I have been playing around with different configurations for a custom table and wanted to note some things I’ve landed on that I really like. A main one thing is having the map mounted so that it can slide around as needed on top of a bigger playing area. My table is 65” x 95” in total with a 5.5” arm rest around the outside and the middle is a recessed neoprene surface. I have the OOB Global map mounted on 1/2” rigid foam with a 1/2” aluminum frame around it. This allows the map to slide up close to whoever’s turn it is, but then be in the middle so both players can roll dice In front of them without disturbing the map and in easy view of the other player. (Plus we like lots of room to roll the bones). This ability to adjust the surface along with a standing height, makes it comfortable for long uses because you can move around more and don’t feel as tied down.
Things I’ve learned and changed from original design - I originally used too big of a frame for the map and mounted it on too high of a foam block (you can see these pictures at the bottom) - it made it hard to see the other player’s dice and the big frame took up too much real estate. My global map is mounted on much thinner foam (the framing is bad, you can see if you look closely) but I also used much thinner aluminum angle for the frame. This gives just enough grip when needing to move the map around (I use furniture slides on the bottom, which glide very nicely on the neoprene) but doesn’t make the whole thing too bulky. Having it an inch or so off the surface keeps the dice off, but isn’t so heigh that you can’t see the other player’s dice rolls. When playing other versions (such as Zombies) the board is much smaller, but it can easily swap in and out on the same table since it can move around where ever it is needed or be pushed aside.
I originally made it normal table height, but found long reaches while sitting were harder and it just felt cramped. Standing height with a bar stool is a great way to have the best of both worlds.
The 5.5” rim around the table itself gives you a nice arm rest that doesn’t interfere with the gaming surface. I’m playing with how to best add some cushion to this part - open to suggestions. Sometimes I just lay a piece of leftover neoprene on it.
Dice bounce nice on the neoprene and stay off the floor. It also feels nice and has enough give to allow things to slide but be picked up easily. Wouldn’t definitely go with neoprene again as a surface covering.
I made the drawers open to the inside of the table so you can stay hunched over the action while accessing and stowing stuff away. 50/50 on whether I would keep this if I were to do it again. If I were doing it again, I might try to build customer drawers form scratch using actual drawer glides, but that was beyond my ability when I first did this, so I just used clear plexiglass boxes with aluminum pulls mounted on them. It’s nice having them clear, and I was happy with how the pulls came out, but without glides they can be a little fussy sliding in and out of their slots.
I originally designed the table so that I could put a cover surface back on top when not in use, but find I don’t really ever do that, so if I were to do it again, I might not mess with that part (I never even finished staining those as you can see in the pictures).
CF362D52-269F-4480-8CBB-08139099138F.jpeg A9E12EA1-66EB-4671-86AC-68C62FD30AD5.jpeg 858DE1F2-030A-4D5A-93E4-70A7D1180ADB.jpeg 8F513EE0-DA37-4BA9-880E-4D5EF7BF431F.jpeg F0188165-757B-4CC1-BF67-5045832283C9.jpeg 2E3CD627-0D31-4121-ACF8-682F9F58A40B.jpeg
Modified 1914 Map file
-
As long as Larry, Curly and Mo keep coming out with new rules I’ll keep modifying. I have a version of the above VCs idea that is 100% accurate to the official map, and the principle is the same:
-
-
Yeah, just saw this on BGG.
Can’t see if he’s corrected Denmark & Bulgaria.
-
Denmark fixed:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1681015/axis-allies-wwi-1914
Bulgaria still wrong:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1681014/axis-allies-wwi-1914
Also Albania still wrongly alligned to Italy.
My preffered rearrangement makes Albania & Greece neutral, Albania is now in the Austrian SZ, but the correct borders make Greece viable as an Allied entrepot to the Balkans as it no longer borders Constantinople.
-
Changes according to my German friend are:
Germany:
New tt East Prussia (3 IPC) bordering Poland and Lithuania
New tt Pomerania (2 IPC)
Berlin (6 IPC)
bigger Kiel, bigger BavariaRussia:
New tt St.Petersburg (4IPC) with Port
New tt Lithuania (2IPC)
New tt Tallinn (2IPC)
Poland (2IPC)
Moskow (3 IPC)
Ukraine (2IPC)
Sevastopol (2IPC)Ottoman Empire:
New tt Armenia (1 IPC)
Mesopotamia (2IPC)More powerful minor Powers:
Belgium 3 IPC
Romania 4 IPC
Bulgaria 4 IPC
Serbia 3 IPCSwitzerland: Impassable
Greece and Portugal: aligned to Britain
USA: comes in R6 with 40 IPC
Italy: comes in R2USW Zones: 2,3,4,7,8,15
This new map has to come along with a new Set Up including more Units for Russia, Germany and Great Britain and less Units for Austria. I also use the House Rule, that a Minor Power can only be activated by its aligned Power. (So for example France cannot activate Portugal,
Albania and Greece for the Entente in R1) -
Can the Uk enter Belgian Congo?
Why not central Arabia impassable (Nejd desert), with the south only as UK ally.
