@Imperious:
Renamed “armenia”…. “anatolia” ( eastern Turkey)
few small things. not much
Is that because Patch123 accused you of not considering the Armenian genocide?
He tried to play it both ways:
The more he posts the more i wonder if he is a sane man.
In the end i changed it because it was not accurate. I don’t like ‘western Turkey’ either, but no alternatives.
Awesome map IL!, you have been busy. This game is gonna rival Larry’s AAG40.
I have one big question though, with all the new territories why is moscow further from germany than stalingrad? Shouldn’t moscow be in the kalinin or western territory? I think it would add alot of realism if stalingrad was farther away than moscow. Iys just something that has always bugged me.
You should add airfields too!
IL under ground factories seems over powered you should have conscription. Give you one infantry every turn at the place units phase.
IL under ground factories seems over powered
did you play it out in a game?
What happened?
I have one big question though, with all the new territories why is moscow further from germany than stalingrad? Shouldn’t moscow be in the kalinin or western territory? I think it would add alot of realism if stalingrad was farther away than moscow. Iys just something that has always bugged me.
You should add airfields too!
From Prussia Moscow is 5 spaces away. Moscow according to old maps is in ‘Moscow Territory’, with western as an adjacent area.
This is the solution that was designed to simulate the Pripet marshes without actually having them as a territory. Thats one reason why Moscow is farther. Second, Moscow is very important and the setup makes Germany want to go for the oil in the south even more. This is a bit of historical modeling to make it easier for Germany to perform as they did and justify these reasons in the game. Moscow seems a bit out of reach deliberately, but it can be taken.
I made Stalingrad attractive in this manner to make it viable since the axis cant can opener into the black sea. They go for the oil in this game because the game makes it worthwhile, but of course the Soviet player can try to cut off the troops by attacking Rostov-on-don “The gateway to the Caucasus”.
why on your map is SZ 51 and 46 both labeled as GILBERT ISLANDS? is this done on pourpous?
That is now fixed:
do you print out this map. on a home printer and piece it together, or take it to staples or kinkos and have them do it in like 2 pieces? how did you intend it?
Put on a disk and take to printers. Less headache, better quality. Actually really nice quality.
Id print it out on thick vinyl at maximum DPI. Thats what the pictures are of.
Your rules link is currently down:(.
ok one sec
http://www.mediafire.com/?zq1ytmyjnme
here is the link
Cool, not bad.
BTW, is the “AA50HE Phase 1 final map” functionally the same as the original anniversary edition map(besides the two island editions) or are there other changes? I’d like to play anniversary, but rather then buy an expensive second hand set(and with not reprint in site, ignoring hopeful wishes) it would be cheaper for me to print out the map/charts/rules and then using pieces from AAP40 and AAE40 when it comes out. I know i can combine the two for a global game but it would be nice to have the option for one that takes less time.(Plus i personally think 1941 is the most interesting time for the game to start.)
no other changes
IL, if you were to use the P40 map, do you have an idea of what the historical setup would be?
Well to reconstruct AAp40 with historical is a major undertaking…why?
Because it’s got too many sea zones and that makes it harder to playtest once the proper historical locations are found.
Thats why i kept the sea zones like they are in AA50 because i have much more experience playing that and my playtest teams prefer AA50. Its better to start at 1939 because information is much more available than say June 1940.
The other problem is the IPC distribution is not historical. Its in many wrong spaces and based on ‘other factors’ to script some idea of what is historical with little knowledge.
Then you have problem of the global 1940 setup, so really you need to have AAE40 and study the 6/40 situation and balance with a setup using both games. It is incorrect to balance one game and then another latter because that causes too many changes to make each one mate the other, id rather study what actually existed and reformulate that as one setup study.
Too me its better to start from scratch and redo the entire game by stripping it down and rebuilding it with only the best ideas. Thats what i plan on doing latter and making an upgraded version of my 1939 ideas.
please explain what you mean by the 6/40 situation
June 1940
First off I must say I love what you’ve done with this thus far.
But I have a couple questions to clarify the rules and the map.
1. Under the “Neutrals” you have the ending comment
“All they can do is defend home territories, with the exceptions of: Spain, Turkey, Brazil, and Argentina”
What exactly do you mean by that? Perhaps it’s me, but it wasn’t clear if you meant those neutrals to be factions of their own. And if so, when do they move and by whom?
2. If the above assumption is correct, I’m guessing those four should have their own colors seperate from the “other” neutrals? Also assuming that the pro-axis, pro-allies, and neutrals should have their own colors too? If so, anyone have a good recommendation for the colors and how many “Extra” units each should have for gaming sake?
3. Again, if assumption for 1 is correct, Brazil should only have Brazil and Seazone 18 correct? Iraq, Persia, etc, blend right in without any new line/spacing after it.
4. Can any of the neutrals build ICs and build more units?
5. Finally, the map. Should the Vichy France system be reduced in size at all? It just seems to stand out dramatically larger than any other roundel.
Otherwise awesome job, screw AAE40, well except for the pieces, but I’ll be playing this game.
