Quick answer is that bids seem to keep going up with bids over 20 now common.
yes
just the dollar amount.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
@Baron:
@Baron:
Making Truk in Carolines Island a VCs with Anchorage VCs in 1942.2 might be more interesting in PTO.
2 VCs from ETO have to disappear, like Brazil and…Warsaw to keep 24 VCs?1942.2
Axis European VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies ETO VCs: Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cairo (Egypt), Cape Town (South Africa), Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila, Singapore (Malaya), Truk (Carolines Island)
Allies PTO VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, Anchorage (Alaska), Victoria (Western Canada), San Francisco.Axis: 9 VCs
Allies: 15 VCsAt 1 IPC per VC,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 5 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 8 IPCs
USA 4 IPCsTruk is interesting because it provides a few motives to make a kind of island hopping in PTO for USA.
Does 10 VTs in PTO (5 more VTs) providing Victory for Japan can work?
While 8 VTs in ETO (4 more VTs) providing victory conditions to Germany work?Sounds good to me.
@Imperious:
“Truk?
Mexico City?
Anchorage?
Santiago?
Buenos Aires?
Batavia??
Chelyabinsk???”
-ArgothairAstrakhan
Truk
Polesti
Baku
Oslo
Mosul
Dutch oil centersThese seem cool. Lets get the ideal list solution at 36 (with optimal substitutions) for G40.
Do another one at 24 for 1942.2. And get them to Barney so he can toggle us up.I think VT is probably easier for a draft, just going off the list of basic territory names. Where we end up putting the star or red dot, (like political capital or somewhere else etc) might be better left vague anyway, so some TTs can do double duty in terms of what exactly the VT represents, whether a city, or oilfield, or large network of military bases, whathaveyou.
The list I made (sans pro-side neutrals) is still really only 30 VCs, so I’m not opposed to 30 for a G40 spread if that seems better. Just thought 36 might allow for some cool flexibility with a couple more VCs that might not otherwise make the cut. Aiming high again
:-D -
I bumped it into this new page and make a reformat
@Baron:Making Truk in Carolines Island a VCs with Anchorage VCs in 1942.2 might be more interesting in PTO.
2 VCs from ETO have to disappear, like Brazil and…Warsaw to keep 24 VCs?1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies
Axis European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)Allies ETO VCs:
5-Washington (EUSA),
6-Ottawa (Eastern Canada),
7-London (UK),
8-Cairo (Egypt),
9-Cape Town (South Africa),
10-Moscow (Russia),
11-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
12- Stalingrad (Caucasus).Axis PTO VCs:
13-Tokyo (Japan),
14-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
15-Manila (Philippines),
16-Singapore (Malaya),
17-Truk (Carolines Island),Allies PTO VCs:
18-Calcutta (India),
19-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
20-Wellington (New Zealand),
21-Honolulu (Hawaii),
22-Anchorage (Alaska),
23-Victoria (Western Canada),
24-San Francisco (Western USA).Axis: 9 VCs
Allies: 15 VCsAt 1 IPC per VC or VT,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 5 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 8 IPCs
USA 4 IPCsTruk is interesting because it provides a few motives to make a kind of island hopping in PTO for USA.
And there is no Naval or Air Base in 1942.2Does 10 VTs in PTO (5 more VTs) providing Victory for Japan can work?
While 8 VTs in ETO (4 more VTs) providing victory conditions to Germany work?The idea is to simply double the set-up VTs.
Allies needs to capture one Capitale and have all their own three Capitals.
Or capture both Axis Capitale and still have one Allies Capital left.Maybe 5 is too much for Japan, 4 VTs can be enough?
(India, Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii)
(Hawaii, Alaska, Canada, San Francisco)
(Alaska, Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand)
Etc. -
Ok here is that G40 list from the other page with Yugoslavia sub’d out for Java (Jakarta). And Siam sub’d out for Carolines (Truk). Sofia sub’d for Szech (Chonqing).
Somehow I forgot that last in the initial count.Which one should we sub out for Alaska (Anchorage)?
Edit* sub’d out Rio.Feel free to cross out whatever seems off, and include a better substitution. Just trying to get something to give to Barney.
I just edited the original post while trying to quote it, so hopefully that doesn’t cause confusion in the future. But whatever. We’re just trying to make a good list! If you want to switch others around that’s cool too. Then we can start making maps! ILs Maps are already pretty legit for FtF play with this concept, since they have enlarged territories making a VC/VT marker easier to use without much crowding. But even the OOB board is pretty simple to put a small easy-lift sticker on.
