[AA50/Anniversary] Modular Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!

[Argothair]

@vodot Sure, that all makes sense to me. There’s no in-game reason to separate the wheat and oil resources if they’re both just +1 IPC, unless you happen to have all the different resource tokens lying around and you’re looking for an excuse to play with your toys…not that there’s anything wrong with that. :)

I favor the preemptive raising of 1 chinese infantry that stops blitzes – tanks have no business blitzing through the dirt trails over the forested mountains of central China in any case. And it helps to suggest the omnipresence of chinese irregulars and partisans and half-trained regiments that were constantly rising up to resist Japanese occupation. Possibly some rejiggering of the territory borders would still be useful in addition to the guerillas; I’ll chew on it.

I think the answer to the VC issue is just to say that there’s a new threshold for Axis/Allies to win the game, and the number is not necessarily the same number. No reason you couldn’t require, e.g., 16 VP for Allied win and 12 VP for Axis win (or whatever the correct numbers turn out to be after you’ve chosen your victory cities).

[vodot]

@argothair RE: Wheat, well, I do happen to have the resource tokens lying around. :) But rules-wise, totally - they would both want to just fall under a “Resources” heading with identical simple mechanics, like:

---

Resources (optional rule)

Securing special resources like oil, wheat, iron, and rubber was crucial to the war effort for every belligerent power. Territories where these special Resources were particularly abundant are marked on the map with a corresponding symbol or figure.

During the “Collect Income” phase of your turn, each Resource you control grants you +1 additional IPC.

Resources do not increase the number of units that can be mobilized in a particular territory, and they cannot be moved or destroyed by any power.

---

RE: China, I’ll try the ‘guerillas/no blitz’ rule in my next solo game, along with the ‘Version 3’ map above.

RE: VCs, I agree different thresholds is fine and totally historical.

I may also try adding a Siberian territory and re-jiggering those IPC levels as well. Buryatia goes to 2 for Vladivostok and lend-lease, and maybe Far East stays at 1, but the rest could be zeroed out in favor of the Ukrainian resources discussed above, or a boost to Archangel for lend-lease?

I love convoy rules, of course, but I think that’s too much for AA50.

[Argothair]

@vodot Yeah, zeroing out Siberia is another one of those hard design choices that you have to make at this level of complexity. On the one hand, it’s cold and snowy and thinly populated and you want the map to reflect that in a way that’s clear to new wargamers. It’s no good having Yakutsk generate more income then, e.g., Yugoslavia.

On the other hand, the Soviets did relocate most of their industry to the Urals as the war went on, and much of that industry was fueled by mines and workshops in Siberia. They didn’t put all their millions of prisoners in the gulag just to be cruel; they were also mostly doing work vital to the war effort, I believe.

If you squint you can say that Moscow + Urals + Kazakhstan together cover the cities like Kuibyshev and Perm and Chelyabinsk where all that Ural manufacturing was taking place, but it seems to me that at least some of that industry was really in the Siberian part of the AA50 map. Perhaps more to the point, if the Axis conquer Moscow and Stalingrad then there is really nothing important left in the Soviet income, which is very ahistorical. In real life something like 40% of Soviet economy was in Moscow/Stalingrad and points west, but on the AA50 map it’s closer to 80%. Zeroing out Siberia would make that even worse.

[vodot]

@argothair working on a Soviet reimagining now. What I really want to get to is a SZ redraw to put islands between, not within, SZs. All of this makes me wonder if you ever got much further on your middleweight map… * reads thread * OMG you released it and I missed it!

I think that project is awesome and I want to steer clear of it’s much grander scope, but I will definitely leverage some of your SZs for an attempted AA50 redraw. Honestly, your Pacific and Indian Oceans look pretty germane to AA50 already.

[vodot]

@argothair here’s a china update; this moves Chinghai to where it actually belongs (by splitting Ningxia in two), and then adds Xinjiang and Tibet in the West by splitting what was previously Chinghai. Net of +2 chinese TTs. Manchu-Xinjiang and FICT-Tibet distances (across-the-top and across-the-bottom) remain 3, but the FICT-Xinjiang diagonal is now 4, at least. The +2 TTs means an extra infantry for two turns or more, and gives a “corner” where Xinjiang is adjacent to both Novo and Kazakh + three last-ditch Chinese TTs.

[Argothair]

@vodot Majestic. I think that’s the best anyone can do while retaining the spirit and overall contours of the AA50 map. :)

[vodot]

UPDATE: Added a version 4 full map with China, Rio, Cape Town, and Siberia changes. Also tweaked the Aleutians to visually justify giving them an IPC=1 to match the rest of the pacific.

