules? Combat? Occupying? I would make it costs IPC to stay in the desert.
I must add I am not too fond of standard axis and allies move/build structure for these relatively finely chopped up maps. As a quick fix I would increase unit costs multiple times to make the timeline reasonable.
In vector graphics you have layers. So you can add/remove/hide/unhide ports, terrain, or other layers effortlessly.
As a map artist you’ve gotta get into vector graphics. Its HEAVEN!!!
Ports…the tiny ports on islands probably can be built quickly? If thats the case we can say you can put up a port in X in one turn?
-
At one stage I experimented with drawing a “shallow area” surrounding each island group to ease unit placement, but I never got it to look right - perhaps you could make this work?
Oh like coral atolls in midway and wake island?
What was the issue you experienced? -
It just made the map more complicated and difficult to view. For something that’s really only decorative this can’t justify it’s inclusion.
Anyhow on reflection I’ve decided to do a terrain only map, with each specific scenario no longer featuring even desert terrain.
I wonder if AH or others have considered the possibility of a double-sided map with one side featuring terrain and maybe small national icons to indicate control, and the other side with territories in traditional national colours with perhaps small terrain icons.
-
Yeah not AH but at LH’s deluxue’s discussion forum some people were sugguesting double sided map.
Wasn’t for terrain though. It was say 3 games in a box. 2 maps turn over and join into a big map. -
Update on the main map
Terrain Map of the same
1940 Map; should USA be in yellow?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Why are you considering changing US to yellow?
Yeah I like getting rid of yellow neutrals. Yellow is a sharp colour not suitable for neutral imo.Oh and why do you give each country a (what are they called?) radial?
By the way, I thought Chinese Communist forces pre-1945 were only Guerillas.
-
It was just a crack about the US still being neutral. Hint - British irony.
I put the air force insignia for every air force active at the time on my maps. I just think it adds some colour, and after all there’s no real point in the original 5 “capital” roundels.
The distinction between Communist “Guerillas” and Nationalist “Regulars” is not I think so clear. The Communists or their Soviet-backed warlord Allies did control most of northern China. Certainly the influence of the KMT in these areas was negligible. And since the CCP can only raise infantry units anyway does the distinction matter that much?
-
Good looking map for the most part. Interesting to see if you make any more changes to it, or if this is the final thing.
-
I’ve just about run out of things to change. Of course I welcome any suggestions for improvement, but I really need to get on with a rules draft now. In particular, I need to decide what terrain effects to use.
-
Very beautiful! can i get or download them??
-
Yeah I like getting rid of yellow neutrals. Yellow is a sharp colour not suitable for neutral imo.
I agree. You really ought to consider switching the neutral and Japanese colors.
-
Nice map.
But why you spilt Saudi Arabia in 3 parts and not the balkans? -
4 year old discussion people. ;)
-
4 year old discussion people. ;)
No doubt. Doc Brown called, he wants his time machine back.
Suggested Topics