In tripleA it will just be a button you activate in the tech menu, to drop more stars around the globe!
:-DAllies OOB:
1 UK (London)
2 Egypt (Cairo)
3 France (Paris)
4 Novgorod (Leningrad)
5 Volgograd (Stalingrad)
6 Russia (Moscow)
7 Ontario (Ottawa)
8 East US (Washington)9 India (Calcutta)
10 Kwangtung (Hong Kong)
11 Philippines (Manila)
12 New South Wales (Sydney)
13 Hawaii (Honolulu)
14 West US (San Francisco)Adding…
15 Szech (Chonqing)
16 U. South Africa (Cape Town)
17 Malaya (Singapore)
18 Amur (Vladivostok)
19 New Zealand (Wellington)
20 Western Canada (Victoria)
21 Algeria (Algiers)
22 Alaska (Anchorage)Axis OOB:
1 East Germany (Berlin)
2 Poland (Warsaw)
3 Southern Italy (Rome)
4 Kiangsu (Shanghai)
5 Japan (Tokyo)Adding…
6 Norway (Oslo)
7 Holland (Amsterdam)
8 Romania (Bucharest)
9 Libya (Tripoli)
10 Carolines (Truk)That’s 32 starting VCs, under Player Nation control (22 Allies vs 10 Axis).
Then you have the 4 Pro-Side VCs, that must be claimed.
Adding…Pro Axis Neutrals:
Finland (Helsinki)
Iraq (Baghdad)Pro Allies Neutrals:
Java (Jakarta)
Greece (Athens)For a total of 36 Victory Cities in all
-
My suggestion for Anchorage (Alaska):
Sub out: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)It is too out of the way for Italy or Germany.
And it remains within USA sphere. -
Ok ditched 2 neutrals, and made some substitutions above.
Right now we’re at
Allies 22
Axis 10
Neutrals 4Does this seem agreeable?
I suppose we could ditch 3 more neutrals and just keep Jakarta (since technically the Dutch are Allies.) But if we wanted some pro side VC action, that 4 seemed like an alright number, to get Finland, the Balkans, and Java up in the mix.
Or you don’t like 36, then just eliminate 6 from the list and we’ll go with 30. I’m game. Just really want to see the VC toggle in a gamefile that everyone can get behind hehe.
-
Ok ditched 2 neutrals, and made some subsituations above.
Right now we’re at
Allies 22
Axis 10
Neutrals 4Can you format a little more the list by Theater? ETO and PTO?
I count 16 in PTO and 20 in ETO.
ETO
Axis: 7 VTs
Pro-Axis: 2 VTs
Pro-Allies: 1 VT
Allies: 10 VTsPTO
Axis: 3 VTs
Pro-Allies: 1 VT
Allies: 12 VTsAllies OOB ETO 8 VTs:
1 UK (London)
2 Egypt (Cairo)
3 France (Paris)
4 Novgorod (Leningrad)
5 Volgograd (Stalingrad)
6 Russia (Moscow)
7 Ontario (Ottawa)
8 East US (Washington)Allies PTO 6 VTs:
9 India (Calcutta)
10 Kwangtung (Hong Kong)
11 Philippines (Manila)
12 New South Wales (Sydney)
13 Hawaii (Honolulu)
14 West US (San Francisco)Adding…
PTO Allies 6 VTs:
15 Szech (Chonqing)
16 Alaska (Anchorage)
17 Malaya (Singapore)
18 Amur (Vladivostok)
19 New Zealand (Wellington)
20 Western Canada (Victoria)ETO Allies 2 VTs:
21 Algeria (Algiers)
22 U. South Africa (Cape Town)Axis ETO OOB 3 VTs:
1 East Germany (Berlin)
2 Poland (Warsaw)
3 Southern Italy (Rome)Axis PTO OOB 2 VTs:
4 Kiangsu (Shanghai)
5 Japan (Tokyo)Adding…
Axis ETO 4 VTs:
6 Norway (Oslo)
7 Holland (Amsterdam)
8 Romania (Bucharest)
9 Libya (Tripoli)Axis PTO 1 VT:
10 Carolines (Truk)ETO Neutral 3 VTs:
Pro Axis Neutrals:
1- Finland (Helsinki)
2- Iraq (Baghdad)Pro Allies Neutrals:
3- Greece (Athens)Pro Allies Neutrals PTO 1 VT:
4-Java (Jakarta) -
Sure I can do that. First gotta grab the Misses from work though.
