Vichy:
I’m on board with the neutral/pro-axis Vichy. If i’m reading the posts right, neutral territories, but money to Germany. Germany can invade them to move through them. I think that that light grey or blue-grey color could accomplish this as well as the 1939 scenario mentioned.
Road/Rails
If the plan is for road/rails, then I like IL’s list. For Europe, pretty much all the countries had a compatible rail system and I would be in favor of instead of putting multiple rails, putting in a standard europe rail plan, where you could move from one territory in europe an average number of territories away. Average would come from what the other rails are like. Spain had a different system and Russia was very primitive rail system in comparison. http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html
Turn Order:
I like Micoom’s best
1. Germany/ Italy
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom/ United States
but from deepblue’s list I would vote for A: Axis Aggressors, but I really do think Italy should go before UK.
1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. Italy
6. USA
Random thoughts:
If you are going back to June '41, East Poland, BeloRussia and West Ukraine should go back to Russia
I like the Atlantic Islands, for realism. I do see them as better in early stages for US to move to Europe, and for Germany after wiping Russia out
I think it was mentioned way back now about spliting the solomon islands into a couple sections and at the time I thought no, but after more thought and looking more and more at New Guinea, I think the Solomons could be split. Historically at least the US and Jap were both on opposite sides of some of the islands there for months fighting. I think it could work.
The Chunking VC is probably better than Panama City, I know that historically there were German plans to attack the canal there but there was German plans for just about everything (death rays, better mouse traps, etc) and that is a huge amount of China to cross for not a whole lot (though ipcs haven’t been ironed out yet)
Naha is listed in Okinawa and looks like a VC but I don’t see it on the list?
Why decided to not change Bellorussia and Western Ukraine to Russia? It is June 1941 at the start of Barbarossa… I think you should change this.
I was referencing this map and it to be more accurate the map is “Juneish†not specifically June. Since most of Byelorussia is axis control by July I left it with the Germans. Looking at the map again you’re probably right about Western Ukraine.
Thanks for the heads up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png
OK. But also change Belorussia. Just give it a small setup later on. So that Germany can invade it easily.
Will do.
Turn Order
C) Europe and Pacific Theaters Separated1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Italy
4. United Kingdom
5. Japan
6. United States
I vote for this turn order. I think it will play out nicely. My other reason for choosing it, is that the starting setup for this tun order would require the least amount of alteration to make it compatible with 1. Germany/Italy, 2. Russia, 3. Japan, 4. UK/United States. If we go with the 6-turn list from above, then the only real changes that will be needed between a starting setup for 6-turn and 4-turn is that the UK in the pacific theater might need a small number of changes to compensate for going either before or after Japan. Everything else on the board could be left the same. Assuming we put out a new rules .pdf to go with the final realease of the map, I think we should go with a standard 6-turn system for the regular rules, and then we can add a rules addendum that would list the slight setup changes needed for the UK to allow for the alternate 4-turn system. I have Adobe Acrobat Proffessional, so once we get around to making the rules, I can put together a .pdf file that’s as detailed and robust as we want it to be. It also wouldn’t be hard to release an alternate UK setup card, too, so that players who are always going to play 4-turn wouldn’t even have to look at the rules addendum to see how the setup is altered.
Roads In or Out?
I am in favor of the rule I suggested (obviously). How does the group feel?
I vote for putting roads in, but try to put them in in a subtle way on the map, so that players who don’t want to play with them can just ignore them and they won’t stand out real glaringly on the map. The roads and/or strategic move system can then be put in as optional rules in the rules .pdf. As for what roads to go with, I would go with the 4 I had on my original map, (though maybe you could try to redraw them in a prettier manner.) Plus the Lend-Lease road from Persian Gulf to Caucasus that I.L. mentioned sounds like it would be nice, too. As for the Alaskan Highway, I would leave it out. All that road really does is make it even more impossible for Japan to attempt an invasion of the US. For gameplay sake, I think Japan should still have some sort of outside chance of taking over the US. I’m not saying it should be easy in any sense, but the possibly should still be there, however slight. The Alaskan Highway just makes it even easier for the US to repel an Alaskan foothold than it already is.
Well at the very least the USA should be connected by a rail line. The US had more miles of rail than any nation on earth and at a minimum a rail should at least connect all parts of USA so 1 MP units can get across. Perhaps that alaska railroad could have a limited movement of no more than say 2-3 per turn… to make up for that “Japan should be able to have a chance to invade USA” idea which is really very remote. The benifit to USA would be to establish a naval base (puget Sound) and be somewhat established in other naval bases besides Hawaii.
I have not received any responses to my China suggestion so let me explain it in more detail.
I agree that Chunking should be a VC.
I don’t think it should be an American VC. The obvious reason it is not an American city or asset. Second, Fairness, the Americans already have a VC that is isolated on the Philippines, they don’t need another.
