Topics created by aethervox

You have some thoughts about new rules and new units for the Milton Bradley-era A&A? I am right there with you. I posted some thoughts late last year / early this year. I will link them below so that you can find them. If you want to discuss these rules, I recommend commenting on the relevant post rather than right here. But you do you.

One thing I will mention. I like paratroopers and paratrooper rules. But using bombers to cart around paratroopers is both silly and not historically accurate. So, I wrote rules for another new unit, the Air Transport or Cargo Plane unit. Think of them as Transports in the sky - with less cargo capacity and more movement points. See, when you fold in both the Paratrooper and their trusty steeds, the cargo plane / air transport, then I think you’ve got something…

Midnight_Reaper’s New A&A Classic Rules:
1(Classic) Simple Cruiser Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
1a(Classic) Cruisers or Destroyers for Classic?: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41552.0
2(Classic) Paratrooper and Air Transport Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
3(Classic) Armored Cavalry and Troopers - Rules for two ground units for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
4(Classic) Heavy Artillery - Rules for a new ground unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0
5(Classic) New Research Rules - Outsmart your Enemies: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41479.0
6(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41480.0
6a(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic, at a Lower Dose: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41481.0
7(Classic) National Advantages - A new way to help balance Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41482.0
8(Classic) New Unit Surcharge - New Economics for Classic : https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41483.0
9(Classic) Special Forces - New Optional Unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41484.0
9a(Classic) More Special Forces Options for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41485.0
10(Classic) Incendiary Thoughts - Strategic Bombing and Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41486.0
11(Classic) Unit Prices & Balance - New Economics for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41487.0
12(Classic) New Initial Setup - New Setup for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41551.0

Like I said, I have some thoughts on the subject…  And I’m not even done with this series, just mostly done…  :-D

-Midnight_Reaper

I like. I also like having a lot of pieces on the board. I’d love to do a game with double the amount of pieces for everyone.

As the two game boards are combined there may be anomalies, especially for the UK player.
I thought (& think) the UK player has two ‘Treasuries’.
In addition, the ‘Commonwealth’ (the UK ‘emigrant colonies’) deserves it’s own three ‘Treasuries’.
The other GP starting income totals are due to the ‘historical notes’ on Germany & the USSR.
As to the USA points - it is suggested there should be one & one only Territory value for each space on the board.

My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;

The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected. There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here). The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest. I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space  reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.

WT !  :?  You got White Walkers in there somewhere ?

Hmmm, How do I alter the topic title? It says 1942 as the year - that was a mistake - the darn thing took so long to type.

I have made alterations, mostly to territory values along with adding a few new territories, to the Global 40 game to more accurately (as I believe) reflect the relative values of the given territories of the game map. Here is a list of my changes and/or additions;
United States (value 47)…… East US 20, Central US 12, West US 10, Alaska 2, Hawaii 1 & Philippines 2
Canada (value 11) …  NB & NS 1, Quebec 3, Ontario 3, A-S-M 2, British Columbia 2 & NWT (new territory north of A-S-M) 0.
ANZAC (value 6) … New Zealand 2, Queensland 1, New South Wales 2 & Victoria 1 (S. Aus, W. Aus & NT all now 0).
United Kingdom Europe (value 19) … Scotland 3, United Kingdom 6, Nigeria 1, Belgian Congo 1, Union of South Africa 2, Rhodesia 1, Tanganyika 1, Kenya 1, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 1, Egypt 2 & Gold Coast, SW Africa & Trans-Jordan now 0.
France (value 19) … France 6, Normandy 2, South France 2, Algeria 1, Tunisia 1, Fr W Africa 1, Fr Cen Africa 1, Fr Equa Africa 1, Madagascar 1, Syria 1 & Fr Indo-china 2 (Morocco now 0).
Japan (value 26) … Japan 8, Okinawa 1, Iwo Jima 1, Korea 3, Formosa 1, Manchuria 3, Jehol 1, Shantung 2, Kiangsu 3, Kiangsi 1, Kwangsi 1 & Siam 1.
Germany (value 30) … Norway 1, Denmark 2, Hol-Bel 3, West Germany 9, G South Ger 3, Germany 5, Poland 3, Slo-Hun 2 & Romania 2.
United Kingdom (Pacific) (value 19) … West India 3, South India 1 (new)* , India 6, Burma 1, Malaya 3, Borneo 2 & Kwangtung(HK) 3 & Shan State now 0.
Italy (value 10) … North Italy 5, South Italy 3, Libya 1 & Ethiopia 1 (Albania now 0).
Dutch East Indies (value 7) … Java 4, Sumatra 2, Celebes 1 , Dutch New Guinea & Moluccas - a new territory, both 0.
Soviet Union (value 37) … Russia 6, Ukraine 3, West Ukraine 3, Novgorod 3, Baltic States 2, East Poland 2, Belarus 2, Rostov 2, Volgograd 2, Caucasus 2, Smolensk 1, Bryansk 1, Vologda 1, Samara 1, Tambov 1, Kazachstan 1, Novosibirsk 1, Yenisey 1, Yakut 1 & Amur 1. All other territories are now 0.
Neutral States (value 39) … Mexico 1, SE Mexico 2, Central America 1, West Indies 1, Venezuela 2, Columbia 1 (new), Peru 1 (new), Chile 2, Argentina 2, Brazil 3, Finland 1, Sweden 3, Eire 1 (new), Spain 2, Portugal 1, Angola 1, Mozambique 1, Saudi Arabia 1, Iraq 2, Turkey 3, Greece 2, Bulgaria 1, Yugoslavia 2 & Persia 2.