Meantime, another quick draft up. Nothing pretty to look at, just another blocky compressed screen cap from tripleA all dotted up haha. But least it gives a real quick impression visually.
I think I got em all in there. Trying to fly out the door!
Catch you guys in a few
:-D
-
Pretty clean. Shinny!!!
:-D -
It certainly feels like a more balanced spread, with more options for the ongoing give and take.
Since no one wants a game where Victory can be claimed in the first few rounds, I’d limit the VT count only to Nations at war. Or you could make it even more blanket, and just say that actual Victory cannot be claimed until you enter the fifth round of play (by which point everyone should already be a belligerent.) This preempts any issue of a break out sprint to instant victory, before the game even has a chance to materialize. So by the time everyone is at War, the two teams will have had a chance to settle into a more stable VT equilibrium, on either side of the board.
Oh and I misspelled Algeria. Made an edit correct above.
-
It’s an improvement! It will be fun to try out. I am a bit sad to see zero VCs in all of Central America and South America, but I don’t see any obvious candidates from your list that should be deleted to make room for Latin American VCs. If true neutral VCs would be a problem, one way to solve that would be to make Argentina a pro-Axis neutral…then you could put one VC in pro-Allied neutral Rio, one VC in pro-Axis neutral Buenos Aires, and you’d still have plenty of symmetry. Meanwhile, you’d make a Japanese push to the southeast that much more credible…take New Zealand, and then push on toward Argentina and then Brazil!
If 38 VCs seems like a weird number, you could add one in central Russia (Chelyabinsk, Omsk, etc.) and one in Yugoslavia (Belgrade) to get up to a nice round 40.
-
It certainly feels like a more balanced spread, with more options for the ongoing give and take.
Since no one wants a game where Victory can be claimed in the first few rounds, I’d limit the VT count only to Nations at war. Or you could make it even more blanket, and just say that actual Victory cannot be claimed until you enter the fifth round of play (by which point everyone should already be a belligerent.) This preempts any issue of a break out sprint to instant victory, before the game even has a chance to materialize. So by the time everyone is at War, the two teams will have had a chance to settle into a more stable VT equilibrium, on either side of the board.
Oh and I misspelled Algeria. Made an edit correct above.
Iraq (Mosul)
At that time, Baghdad was pro-Axis, Mosul wasn’t the main city in Iraq.
You wrote: “Francsico” -
- “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”
Destroyers no longer block Subs or the Sub’s “First Strike” capability. They are now a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C5 unit. They also have 1 preemptive “ASA” (Anti-Sub Attack) shot.
When attacking a Sub, the Destroyer will fire a one time “ASA1” (hits at 1) shot. If successful the Sub is immediately destroyed and may not return fire. If the Sub survives, it may then submerge or take it’s normal “First Strike” shot.
The Destroyer also has 1 preemptive “ASD” (Anti-Sub Defense) shot. Works the same as “ASA” only on defense. So when a sub attacks a Destoyer or any other unit that has “ASD” capability, it must first survive the “ASD” attack before conducting it’s “First Strike” attack.
Destroyer ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Destroyers, the sub will only undergo as many ASA/D shots as there are Destroyers.
Subs remain A2 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C6. Subs cannot be blocked by any Naval Vessel. Subs are now susceptible to attack from Fighters and Tac Bombers. When attacking naval units who have air units present (no Bombers), Subs will undergo counterfire from the air units regardless of the outcome of their “First Strike”.
All other rules regarding Subs are unchanged.In addition to their normal unit stats, Tac Bombers now also have ASA1 ASD1.
As mentioned above, they now fire normally at subs without a Destroyer present. Their ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Tacs, the sub will undergo multiple 1 ASA/D shot.4) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
The Transport is now A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C8. May participate in combat and be taken as casualty.I was thinking about TP C8 and DD C5.
It is probably one of the best cost relative to each other.
You simplify a lot of TP interactions with all units, no more auto-kill, pick casualty as you see fit and there is no chance to be preferred as fodder compared to DD C5 with some AS A1D1. 3 IPCs is almost, 60%, another DD.
And you have offensive punch too.
With Subs A2 surprise strike on, it may be more challenging and even more balanced to give TP a combat value. - “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”
-
It’s an improvement! It will be fun to try out. I am a bit sad to see zero VCs in all of Central America and South America, but I don’t see any obvious candidates from your list that should be deleted to make room for Latin American VCs. If true neutral VCs would be a problem, one way to solve that would be to make Argentina a pro-Axis neutral…then you could put one VC in pro-Allied neutral Rio, one VC in pro-Axis neutral Buenos Aires, and you’d still have plenty of symmetry. Meanwhile, you’d make a Japanese push to the southeast that much more credible…take New Zealand, and then push on toward Argentina and then Brazil!
