New Axis & Allies Global War Variant (free map)

[Positronica]

I was looking over the map somemore, and there’s a few little things I noticed…

1. I don’t think Iceland should fall on the border of several sea zones.  Small islands, especially if you’re going to put an airbase symbol on them, work much better if they’re surrounded by a single sea zone.  If you’re not familiar with A&A:P, the way airbases work is that friendly aircraft flying into or out of a territory containing an airbase don’t have to count the sea zone adjacent to the airbase when determining their movement.  On the map, the airbases are generally placed along the border of a territory and the sea zone they are supposed to apply to.  With Iceland now touching three sea zones, you would be in the akward position of having to put several airbase symbols on the island to tie it to each of the seperate sea zones.  Another thing is that by having it touch three sea zones, you’ve basically given Iceland three seperate routes that make it vulnerable to amphibious invasion.  I think that’s far too many invasion routes for an island the size on Iceland.  I would definately suggest putting Iceland back within its own seazone.  If need be, you can slide the island a little to the south-east to give you more room to work with.

2. You might want to think about reworking the shape of the seazons in the Mediterranean so that Sicily also isn’t being bordered by so many sea zones.  I would say that having it bordered by 2 sea zones would be better than the current 3.  The Axis and Allies: Europe map might be a good place to look to get some ideas on how to rework the Mediterranean.

3. Its a little unclear if the sea zone between Madagascar and Africa touches the sea zone to the south east of Madagascar or not.  Its also unclear if the sea zone to the south east of South Africa touches Madagascar or not.  I would say to just move the line between Madagascar and Africa a little to the north, similar to where it was on the original map.

4. You’ve added a few spots where four sea zones come together in a squared corner.  Namely the area north of Scotland, the area south-east of the Philippines, the area north of the Caroline Islands, the two area west of Hawaii, and the area north-west of Midway.  You’ll notice that on the official Axis & Allies maps, sea zones are never laid out like this.  They are always staggered so that corners never come together like that.  I think it leads to more natural movement of units upon the board, and it makes it easier to visualize the placement of your fleets at a glance.  Think of it somewhat as the difference between a game that uses a square combat grid versus a hex grid.  I would highly suggest changing the layout of the all the four corner areas I listed above.

5. The UK capital symbol has been moved away from London and up onto the border between Scotland and the Great Britain territory.  Was this intentional?  And if so, why?  The German capital symbol should also be moved a little more into Germany so that no one gets confused and thinks that West Germany is also somehow part of the capital.

6. Its hard to tell if the sea zone west of British Columbia actually touches Alaska or not.  I would suggest angling the right end of the line up a bit so that Alaska is clearly shown to touch the sea zone.

7. Don’t forget the name for the island east of Primorsky.

[deepblue]

The week is almost over.

Recap…

There has been some debate over the CB near Wake.

Was I able to persuade you to keep it our do you still feel it should be removed?

The British CB in the Med.

I like it but still have some reservations.  It seems that this CB will be really hard to defend.  One thought I had was to trade places with the Italian CB, but not sure if that would help or not.  Any other thoughts?

America CB in the Atlantic.

I think it should stay.  But I could move it up and over a bit (on the sea line under Newfoundland) so it is more in line with supplies going to Britain.  Let me know if you think this is better then the current location.

Thanks for all the great input, I will try to get all your suggestion on the map for this Friday.

[Micoom]

@deepblue:

The week is almost over.

The British CB in the Med.

I like it but still have some reservations.  It seems that this CB will be really hard to defend.  One thought I had was to trade places with the Italian CB, but not sure if that would help or not.  Any other thoughts?

Well isn’t that just the idea? That the CB is hard to protect in 1941/1942?  Changing it with the Italian CB would be wrong! It is fine like it is IMO.

[Positronica]

Yeah, I agree.  The UK starts with a very high IPC income.  They’re not supposed to be able to easily hold onto all of this at the start of the game.  I think the British CB in the Med is a big improvement.  It will make things more interesting in that region of the map.

@Micoom:

@deepblue:

The week is almost over.

The British CB in the Med.

I like it but still have some reservations.  It seems that this CB will be really hard to defend.  One thought I had was to trade places with the Italian CB, but not sure if that would help or not.  Any other thoughts?

Well isn’t that just the idea? That the CB is hard to protect in 1941/1942?  Changing it with the Italian CB would be wrong! It is fine like it is IMO.

[deepblue]

It’s Friday!

The Sixth draft has arrived!

I have made the following changes from the fifth draft:

Added:
Karafuto

Changed:
Sea Zones have been adjusted
Adjusted British and German National Roundels

Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.

http://www.mediafire.com/?7mydyyje2jm

[Positronica]

Well, I think its looking pretty good.  I can’t think of anything else that really needs to be changed on it.  I think it might be time to start figuring out where naval bases and sea bases should be put in.  After the airbase and naval base symbols are in, I think we can start working on IPC values.

[murraymoto]

What about Diego Garcia south of India, right about where the ship is layered in the Indian Ocean?

info about it…
http://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/3778/43/

[Imperious Leader]

add puget sound for USA

[murraymoto]

uh…  actually that is already on there…

while you could add a naval base to it (since it’s there IL), you cannot add an airbase to diego garcia.

we could just use the place phase 2 units here box for it if you’d like. lol

[murraymoto]

Deepblue,

map’s looking good.  Do you have any goals for the next week on it?

[Micoom]

OK, looking forward to the seventh draft for today.

The seazone adjustments of the sixth draft looked rather nice.

