G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

My suggestion for Anchorage (Alaska):
Sub out: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)

It is too out of the way for Italy or Germany.
And it remains within USA sphere.

@Black_Elk:

Ok ditched 2 neutrals, and made some subsituations above.

Right now we’re at
Allies 22
Axis 10
Neutrals 4

Can you format a little more the list by Theater? ETO and PTO?

I count 16 in PTO and 20 in ETO.
ETO
Axis: 7 VTs
Pro-Axis: 2 VTs
Pro-Allies: 1 VT
Allies: 10 VTs

PTO
Axis: 3 VTs
Pro-Allies: 1 VT
Allies: 12 VTs

Allies OOB ETO 8 VTs:
1 UK (London)
2 Egypt (Cairo)
3 France (Paris)
4 Novgorod (Leningrad)
5 Volgograd (Stalingrad)
6 Russia (Moscow)
7 Ontario (Ottawa)
8 East US (Washington)

Allies PTO 6 VTs:
9 India (Calcutta)
10 Kwangtung (Hong Kong)
11 Philippines (Manila)
12 New South Wales (Sydney)
13 Hawaii (Honolulu)
14 West US (San Francisco)

Adding…
PTO Allies 6 VTs:
15 Szech (Chonqing)
16 Alaska (Anchorage)
17 Malaya (Singapore)
18 Amur (Vladivostok)
19 New Zealand (Wellington)
20 Western Canada (Victoria)

ETO Allies 2 VTs:
21 Algeria (Algiers)
22 U. South Africa (Cape Town)

Axis ETO OOB 3 VTs:
1 East Germany (Berlin)
2 Poland (Warsaw)
3 Southern Italy (Rome)

Axis PTO OOB 2 VTs:
4 Kiangsu (Shanghai)
5 Japan (Tokyo)

Adding…
Axis ETO 4 VTs:
6 Norway (Oslo)
7 Holland (Amsterdam)
8 Romania (Bucharest)
9 Libya (Tripoli)

Axis PTO 1 VT:
10 Carolines (Truk)

ETO Neutral 3 VTs:
Pro Axis Neutrals:
1- Finland (Helsinki)
2- Iraq (Baghdad)

Pro Allies Neutrals:
3- Greece (Athens)

Pro Allies Neutrals PTO 1 VT:
4-Java (Jakarta)

Pretty clean. Shinny!!!
:-D

It’s an improvement! It will be fun to try out. I am a bit sad to see zero VCs in all of Central America and South America, but I don’t see any obvious candidates from your list that should be deleted to make room for Latin American VCs. If true neutral VCs would be a problem, one way to solve that would be to make Argentina a pro-Axis neutral…then you could put one VC in pro-Allied neutral Rio, one VC in pro-Axis neutral Buenos Aires, and you’d still have plenty of symmetry. Meanwhile, you’d make a Japanese push to the southeast that much more credible…take New Zealand, and then push on toward Argentina and then Brazil!

If 38 VCs seems like a weird number, you could add one in central Russia (Chelyabinsk, Omsk, etc.) and one in Yugoslavia (Belgrade) to get up to a nice round 40.

@Black_Elk:

It certainly feels like a more balanced spread, with more options for the ongoing give and take.

Since no one wants a game where Victory can be claimed in the first few rounds, I’d limit the VT count only to Nations at war. Or you could make it even more blanket, and just say that actual Victory cannot be claimed until you enter the fifth round of play (by which point everyone should already be a belligerent.) This preempts any issue of a break out sprint to instant victory, before the game even has a chance to materialize. So by the time everyone is at War, the two teams will have had a chance to settle into a more stable VT equilibrium, on either side of the board.

Oh and I misspelled Algeria. Made an edit correct above.

Iraq (Mosul)
At that time, Baghdad was pro-Axis, Mosul wasn’t the main city in Iraq.
You wrote: “Francsico”

2. “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”                                 
                Destroyers no longer block Subs or the Sub’s “First Strike” capability. They are now a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C5 unit. They also have 1 preemptive “ASA” (Anti-Sub Attack) shot.

When attacking a Sub, the Destroyer will fire a one time “ASA1” (hits at 1) shot. If successful the Sub is immediately destroyed and may not return fire. If the Sub survives, it may then submerge or take it’s normal “First Strike” shot.

The Destroyer also has 1 preemptive “ASD” (Anti-Sub Defense) shot. Works the same as “ASA” only on defense. So when a sub attacks a Destoyer or any other unit that has “ASD” capability, it must first survive the “ASD” attack before conducting it’s “First Strike” attack.
Destroyer ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Destroyers, the sub will only undergo as many ASA/D shots as there are Destroyers.
   
Subs remain A2 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C6. Subs cannot be blocked by any Naval Vessel. Subs are now susceptible to attack from Fighters and Tac Bombers. When attacking naval units who have air units present (no Bombers), Subs will undergo counterfire from the air units regardless of the outcome of their “First Strike”. 
All other rules regarding Subs are unchanged.

In addition to their normal unit stats, Tac Bombers now also have ASA1 ASD1.
As mentioned above, they now fire normally at subs without a Destroyer present. Their ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Tacs, the sub will undergo multiple 1 ASA/D shot.

4) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
             The Transport is now A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C8. May participate in combat and be taken as casualty.