Why no changes to the sea zones; SZ18 is way too small. Dividing SZ20 allows Constantinople to control sea movement through the straits.
Is Petrograd now capital - I have Moscow & Petrograd as joint capitals, that is they can both build UL units, and Russia functions normally by holding either one. TheCPs only count one towards victory conditions.
Have you considered victory cities, I think they’re much easier to track than “homeland incomes”, and nicely facilitate 2 space rail movements, as well as providing limited placement areas for infantry.
-
Those would be too many changes just for personal taste. When making changes you really just need to make a few of them, so as not to upset the balance.
The ideas you suggest don’t fix game issues, and are really just a list of things not 100% correct Historically, I am more interested in fixing glitches.
I will look into this:
SZ18 is way too small. Dividing SZ20 allows Constantinople to control sea movement through the straits
-
This is my latest; I’ve taken on board the Pomerania-Prussia option.
The triple-function VCs are crucial here; only the two joint-capitals are adjacent.
The extra Med SZs open up the naval war for the CPs.
Glasgow can only launch ships into SZ8.
TT names rationalised.
Note corrections to borders of Bulgaria, SWA & Finland.
Might make Mexico a VC…
Might add a naval base to Ireland (in case Scotland falls…)
Turkey gets a one-off placement of (Senussi) rebels in Kufra. The Allies cannot enter the region before the rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi_Campaign
The Spanish minefield is activated only if Spain joins the war (i.e. it is attacked). Threafter it is treated as if an original ally of the opposing alliance.
-
Awesome work, IL!!!
Some minor corrections/suggestions:
1. Bulgaria should not be activated by the Turks (they were enemies in the 2nd Balcan War just 2 years ago! Absolutely not!)
-> Make it a German activation (historically correct) or a German OR AH one.
-> Turks is totally wrong, almost as wrong as Moscow as the Russian capital! :wink:2. Names
-> Keep Prussia for the tt with Berlin
-> Name Kiel “Northern Germany” (that is the proper term for this region “Norddeutschland”, Kiel is just a city)
-> Name the intended Talinn tt Estonia (btw the Estonian capital was officially called Reval until 24th February 1918!)
-> Name Sewastopol Caucasus
-> Name St. Petersburg Karelia
-> Name Moscow Russia
This way all tt names are consistent in having tt names (major cities in like Moscow where you are allowed to produce in addition to capitals can be printed on the map to indicate production capability! This way Russia could produce in St. Petersburg AND Moscow, Germany in Prussia (Berlin) AND Ruhr (Essen).3. Production
Production capacity in Russia:(derived from statistical data)
a) Poland was the most industrialized region in Imperial Russia; Germany conquering it early was a big blow to the Russian war effort
-> Poland: 5 IPCs (if you think it is too much balancewise make it a 4 IPC at least!)
b) Moscow 4 IPCs (2nd advanced region)
c) St. Petersburg 3 IPCs
d) Ukraine 3 IPCs (granary of Russia!)
e) Estonia 1 IPC (each Baltic state ought to be 1 IPC)4. Neutrals
a) Albania hardly was a sovereign state anymore at the start of the war. RUled by a German governor who left when war broke out to serve his fatherland it was in total disarray. It should have no diplomatic tendency. 1 IPC.
b) Greece was strictly neutral for a long period of the war because of its German friendly king. Joining the Allies should be made possible only later in the war.
IDEA: Print a round specification beside the roundel for activation! This way the game could flow even more historically!
-> Examples: Greece R5, Bulgaria R3, Romania R4, etc.So, again, overall AWESOME work!!!
(….and I surely want this map!) -
Awesome work, IL!!!
Some minor corrections/suggestions:
1. Bulgaria should not be activated by the Turks (they were enemies in the 2nd Balcan War just 2 years ago! Absolutely not!)
-> Make it a German activation (historically correct) or a German OR AH one.
-> Turks is totally wrong, almost as wrong as Moscow as the Russian capital! winkYea I know that, and Greece should not be connected to Ottoman areas. I will fix those
2. Names
-> Keep Prussia for the tt with Berlin
-> Name Kiel “Northern Germany” (that is the proper term for this region “Norddeutschland”, Kiel is just a city)
-> Name the intended Talinn tt Estonia (btw the Estonian capital was officially called Reval until 24th February 1918!)
-> Name Sewastopol Caucasus
-> Name St. Petersburg Karelia
-> Name Moscow RussiaI don’t want to invalidate the OOB setup with all these name changes. Only new areas get a new name.
This way all tt names are consistent in having tt names (major cities in like Moscow where you are allowed to produce in addition to capitals can be printed on the map to indicate production capability! This way Russia could produce in St. Petersburg AND Moscow, Germany in Prussia (Berlin) AND Ruhr (Essen).
