Oztea's 1942 Global Setup

@SuperbattleshipYamato agreed

@Axisarmpit said in [Global 1940] HELP PLEASE Axis and Allies Global Impasse:

Im not blitzing through a territory with infrastructure, but I am entering a territory with infrastructure as part of my non contact move. Lots of gamers agree variations on their understanding of particular rules?

Right. I understood you were not blitzing. I was using that as an example of logic. Please let me explain.

In your explanation of your House Rule you said “…a non combat movement can take the form of an advance into empty enemy territory…”. Your question then is a territory containing infrastructure empty or not? Therefore:

An armor unit may blitz through empty enemy territories An armor unit may not blitz through a territory containing infrastructure Thus a territory containing infrastructure is not empty

Of course it is your House Rule so you can do anything you want but if you want to follow the logic of the game I would say you cannot advance into an enemy territory containing infrastructure during the Non-combat Phase.

@WILD:

@Imperious:

Well if you allow BB and CV to take 2 turns to build and pay half each turn, it makes alot of sense to buy cruisers. The 3 move is great, but not sure to give it a 4 MOVE if from a naval port.

I’m also experimenting with many more convoy zones (UK convoy routes) mostly in the Atlantic, around Africa, and the Med. I’m hoping that giving the cruiser 3 moves (4 from nb) allows the axis to use it as a convoy raider at times because it can out run (or keep pace) with the allies ships. Adding more convoy zones is also making German subs more viable as commerce raiders.

To Baron Munchhausen, yea escort or light carrier would probably be a better terms then support carrier. I’ve been using A0, D1, M2-3, C12-carries 1 plane.  You bring up a good point about many of these light carriers were built on cruiser hulls though. Being this is a new ship for me at a relatively low cost (12 IPCs) I think I will keep it with the standard move of 2-3 for now (to warrant the cruiser at 12 IPC as the only fast ship), but will probably take a 3-4 move light carrier for a spin at some point.

PS: I’m really liking the 2 turn capital ship builds, and it is making ship building pretty interesting.

I’m also thinking about limiting 2 turn capital ship builds to major ICs (exception of USA who’s minors will be majors at some point). You can drop a capital ship at one of your minor ICs, but it takes an extra turn for delivery (3 turns to build). This is basically to stop the US or Japan from building capital ships in remote places. I would allow the UK Pac, Anz, Canada etc to build capital ships at their minor ICs, but theoretically they pay for the ship, it is built in England and delivered to the minor IC over 3 turns (same concept for the other powers building at their minor ICs). I realize that you could make a point that any ship built at a minor IC should be +1 turn because most ship yards would be at in the home territory where the major IC is (looking at that too lol).

Adding CVL to Cruiser, both at M3-4, makes a way to depict the historical US Fast Task Force fleet in PTO.
I made a house rule for Convoy Raid. It works well with 1942.2 and AA50.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.msg1467061#msg1467061

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

@Black_Elk:

That’s a clean map Ryuzaki_Lawlie!

The color selection is ideal. Though the black impassibles still jump out at me

From a design standpoint the only things that catch my eye are the two round sea zones surrounding Japan and Hawaii.

It feel like you need one in the Atlantic to balance things out aesthetically. Have you considered the possibility of one surrounding the British Isles?

Or maybe Iceland? Or maybe both?

I still think Mercator is a bit tight in Europe, a little stretching there might be ideal, even if it was just along the vertical axis. I think the map would still read fine, but you’d get a few more pixel for units into those key European spots. Also if you were willing to shrink South America slightly you could almost curve off a 10th of the map height at the bottom of the screen (which is notorious for players forgetting units in the south sea hehe) without really needing to change Africa/Australia of the pacific. Basically a slight bend would go a long way, even if using Mercator for the baseline.

Oh and I think the possession colors for Dutch Borneo and British Sarawak and North Borneo should be reversed.

My only suggestions :)

Nice work man. That would be a fun map to form the basis of a 1939 game, or any year from 39 on.

I like that you have not yet imposed on the map any extraneous information such as IPC values or VC. This means the map is adaptive for many purposes. I like the general division of territories. Only that the projection is a bit large at the poles for my tastes. If we could shrink them up slightly I think the map would be ideal. Its really more about screen dimension for me when it comes to the Big World Map that Wandering Head made. These days most screens are very long relative to their height, so standard Mercator always seems blown out a bit in tripleA to me, especially at the south end, and of course Europe is always tight. I wish the center picker for tripleA was better at housing units to smaller scales. Its a little better than it used to be, especially with the guiding lines, but still Europe loves to clutter up haha.
:-D

Again though, great design direction!

I’ll probably shift the continents (turning their general direction), and stretch out northern Africa and Europe, will probably require North America to get a bit skinny, but I think the big benefit from this, is that potentially more European spaces can be added. This will allow me to add more to the Mediterranean however (and it really needs the space), perhaps round out where Rome is. Africa, I think needs a bit more work. South America possibly as well, but I sort of need an idea of which cities can be considered major not only there, but elsewhere. Vladivostok will defiantly get added in with it’s own space.

I picked black for impassables, since it tells me that there is nothing there, no play space, it’s simply temporary, and they are there for the designer’s benefit.

I’m not sure where else to put a rounded Sea Zone, I’m considering more though.

About VC IPCs bonus,
do you think it could be an interesting reward if a conqueror of a not initially owned VC received a +6 bonus IPCs only at the start of his next turn and as long as he holds it a complete round of play?
So this reward comes only after you kept it for a whole turn.
As long as the Victory City is exchange back and forth there is no reward.

If a lost VC is reconquered, it should be a one time +6 bonus to the one Nation which fought back to retrieve it, not the original owner.
For instance, UK captures Leningrad and the IPCs from territory goes to the Russian player,
while UK gets the one time 6 IPCs bonus if Leningrad is still kept in Allies hands at the beginning of UK’s next turn.
Of course, if it is Russia who retrieve Leningrad, Russia will also get his one time extra bonus on his next turn.
We can apply the same mechanics and bonus for Capital Cities.
There is no need to add a higher reward since you already get the opponent’s money.

So this will be a separate IPCs distribution from all others regular and NO calculations.
VC would be treated differently compared to other ordinary conquered territories.

And players will be waiting with expectations to see if they can hold the VC till their next turn to get their rewards.
This will somehow put the emphasis on Victory Cities.
And it gives time to the opponents to not let go a VC too easily since the stakes are high.
It is a 6 IPCs bonus because it is easier to spent right away to not disturb a well prepared buying strategy if at the last minute the bonus is lost.
You can buy 2 Infs or 1 Tank or 1 Sub.
What do you guys think about this? Still a too high reward?

Maybe it should be just a 4 IPCs bonus? especially if playing 1942.2.
So you can at least buy right away an additional Artillery.

And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.

I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.

oh wow. thats not how i played it. Otherwise Germany can build fighters and get all her planes instantly as jets?

thats really strong Tech….

Perhaps you can convert one fighter per turn or build a new fighter that will be a jet?