Will airbases and harbors indeed be added?

[jim lee]

I think you should drop the Axis&Allies logo and just call it Global War.

-jim lee

[deepblue]

Gentlemen,

I apologize for my absence from the thread.

Life just gets busy sometimes.

Now back to the map.  I have not had a lot of time to work on the map.

So to get back on track.

Seems that everyone is happy with the map itself and it is time to move on to the things that go “on” the map such as Ports, Airfields, etc.

This week I would like to discuss Ports and if we get finished with them then Airfields.

First,

The Port Icons themselves.

I think that the icons themselves are too big and that they distract from the map and don’t need to be so large.

I propose reducing the icon down to maybe the size of the IPC icons.  In my opinion this would look better.

Second,

Ports are a game mechanic.  So keep that in mind when discussing this topic.  Yes, some historical accuracy should be involved but we can’t put a port on every territory, or represent every port that participated in the war.  Also ports only function when they are within three sea zones of one another.

I look at ports as something that adds value to a territory.

Example: Morocco does not have that many IPCs nor is it really critical to any master invasion plans.  But if you give it a port then that changes every thing.  With a Port at Morocco the US can (once captured) transport troops across the Atlantic in one turn, making Morocco very valuable.

Third,

Instead of associating a port with a sea zone why not associate it with the territory?

This would save us from putting two ports on territories like Japan.  Instead just put the port icon on Japan and that would represent that any sea zone touching Japan is considered to have a port.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

[Positronica]

@deepblue:

I think that the icons themselves are too big and that they distract from the map and don’t need to be so large.

I propose reducing the icon down to maybe the size of the IPC icons.  In my opinion this would look better.

At their current size, the airbase and port icons will print on the map to be the same size as they are on the standard Axis & Allies: Pacific map.  Personally I don’t have a problem with their size, but if you want to shrink them a bit, that would be ok.  I wouldn’t go as small as the IPC icons, though.  At that size they might bleed too much if printed on a lower quailty printer, and if someone wants to do a reduced size print of the final map, the icons might end up too small.

Instead of associating a port with a sea zone why not associate it with the territory?

This would save us from putting two ports on territories like Japan.  Instead just put the port icon on Japan and that would represent that any sea zone touching Japan is considered to have a port.

That might work, but I’m not sure if its necessary.  On the original map there’s only one spot on the entire map were a territory has two naval ports on it.  Also, I’m not sure if its a good idea to have a territory with a naval port get that bonus for every sea zone it touches.  From a gameplay standpoint, naval ports are handy and add to the game, however they also tend to slow turns down a little bit, since they give players more options to think about.  I think the primary purpose of naval ports should be to steer the game in certain directions.  For example, the sea port in Morocco encourages the US player to try and invade North Africa, rather than just skipping over it and just going straight for mainland Europe.  The Naval ports in the pacific also help to guide both Japan and the US into the south pacific.  If you think you can accomplish these same sorts of things by having a naval port apply to every adjacent sea zone, than go for it.  Also keep in mind, that the more we deviate the rules from how naval ports work in A&A:P, the more potential confusion there will be amoungst new players.

[deepblue]

Gentlemen,

I started adding the ports and realized that with the new sea zones most of the ports are broken.

So… We need to decide what the new ports are going to be.

When thinking of port placement you must think in pairs.  Ports are useless, if another port is not within three sea zones of it.

Also don’t suggest port pairs, just to add port pairs to the map, please think of the game ramifications for adding the pair and to a lesser extent the historical accuracy.

So, group.  What port pairs would you like to see on the map?

What I have so far:

Washington to Great Britain
Great Britain to Gibraltar
Washington to Morocco

[Imperious Leader]

Capetown to San Paulo

Capetown to India

India to aus

Hawaii to San diego

Puget to dutch harbor

Yokahama to truk

port moresby to canberra

dakar to lisbon

Suez to capetown

suez to gibrater

archangel to england

gulf of mexico to new york

[Deaths Head 420]

Gulf of mexico to NY would make the transition from the Atlantic to the Pacific to easy

[deepblue]

Wow, group, low turnout this week.  One post with suggestions?  That’s it?

Is everyone happy with what has been suggested?

The following are only two zones apart.
Hawaii to San Diego
West Africa to Portugal
Pacific Northwest to Aleutian Islands

I have added the following ports pairs.  I don’t think this will be the final list, I’m still not sure about some of them.

Cape Town to Brazil
Cape Town to Madras
Madras to Australia
Japan to Caroline Islands
New Guinea to Canberra
Lower Egypt to Cape Town
Lower Egypt to Gibraltar
Archangel to Great Britain
Washington to Great Britain
Great Britain to Gibraltar
Washington to Morocco
Tunisia to Crimea
Malay to Shantung (or anywhere on SZ 106)

Other thoughts:
Port on Java??

Needed 2 port icons:  (I still don’t like the way this looks)
Great Britain
Lower Egypt

[deepblue]

It’s Friday!

The Seventh draft has arrived!

I have made the following changes from the sixth draft:

Added:
Sea Zones have been numbered.
Ports
Ocean Names

Changed:

Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.

http://www.mediafire.com/?80jbfymybo0

[Imperious Leader]

Forgot:

San diego

Puget Sound

Mariana islands

Vladivlastok

Port in Iraq- basra route of Lend lease for Soviets in south

Ceylon ( not that place on tip of india)

Calcutta

Dakar

One in texas

Southern Italy

Turkish straights

Kiel

western france

southern france