Maybe someone else will alter their game boards to these values. They are more accurate (relatively speaking) than what is presented by the game developers.

Nice ideas. Thanks for posting. You have probably seen that many here do the same thing.

Anyone know why there id no main topic thread listed for Axis & Allies First Edition (released ???).
I have a Milton-Bradley 1985 edition (although the map is ‘changed’ due to the map being an ‘atrocious eyesore’ garbage depiction of geography - almost anyone could have done better).

Any customization is welcome on this thread.

Your other question would probably go in one or two places.

You can either ask your question on the thread, "other axis and allies variants, "  or the thread, "house rules, " which might be a better place for it.

That would be my guess, but others may have suggestions as well.

I hope that helps. :-)

John

…which were quickly wiped out by Japan and not replaced.

The Soviet Navy had to build ships in Russia then sail them out to form the Pacific fleet.

I don’t buy the idea of complexes as staging areas - this can apply to any area where you build up forces, and doesn’t need a factory.  To me, “Industrial Complex” means a vast industrial base of economic production in which weapons of war are forged.  To establish such a base overseas from scratch is simply not realistic. Much, much cheaper and quicker to ship/rail the units from their base of origin in your home territory which is exactly what the game should reflect.

Industrial complexes (at least building new ones and using other player’s) are one of those hangovers from the original game design that somehow haven’t been updated because they feel like too much a part of the A&A tradition.  But, like the Sinai peninsular being in Trans-Jordan, or the disturbing re-appearance of the Hiberno-Caledonian land bridge, they don’t belong in a game which purports to represent World War II.

@aethervox:

Does Sea Zone 110 include the English Channel? I assume it does. However, it appears the English Channel could be considered sparate from Zone 110 - it certainly would give consideration to the Strait of Dover as a dividing line between the North Sea (zones 110,11 & 112) and the English Channel.

Yes.  SZ110 connects SZ104, 105 & 109 to 111 & 112.  There is no seperate English Channel Seazone.  The only Seazone that is currently unmarked (and should be numbered) is the Caspian Sea.

well you are right in some points and may be wrong in others. My opinion is that is excellent to develop new ideas, but you are just altering too many points.

Try to make fewer changes and them we can all together develop the game instead of replacing the game.

The new map is an uneasy compromise, with some tts values reflecting oil wealth, others not.

Personally I prefer adding industrial base and mineral resources together to create a single economic index, but the separate oil values have been tried:

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

The big problem is that the Allies always have more than enough oil, the Axis hardly ever enough.  Forcing the Axis to take oil centres to keep going makes their moves very predictable.

Anzac, in reality, could only defend itself versus an eventually over-extended Japan pushing south. 6 IPCs will build just enough Inf to survive. I dont recall Anzac invading anywhere except into New Guinea whereas Canada at 11 IPCs could build Inf & Transports to do what it actually did, re-inforce United Kingdom bedises have its own beach & army on D Day. Boring maybe but definitely more realistic to what happened & a mark of a good simulation is to be as realistic as possible. The designers put a Canadian emblem on the board - too bad they didn`t distinguish the Canadian forces that should be on the board (like the Anzac) & possibly provide some control markers, as well.

if people want to know, just look in the back of the AAE40 rule book where it distinguishes all types of units