3. Production
Production capacity in Russia:(derived from statistical data)
a) Poland was the most industrialized region in Imperial Russia; Germany conquering it early was a big blow to the Russian war effort
-> Poland: 5 IPCs (if you think it is too much balancewise make it a 4 IPC at least!)
b) Moscow 4 IPCs (2nd advanced region)
c) St. Petersburg 3 IPCs
d) Ukraine 3 IPCs (granary of Russia!)
e) Estonia 1 IPC (each Baltic state ought to be 1 IPC)Looking more into how does this effect Russian collapse. I don’t want to change those ratios. Perhaps some changes could be made
4. Neutrals
a) Albania hardly was a sovereign state anymore at the start of the war. RUled by a German governor who left when war broke out to serve his fatherland it was in total disarray. It should have no diplomatic tendency. 1 IPC.
b) Greece was strictly neutral for a long period of the war because of its German friendly king. Joining the Allies should be made possible only later in the war.
IDEA: Print a round specification beside the roundel for activation! This way the game could flow even more historically!
-> Examples: Greece R5, Bulgaria R3, Romania R4, etc.Historically correct, but only minor changes. Too many changes the game balance
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?6jnas3n11bgrnb4
This is Phase 3 AKA “Flashman” file. Note i don’t change OOB territory names, just add some areas with new names. Not all things were changed but alot of them are spec with Flash.
Some neutrals changed alliance
Added Gibraltar
etc. -
Can’t see the map, but please don’t add Gibraltar as a separate tt. Make it a UK nb in Spain, which can only be attacked by attacking Spain itself. No shipbuilding there.
xx:
Petrograd is not in Karelia; if you need a regional name the correct term is Ingria.
Ukraine breadbasket and industrial region stats include the western part of the “Sevastopol” tt.
I agree that it is prefferable to have a consistent naming policy rather than the mix of regional and city names, borrowed from Diplomacy and anachronistic as the supply centres from that game have not been used.
“North Germany” should be Lower Saxony; for other changes see my map above.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?6jnas3n11bgrnb4
Here is a fixed version that made some changes. Note i am not interested in changing names of OOB areas. It serves no purpose except to further confuse people who set up.
The added new areas will have forces drawn from specific areas, again the goal is to fix the OOB’s glaring mistakes and also give Russia some border between Ottomans and Germany.
Added some of Flashmans ideas and kept the IPC ratio by nation intact.
-
How did you get the idea of naming Northern Germany Lower Saxony?
Lower Saxony as a state did not exist in 1914.
Former Kingdom of Hannover became part 0f Prussia 1866 already so in my opinion the best solution naming the tt AND include Holstein, Oldenburg and (parts of Königreich Hannover though politically Prussian) is a clear-cut summarizing region name like Norddeutschland. This method is also often used in former A&A games.Northern or North-Western Prussia does not fit, though!
-
@IL
The OOB setup/IPCs greatly favors the Allies!
So why not give the CPs some meat (like Poland with 4 or 5 IPCs) if it correspondends with history?
(needs some playtesting, sure) -
The OOB setup/IPCs greatly favors the Allies!
So why not give the CPs some meat (like Poland with 4 or 5 IPCs) if it correspondends with history?
(needs some playtesting, sure)The tournament RULES address that issue.
The map file addresses obvious Historical points raised by others and makes corrections.
The space between Russian capital and Berlin do allow Germany to grab less IPC than before due to the new distribution, but also makes it harder to reinforce them due to the capital’s location. That means a tradeoff.
I don’t make a map to address balance, rules are used to correct that.
-
Lower Saxony I use as a general regional name; it doesn’t have to correspond to an exact state.
Its much closer than, for example, calling the whole of Northern England and southern Scotland “Yorkshire”.
North Germany does not fit, at a pinch North-West Germany, but LS sounds less arbritrary.
I should also have made “Tyrolia” into Upper Austria, but it doesn’t fit…
“Wales” should be Western Britain.
How did you get the idea of naming Northern Germany Lower Saxony?
Lower Saxony as a state did not exist in 1914.
Former Kingdom of Hannover became part 0f Prussia 1866 already so in my opinion the best solution naming the tt AND include Holstein, Oldenburg and (parts of K�nigreich Hannover though politically Prussian) is a clear-cut summarizing region name like Norddeutschland. This method is also often used in former A&A games.Northern or North-Western Prussia does not fit, though!
-
Same map illustrating rail nextwork.
Resisted temptation to add Mexico, Baghdad & Athens as VCs.
Nice if rail could link Cape Town with Petrograd; remember these are potential rail links when they are between enemy vcs.
Any effect of the UK enclosed within 2 SZs?
-
I don’t like spider webs on the map, poor aesthetic.
Move 2 spaces on land fixes the movement issue.
-
@Imperious:
The OOB setup/IPCs greatly favors the Allies!
So why not give the CPs some meat (like Poland with 4 or 5 IPCs) if it correspondends with history?
(needs some playtesting, sure)The tournament RULES address that issue.
The map file addresses obvious Historical points raised by others and makes corrections.
The space between Russian capital and Berlin do allow Germany to grab less IPC than before due to the new distribution, but also makes it harder to reinforce them due to the capital’s location. That means a tradeoff.
I don’t make a map to address balance, rules are used to correct that.
Why make a new map neglecting the historical economic strength of the regions (again)?
OOB is wrong enough!