The Chinese were supported by the Americans but not essential to the Americans. I don’t think the American player should lose 10 points if they lose Chunking, but I do agree that it should have value for the Japanese.
My proposal:
China currently has its own color, roundel and production system. Give it its own VC. This way it is worth 10 points to the Japanese but the American player does not lose 10 points if it falls.
I also don’t think that China’s IPCs should go to the Americans. Did China really support the American war effort; I think not, so use the rules from AAP and allow them to produce troops themselves in a limited fashion. Example: One troop for every two IPCs they control or something along those lines. (China would not receive actual money)
I would even be willing to make a reference card for China.
So China will have all the elements of a player nation but on a smaller scale. (I am not suggesting that China be its own player nation, the US player will still control the Chinese.)
This would also give the American player something to do early while waiting for the “giant to awakenâ€.
Thoughts?
Thats right…
I agree with Imp on this one. China gets men in a similar manner as in AAP as a minor player.
Cheers,
pdel
Panama Canal must be a VC because its importance is unquestionable. If Japan had sunk any old ocean liner in the middle of the canal it would have cost the US another six months of time to get on track to get into a position to counter Japan. Going around SA would have been a joke. Remember oil reserves were on hawaii, but Texas supplied the Pacific fleet with about 85% of her fuel stocks.
Plus a few VC need to be in the Americas anyway so that the US player will garrison something and the Axis have something to think about.
If Chunking is not going to be an US VC, then definitely put Panama City in for the replacement. It was a big target, considered by both sides.
The Burma Road ipc train that IL mentions adds a nice twist.
The AAP rules for China would be a great way to handle China.
I do like Chungking as a separate China VC. Panama city is the best for the US, but Dutch Harbor could also work. Panama city could be an option for both Germany and Japan, while Dutch Harbor only for Japan. But I admit, it is both a longshot.
AAP rules for China, well OK, but with some more options please… Like possible ART purchases… via Lend Lease etc…
Ok… how about this…
China’s Production
My point and one Positronica made earlier is that if we use the AAP rule “as is†the Chinese now get 10 infantry units instead of 3. Is this appropriate/balanced?
I am in favor of the AAP rules I just think it needs slight tweaking for this map. I also agree with Micoom that they should have a few more options.
My new suggestion:
So something along the lines of every 2 IPCs they control round down the Chinese get an Infantry unit. That would be 5 units a turn plus the Burma Road at the current IPCs
Burma Road provides X units. (Maybe 2)
And as long as the Burma Road is open the Chinese can trade in two (new) infantry units for one artillery unit instead.
Chungking
Chungking should be an objective. Make it worth 10 points for the Japanese (Axis) if they control it. This gives the Japanese incentive to go get it and will encourage the Allies to defend it to keep the 10 points out of the Axis’s hands.
OR
Add Chungking as China’s only VC worth 10 points.
My only concern is this gives the Allies one more VC then the Axis.
You could also choose to add one more VC to the Axis (Japan) in return then. Saipon on the Mariana Islands. This city was vital in WWII, because it was the first base that brought the Japanese homeland in reach of Allied B29 bombers, other then the Chinese mainland.
Did you also have some thoughts on the OIL cities/territories IL’s suggested?
The China idea has been used in other varients. I think it could work. 2 IPC infantry… and conditional benifits from burma road are good. But now you have to worry about combat.
You may find an issue with those 10 infantry attacking Japanese forces and causing too much damage and also the Japanese taking too many Chinese territories too soon to stop the infantry coming.
I think Japan should be limited to one round of combat per turn representing the Chinese tactic of retreating into the countryside. This would be the only time a defender could retreat. Also, if Chinese attack you may want to make a rule that it takes 2 infantry to get 1 attack factor? Or you can go the Xeno route and say 1 combat for every 5 infantry.
yikes 10 infantry per turn with normal rules.
 I’m not familiar with the AAP rules too much, aren’t there specific Chinese Air Force (flying tigers) that come with the game? would they factor in too? I was thinking they would get 1 inf per 2 ipcs. But maybe ipc values are factored into the Chinese territories, you might want to use traditional rules for them, if they could build like 3-4 inf per turn or art on their own (if each territory had at least a 1 ipc value, they’d get at least 15
Why not just make Chungking a VC that does not count for the allies?  Saipon could work, like Mocoom mentioned, or maybe Naha, which is listed on the map already to give the axis 1 more to balance and make Chunking count for the Allies.
or maybe Naha, which is listed on the map already to give the axis 1 more to balance and make Chunking count for the Allies.
Naha is already a VC. The VC post on the thread listed Okinawa, my mistake; it should have read Naha which is on Okinawa.
Are we ready to print this thing yet?
-jim lee