[Argothair]

@vodot Gorgeous! I love the way the Aleutians bridge the two sea zones and have a land connection to Alaska. Really gives the Japanese a reason to play in the north Pacific – not only can you now realistically capture a total of 3 IPCs, but the Aleutian landing zone poses a danger that fighters built in Tokyo can land on carriers, while fighters taking off from carriers can land in the Aleutians – in other words, if America loses the Aleutians, they might also lose control of the San Diego sea zone. Chef’s kiss

[vodot]

UPDATE: added Overlays 16 & 17 to post #1

• NW China changes
• Add Rio and Cape Town as VCs

I also redrew the Burma Road (#15) and added an improved overlay.

[vodot]

UPDATE: in the first post, I’ve now added some ‘before’, ‘after’, and in-process pics of printing and applying the overlays :)

[conquisitore]

I combined your map and the AA50 Academy Edition by Grasshopper to get this version of the game. Not tested yet, but already printed.

The multiple options for IPC values just reflect the work in progress nature of the map. Ultimately I would like to have a setup and map that allows multiple strategies for each side with equal opportunity.

[reloader-1]

@vodot

Nate, could I ask a huge favor - could you edit the Version 4 map file for me and remove all of the RCs? No other changes, I’d like to print it out but without those as a very nice vendor on Etsy (ummm… you!) made me a buttload of 3d printed pieces :)

[vodot]

@reloader-1 said in [AA50] Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!:

@vodot

Nate, could I ask a huge favor - could you edit the Version 4 map file for me and remove all of the RCs? No other changes, I’d like to print it out but without those as a very nice vendor on Etsy (ummm… you!) made me a buttload of 3d printed pieces :)

Added Version 5 (no RCs or TSR) to the second post above. Thanks and enjoy!

[Imperious Leader]

@vodot Can we begin on a 1942 map based on the Beamdog style or at a minimum the OOB map?

You do know the greatest benefit to mankind will be not AA50, but the main title of the franchise 42.2

[vodot]

@Imperious-Leader Yes, that would be a worthy successor project.

[Erocco]

The map looks great, I love the changes especially interested on V5, gives you more content and options, hopefully a bit more balance from the anniversary oob map and setup. Are you working on a revised setup? Have you tested this map?

[Azimuth]

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).

[Argothair]

@Azimuth My personal philosophy is that an AA50-style map should aim to incorporate additional territories if and only if they’re needed to improve the functionality of the game.

So, splitting Iraq off from Trans-Jordan to avoid blitzing from Trans-Jordan directly to India…sounds great; that’s an important change that helps provide a richer game that adequately separates the Middle East theater from the South Asian theater. Splitting Syria off as well…I don’t quite see the need. Yes, Syria is fun to have, but it is not obvious that it changes the gameplay. Sure, Syria is part of the Vichy French network, but it’s not like Vichy France becomes unplayable without Syria. You can just add a French infantry to Trans-Jordan or something like that, and you get close enough.

Similarly, splitting off Nigeria makes sense because the British really did have significant holdings in west Africa, and if you just color the entire region as French then that’s a gross oversimplification. However, splitting off Gold Coast as well adds very little additional value. It’s not worth any money. What does having a Gold Coast let the British do that they can’t already do just by having Nigeria? How does Gold Coast change the strategy of the game?

Of course it’s historically defensible to add all these extra territories in, but if you add in every historically justifiable territory then the map will wind up looking more like Global than AA50. Still potentially fun, but you’re aiming at a different target; the game ceases to function as a medium weight map. Just my two cents.

[Azimuth]

@Argothair, thank you, very valid points and philosophy. I fully agree.

• Gold Coast makes an allied territory bordering SZ 17 in case FWA is Vichy (and plays the role Bathurst (in Gambia) played in the Battle of the Atlantic)
• Syria can be given back to free France without cutting UK from the Mediterranean (if Egypt is lost)
• Thailand can work as the “initially controlled by Japanese” territory for NO, when FIC and Malaya obviously don’t

But these are very weak arguments, and probably off the scope of this post (which was proposing minor enhancements to the original map).

This will definitely fuel my thoughts, thanks !

[vodot]

@Azimuth @Argothair
Love the discussion & would love to look at a French recolor on some TTs and some splits per your ideas, Azimuth, to both enhance vanilla and also potentially accommodate the addition of France. Like Argo says I’m skeptical it’s possible in a way that retains middleweight status while adding strategic options and fun, but let’s find out!

That balance is crazy difficult to achieve and I think AA50 pulls off something of a unicorn in accomplishing it. Want to keep this thread firmly in that worldview.