If 38 VCs seems like a weird number, you could add one in central Russia (Chelyabinsk, Omsk, etc.) and one in Yugoslavia (Belgrade) to get up to a nice round 40.
Well, since I’m playing aces high, I don’t really care about the numerology anyway :-D
A straight doubling of both boards for 26 and 38? Hey, at least its straight forward. Take the OOB total and double it for both games?
Still seems like a cool idea to me.38 gets you two more VT in contention for G40. Could put one in Rio if we really want to activate South America. Seems like a long shot for Axis, but I guess you never know, if the naval game is truly improved it might come into play. Is Argentina optimal though? Seems Brazil might be enough to get something going in South America all by itself. Perhaps it should be reserved for something a little closer to the regular action?
I don’t know, I’m game. But I do still think Freetown has as much claim as anywhere, especially if we’re switching out a true neutral on the OOB board mainly for novely. Its supposed to be British after all, and it is at least as much in contention as anywhere in S. America. I think Sierra Leone should be added regardless, but with a VT, at least that makes up somewhat for the OOB error since it could contribute to the Warchest. Freetown would still add a VT in the Southern Hemisphere, halfway between Cape Town and Brazil, still in range of Europe and North Africa, and makes the south Atlantic a somewhat more interesting naval region. I mean If we’ve come this far. I don’t know, I’ll just be happy to find something that everyone can give a nod to, so Barney can build it up proper.
:evil:26 Keeps something in the back pocket for 1942.2 too. Is the 26 VT split by theater better than 24? Not sure which two extra VT from the list I’d take on that map.
Also, just as a hook, “Twice as many VCs” has a certain charm to it. Easy to grasp. Immediately intriguing. Uses the same basic concept for either board. It’s the sort of big red button I would definitely push, if exploring the HR toggles. VCx2
-
Ideal? No, Buenos Aires isn’t ideal, but I figure it was the most plausibly pro-Axis neutral city in Latin America. From a tactical viewpoint, Santiago, Chile would be ideal – that spreads the two South American VCs reasonably well across the continent, and it allows more pathways from Wellington. I suppose you could register both Chile and Argentina as pro-Axis neutrals without doing much violence to history. It would be awkward to convert Chile without also converting Argentina, though, since Argentina had stronger fascist leanings.
I have never heard of Freetown playing any role in World War II, either actual or theoretical. If you want to activate the South Atlantic Ocean, what about Dakar, where there was actually a battle of major diplomatic significance, and a strategically important port, and the gold reserves of the Bank of France and the Bank of Poland? You could shift the VC in Algeria (which is somewhat redundant thanks to the VC right next door in Libya) one territory over to French West Africa. That way the Japanese could theoretically hop from Capetown to Dakar to Rio, and the Italians could theoretically hop from their Moroccan national objective to Dakar to either Rio or Capetown.
If I were going to add two more victory cities to the 1942.2 setup for a total of 26 VC, I would pick Rio and Algiers. Rio for some of the same reasons as above – it helps give extra depth to a Japanese drive on Wellington. Algiers because German North Africa is way too easy for the Axis to abandon if the Allies roll well in Egypt. The whole area is only worth 3 IPCs to the Germans, there are no Axis victory cities there OOB, there are no factories there, and none of the territories are really that strategic if you’re being pushed out of Africa anyway…something about the sea zones in 1942.2 makes North Africa very awkward as a base for staging an invasion of Italy. An Algerian VC would give the Axis at least some reason to put up a token defense of North Africa even in games when Egypt is a lost cause.
-
Everyone has it out for Sierra Leone I guess
:-DSeriously, no one wants to throw me a bone on that TT?
It did play a role. It wasn’t theoretical. Had skin in the game since 1939 (unlike the French possession next door which was not yet at War.) And it’s the one territory that is clearly represented in error on the OOB mapboard.
Sure Dakar might be just was well, but Freetown is close enough that a Sierra Leone VT could service both West african regions out of sz 87. It’s a little more challenging to reach overland. UK could try for a base there from turn 1. Or I suppose you could switch Algeria for something, though it seemed like this way both sides would have a lot of VT incentives to remain in North Africa and push back and forth. With Axis having a few more reasons to keep an eye on the West. Seemed like Sierra Leone might keep Cape Town and Rio company. Makes some for some nice pairs.Since you mentioned Dakar, its worth pointing out that Freetown was directly involved in that plan, and incidentally, also in the retreat, when it failed hehe.
