Help with a map project

ahh your preaching to the choir…. I have been using D12’s since 1995. MY own Advanced Axis and Allies system was based on the D12 system. I bug Larry since 2004 to use them wherever possible and finally in Bulge we got them. His own Advanced AA game if it ever comes out will use them too.

@Ddraiglais:

I will definately be expanding the sea zones to get more naval action and force people other than Japan and the US to build naval units.

You can use easily naval economic rules (like convoy zones or even convoy routes) to encourage US, UK and Japan buying naval units.

But what do you have in mind to encourage Germany or USSR to build naval units?

place limits on land builds. 50% land 50% air and sea?

dude just buy www.thewargame.com its a 6x3 foot map ( thick cardboard i may add) and it comes with pieces all for $100.00 you could never ever make a map for so cheap. Its accurate. If you don’t like the territories i guess you can bust out a marker and and add a few.

@Imperious:

place limits on land builds. 50% land 50% air and sea?

I thought a fun house rule to play for Revised would be 100% naval builds on turn one for each country.  Just imagine . . . a Russian battleship?!  Or additional Russian subs (it would seem you would have to allow an off-IC build for round one only to allow Russia to build these units off Karelia instead of in the Black Sea, where they would be sitting ducks).  The Graf Zeppelin would make a regular appearance.  With an 8 IPC bid, Germany could build a CV, a BB AND a transport.  All in all, fun to think about, eh?

G

Id rather see a free roll for a unit ( use one d12)

1= infanty
2= armor
etc…

or allow some cards that draw extra forces

or allow a fixed free unit(s) at specific turns

or lastly, before the game each player has to buy X amount of units with a set treasury before their first turn.

This is a pretty good source:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/axis.htm

Loads of diplomacy maps:

http://www.diplom.org/Online/maps.html

Do your own thing, but here are a few golden rules from Flashy;

Decide FIRST if, and how much, map distortion you want.  Western Europe and Japan are hopelessly small on a world map, so most of us use projections that exaggerate their size.  It’s no good basing your outline on a real map, then discovering later that you don’t have room for enough territories in Europe.

THINGS TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS

1. Rio de Oro is in NORTH Africa. Mark that point.  It is VERY important.
2. Moscow is in EUROPE. That is, nowhere near where official A&A boards put it.  If you can live with such an outrageous falsehood as Moscow-in-the-Urals, go ahead.  But in that case abandon any pretence of creating a historical map.
3. The Sinai penninsular is in EGYPT. There is therefore no need to complicate the board with having two territories controlling access to the Suez canal.
4. Countries such as Pakistan only came into being AFTER the war. You should NEVER include them, it is prefferable to use geographical terms such as “Western India” or “Indus Valley”.
5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.
6. Regarding IPCS, an important factor is fuel. Using GDP figures gives you a starting reference, but remember that areas such as Romania, Caucasus and the Dutch East Indies were much more important than their GDP value owing to their crude oil production.

This purports to be a realistic map, and is useful in that it lists IPC values AND oil production separately:

http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html

Talk of assigning IPC, the topic (in the other section of this forum) that I linked to had substantial discussion on that.
And yes GDP is hardly an indicator. Oil and metals. Democracy vs. dictatorship. Total war culture…

@Flashman:

5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.

But we can’t give it too much value neither considering the low recruitment. I am thinking “minor Allies” that you can use diplomacy dice to bring onside.

As for China, also populous but realistically you would have to include neutral territories for the warlords. The central government did not have good control of the country and to say they are onside with US only means maybe 3 of 6 territories onside.

What do you mean by low recruitment?  India raised half as many troops as the UK itself, and they fought in many theatres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

But only 399,000 served outside of India… a little less than the Canadian effort. They had an army of 2.1 million but only .4 million actually fought the war outside of India ( Africa, and Europe).

And they served in the British army anyway ( under British command). They fought alone only when Japan pulled that spoiling attack to thwart the British own offensive in Burma in 44’

I still think most people don’t divide up India through sheer ignorance.  It’s usual to see “French Indochina” divided into Burma/Indocine and Malaya because you can see this on any map, but with India people just get lazy and slap on “Pakistan” and that’s it.
How many troops were raised in “Indo-China”?

Indo-china is part of Japans concern… its the reason why the oil embargo was started by USA.

It also represents the garrison from Japanese empire

We thought about troops when we decided on the infantry raising power for each territory in AARHE.
I arrived at the idea that UK didn’t fully utilise India or South Africa due to political reasons.

Imagine a map with multiple resources. Oil, metals and population.

@tekkyy:

We thought about troops when we decided on the infantry raising power for each territory in AARHE.
I arrived at the idea that UK didn’t fully utilise India or South Africa due to political reasons.

Imagine a map with multiple resources. Oil, metals and population.

Reasoned?  Churchill would have SOLD India 1n 1940 if he thought it would’ve won the war.  It certainly contributed more, in manpower alone, than a miserable 3 IPCs worth.  And again, why is it just left as one territory compared to Indo-China which is usually divided into 3 or 4 territories?

To measure massive manpower in India (and China) which at the same time can’t be utilised directly by UK/US you could give it some neutral troops which cannot leave the territory.

The Chinese army was much larger than the Indian army. Also Japan was fighting the war with China since 1931…of course China is more important. Also, India was not really in the war except for its 400K contribution. Otherwise until the last full year of the war  its just shucking a few men to the British, and secondly, helping them repel the Japanese who were really just preempting the coming British offensive in Burma et al.

China bled and lost millions of citizens and soldiers…they were acutely effected in a way that India could never be compared too… thats why India is only 3 IPC ( which is commensurate with their contribution. Of course if they were assaulted by Japan for 10 years prior to the war… i suppose they would have fully mobilized and committed their entire army for this effort… but thats only potential. The game must serve what actually happened…Otherwise , the income basis that was assigned at the starting territories would have been higher…but they only represent what the world was in spring of 42 and THAT potential.