I was thinking about TP C8 and DD C5.
It is probably one of the best cost relative to each other.
You simplify a lot of TP interactions with all units, no more auto-kill, pick casualty as you see fit and there is no chance to be preferred as fodder compared to DD C5 with some AS A1D1. 3 IPCs is almost, 60%, another DD.
And you have offensive punch too.
With Subs A2 surprise strike on, it may be more challenging and even more balanced to give TP a combat value.

Ideal? No, Buenos Aires isn’t ideal, but I figure it was the most plausibly pro-Axis neutral city in Latin America. From a tactical viewpoint, Santiago, Chile would be ideal – that spreads the two South American VCs reasonably well across the continent, and it allows more pathways from Wellington. I suppose you could register both Chile and Argentina as pro-Axis neutrals without doing much violence to history. It would be awkward to convert Chile without also converting Argentina, though, since Argentina had stronger fascist leanings.

I have never heard of Freetown playing any role in World War II, either actual or theoretical. If you want to activate the South Atlantic Ocean, what about Dakar, where there was actually a battle of major diplomatic significance, and a strategically important port, and the gold reserves of the Bank of France and the Bank of Poland? You could shift the VC in Algeria (which is somewhat redundant thanks to the VC right next door in Libya) one territory over to French West Africa. That way the Japanese could theoretically hop from Capetown to Dakar to Rio, and the Italians could theoretically hop from their Moroccan national objective to Dakar to either Rio or Capetown.

If I were going to add two more victory cities to the 1942.2 setup for a total of 26 VC, I would pick Rio and Algiers. Rio for some of the same reasons as above – it helps give extra depth to a Japanese drive on Wellington. Algiers because German North Africa is way too easy for the Axis to abandon if the Allies roll well in Egypt. The whole area is only worth 3 IPCs to the Germans, there are no Axis victory cities there OOB, there are no factories there, and none of the territories are really that strategic if you’re being pushed out of Africa anyway…something about the sea zones in 1942.2 makes North Africa very awkward as a base for staging an invasion of Italy. An Algerian VC would give the Axis at least some reason to put up a token defense of North Africa even in games when Egypt is a lost cause.

Fun! It looks good. You can see at a glance that the VCs are very well distributed and not clogging the board anywhere. My brother worked in Sierra Leone for a couple of years – if honoring Sierra Leone is your fee for designing this wonderful little map, then so be it! :-)

I didn’t expect that the Chile suggestion would be very popular. Bla bla, intricately balanced clockwork tapestry, bla bla, disturbed by the slightest changes bla bla expanding exponentially outward sowing seeds of chaos and doom, bla bla, no one will ever play Axis and Allies again and the world will collapse in a pit of fiery darkness, bla bla bla. It’s always the same story. :-)

yea addressing neutrals is something I’d like to do. Won’t be this go around. de Galle has some good ideas here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.0

I think making their forces (navy included) stronger would be a good way to go. piscolar seemed as if they had a pretty good system as well. I know Gamerman1 has a neutral blocks setup too. Can make the navy not appear unless attacked in congested SZs for triplea.

Also want to add BM’s Vichy Rules.

Anyway, that will be in the future.

If two more VCs need to be added for 1942.2,
I would go with
Allies PTO VC:  Szechuan (Chonqing)
Axis ETO VC : Norway (Oslo)

This makes: Germany 5 VCs and Japan 5 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 3 VCs
UK: 8 VCs

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

Axis European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)
5-Oslo (Norway)

Allies ETO VCs:
6-Washington (EUSA),
7-Ottawa (Eastern Canada),
8-London (UK),
9-Cairo (Egypt),
10-Cape Town (South Africa),
11-Moscow (Russia),
12-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
13- Stalingrad (Caucasus).

Axis PTO VCs:
14-Tokyo (Japan),
15-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
16-Manila (Philippines),
17-Singapore (Malaya),
18-Truk (Carolines Island),

Allies PTO VCs:
19-Chonqing (Szechwuan)
20-Calcutta (India),
21-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
22-Wellington (New Zealand),
23-Honolulu (Hawaii),
24-Anchorage (Alaska),
25-Victoria (Western Canada),
26-San Francisco (Western USA).

Axis: 10 VCs
Allies: 16 VCs

Looks good to me. I might swap out Warsaw for Algiers – Warsaw is not an OOB VC for 1942.2, and I don’t think it adds much tactical interest. You can see why you’d want Warsaw on the list for thematic reasons – invasion of Poland was what finally got Britain and France into the war, etc. – but I don’t think Algiers i much less thematic; it has to do with whether the Axis are able to maintain a presence in the Med, or whether they’ve been humiliatingly wiped off the African continent.

My issue with Germany’s VCs is placing them on peripheral TTy make virtually impossible for Germany to win  by VCs numbers. Only crushing Moscow would mean something.
Just imagine that Germany needs 9 VCs, only 4 more.
But it cannot loose any initial VCs, a very difficult challenge IMO.

Eh, you’re not wrong. But for what it’s worth, 1942.2 typically doesn’t have a Europe vs. Pacific VC distinction…if your entire team has a certain number of VCs, you win, and otherwise you don’t.

So if the Germans are up 4 VCs and down 1 VC, and the Japanese are up 2 VCs  (Chongqing and Sydney?), then that puts the Axis at 15 VCs, and maybe that’s enough for an Axis Victory.