Also, one reason to hesitate on converting S. American neutrals to pro Axis side, (even if that might be cool for Japan) is that it makes violating true neutrality elsewhere on the board less damaging to Axis. Part of what holds them in check right now vs Turkey and Sweden for example, is the added threat of an easy walk in by the US into those South American TTs.
Well in any case, its a pretty quick set up, whichever VTs you choose for the final 38.
I just set up the board with some generic markers to indicate the new VTs. Red for ETO, Gold for PTO
Took all of 3 minutes…
:-DSnap below, showing the many little VC triangles of doom.
-
Fun! It looks good. You can see at a glance that the VCs are very well distributed and not clogging the board anywhere. My brother worked in Sierra Leone for a couple of years – if honoring Sierra Leone is your fee for designing this wonderful little map, then so be it! :-)
I didn’t expect that the Chile suggestion would be very popular. Bla bla, intricately balanced clockwork tapestry, bla bla, disturbed by the slightest changes bla bla expanding exponentially outward sowing seeds of chaos and doom, bla bla, no one will ever play Axis and Allies again and the world will collapse in a pit of fiery darkness, bla bla bla. It’s always the same story. :-)
-
Haha it’s always last on the list, but had to at least try for it.
I have no connection to the place. Just that it was botched with the OOB map design. It was significant to the war effort as the principle British port in West Africa, and also an air base for the broader war in Africa and the South Atlantic.
I tend to agree that South America would be interesting with a few more active territories, or one on the Pacific side at least. The Global handling of true neutrals is a bit of a straight jacket. It might have been cool if some other options were explored for how to deal with True Neutrals, but have to be careful, don’t want to open up a constant Spanish landing pad like we saw in Classic.
CWO has a big list of all territories on the map, describing various anomolies with respect to their status as true neutral or pro-side. There are some other territories that are a bit off in the way they are represented, Liberia, Persia, Mongolia etc. Territories in Central and South America as well.
There might be enough in there to justify some kind of toggle for a more accurate map.
If people like the snap below, for a VC distribution in G40, we could also do one showing how to adjust some of the neutrals with roundels. My approach for introducing pro-side neutrals is to use an upside down control marker. Something like that was suggested for treating Mongolia as pro-Soviet specifically.
When we get a 1942.2 VC spread settled I’ll take a snap there too. But yeah, it’s pretty quick to set up 38, just needs a VC token of some kind, or a sticker.
-
yea addressing neutrals is something I’d like to do. Won’t be this go around. de Galle has some good ideas here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.0
I think making their forces (navy included) stronger would be a good way to go. piscolar seemed as if they had a pretty good system as well. I know Gamerman1 has a neutral blocks setup too. Can make the navy not appear unless attacked in congested SZs for triplea.
Also want to add BM’s Vichy Rules.
Anyway, that will be in the future.
-
If two more VCs need to be added for 1942.2,
I would go with
Allies PTO VC: Szechuan (Chonqing)
Axis ETO VC : Norway (Oslo)This makes: Germany 5 VCs and Japan 5 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 3 VCs
UK: 8 VCs1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies
Axis European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)
5-Oslo (Norway)Allies ETO VCs:
6-Washington (EUSA),
7-Ottawa (Eastern Canada),
8-London (UK),
9-Cairo (Egypt),
10-Cape Town (South Africa),
11-Moscow (Russia),
12-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
13- Stalingrad (Caucasus).Axis PTO VCs:
14-Tokyo (Japan),
15-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
16-Manila (Philippines),
17-Singapore (Malaya),
18-Truk (Carolines Island),Allies PTO VCs:
19-Chonqing (Szechwuan)
20-Calcutta (India),
21-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
22-Wellington (New Zealand),
23-Honolulu (Hawaii),
24-Anchorage (Alaska),
25-Victoria (Western Canada),
26-San Francisco (Western USA).Axis: 10 VCs
Allies: 16 VCs -
Looks good to me. I might swap out Warsaw for Algiers – Warsaw is not an OOB VC for 1942.2, and I don’t think it adds much tactical interest. You can see why you’d want Warsaw on the list for thematic reasons – invasion of Poland was what finally got Britain and France into the war, etc. – but I don’t think Algiers i much less thematic; it has to do with whether the Axis are able to maintain a presence in the Med, or whether they’ve been humiliatingly wiped off the African continent.
Suggested Topics
