Get your command stick for large map plastic pushing!!!

Thanks! Will do.

Interesting to see how the German/Axis deployment in the southern sector looks sparse, at first glance. Maybe key to why Army Group South struggled more than the other two did in the early stages? That and the Soviet commander of the Southwest Front (Kirponos) being more competent than the other four?

Probably Confederate infantry attire would strongly resemble British or French kit, to include either the Adrian, or, even more likely, the Brodie helmet.

One imagines that the Union would take its cues from the Germans, or, even more likely, the Russians, meaning either no helmet, or else some version of the stahlhlem. It’s also possible that one might see a distinctive steel hat more akin to the M1, or even a kind of “stovepipe” or “top hat” in steel.

I’m trying hard to think up certain National Advantages. Perhaps Confederate cavalry would be able to execute a kind of blitzkrieg. Would it be likely that a nation without much native automobile production, but having to cover a long border with a relatively small standing army, would develop a heavy emphasis on motorization?

As early as Bull Run, both armies were learning the military value of railroads.

This is not anniversary edition, this is retail game “Spring 1942”.  The “lite” version.

Although it may have “25th anniversary” printed on it this game is/was $24.99-$29.99 and was seriously lacking on everything.

MIDDLE EAST TERRITORIES Cont…

The territories of the Middle East consist of independent countries that provide oil and other resources to the Allies. During the game, Germany and Italy have a chance to control this oil (and the IPCs) by taking over these territories. They are captured or liberated like any other land territory, but the IPCs of this region are tracked differently. The Allied powers may occupy these territories in order to defend them from Axis capture, but they can never take control of these territories for themselves. In fact, the United Kingdom player begins the game with one Infantry in Lebanon-Syria, but does not gain the IPCs generated by this territory.

Whenever Germany or Italy captures a Middle East territory, move their national control marker (either German or Italian) along the track of the lower ‘Middle East Territories’ section of the National Production Chart (NPC), according to the value of the territory just captured. The upper part of the chart is unaffected.

As per the normal rules for the Axis Minors; if the AM capture a Middle East territory, place a German national control marker on the Middle East Territories section of the NPC, according to the value of the territory just captured.

Germany and Italy may never build Naval Bases or Industrial Complexes on a Middle East territory. However, Air Bases are allowed.

There are eight positions on the Middle East Territories track of the NPC chart. During their Collect Income phase, the German and/or Italian player may collect their IPC income, according to their respective IPC level, directly from the Allied players - not from the bank. The Allies must decide who will pay Germany and/or Italy. The costs may be spread out among the three Allied powers, or one power may bear the burden. If the Allies are unable to decide to pays, the Axis powers will choose.

For Example: In the chart below, Germany controls 3 IPCs and Italy controls 2 IPCs. During Germany’s Collect Income phase, he/she will collect 3 IPCs from the Allied powers. During Italy’s Collect Income phase, he/she will collect 2 IPCs from the Allied powers.

Axis Capture Middle East IPC's.PNG

@Bardoly:

0   Defense - This unit can stop tanks from blitzing the same as an aa gun can.

thats kind of a crazy rule, i dont c the point in it or the historical backing.

Otherwise my main concern is that i dont think these rules add a lot of stratagy except making three of each players land armies super strong.

Why cant you have naval or air commanders?

Nice. Very creative.  I dig alternate universes.

Medieval: Total War Tiberia
Ace Combat

good times…

yes so to fix that you have hexes for land and spaces for sea, but the problem with that is the issue of national borders because pieces of both sides would technically be able to co-exist in the same hex.

That is the only reason why GMT makes ‘point to point’ movement maps… because they hate ‘area movement maps’

They hate them because its not a solution THEY came up with, but Larry Harris would take the credit because any area movement map that has been offered since 1980 owes its existence to larry.

Additionally, GMT are lazy sods because they have tons of photoshopped maps they didn’t even make and simply draw boxes on these maps and finish in a days work. Its totally disengenious of them among other things.

The other poster is correct about the ocean because the world is round and it should be harder to travel along the center, then at the ends. Hexes standardizes movement but does not offer a realistic solution to the earths round surface.