It’s Friday!
The fourth draft has arrived!
I have made the following changes from the third draft:
Added:
None
Changed:
Replaced Budapest with Bucharest
Western Ukraine and Byelorussia are now Russian
Chungking is now labeled a VC
Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.
The group agrees that Chungking should be a VC in some shape or form. So I will go ahead and change the font to the VC font.
Ok we have gotten a little off topic here. Forget the China rule set for now.
What needs to be decided is the status of Chungking.
I like the VCs as they stand but also agree that Chungking should have value for the Japanese.
Chungking as an objective worth 10 points for the Axis is the best option that does not require changing the current VC structure.
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.
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.
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?
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
The third draft has arrived!
Sorry for the delay, the file sharing service was down. Can’t complain too much it’s free!
Gentlemen,
I have made the following changes from the second draft:
Added:
Portugal
Changed:
Date of map to June 1941 (Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland exception)
Baltic States, Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine, and Crimea are under Russian control.
Former sea zones 92, 93 and 107 have been combined.
Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland are now Italian.
Added Addis Ababa as the fifth VC for Italy.
Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.
Micoom,
On the VC list; Please change Budapest to Bucharest! Roumania was much more important then Hungary.
This is fine by me. Anyone have an issue with this change?
China is on the map, and played separate by the US, so replace Panama City with Chungking as a VC. There must be something to gain for the Japanese in their War with China.
Good point, just one thought if China has its own army production, its own roundel. Could it have its own VC? Just a thought.
Give China a 10 point VC to defend on “its ownâ€.
Thoughts?
On territories; Did you add the name of Corsica?? And maybe you can switch the IPC values of Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland, now that Abyssinia has a VC.
Not yet, waiting to see how the Vichy debate turns out. (It is Vichy, don’t want to do the work twice.)
Hold onto the IPC thought till later.
Death Head 420,
If a road version is made, I will look into the Europe road/rail.
Craig,
Glad to see you back on the thread. Thanks for the input.
@Imperious:
I would prefer these roads only:
Burma road ( a route thru the mountains)
Siberian railroad ( along the stretch of SU)
Lend lease road in Persia ( connecting persian gulf to caucasus)
Alaskan highway (connecting it to USA)
A major rail to connect both sides of USA so units can do it in one movement.
I thought you were in favor of the strategic move rule?
Turn Order
Like I mentioned before some great suggestions have been posted to the thread on this topic. I look forward to trying them when I find the time.
Due to the fact that these suggestions have not been play tested I am going to have to fall back onto the true and tested turn based method of A&A. It’s just a rule set feel free to play the map anyway you like, but I will be putting one of the following onto the reference charts. If we create a rule book for this variant other methods can be listed in it.
So please vote and let me know which option you like best.
A) Axis Aggressors
1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. Italy
6. USA
B) A&A Classic plus 1
1. Russia
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. Japan
5. United States
6. Italy
C) Europe and Pacific Theaters Separated
1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Italy
4. United Kingdom
5. Japan
6. United States
Territories
I feel we have discussed this at length and should be close to final. If you want to see any additional changes let me know this week.
I did not get feed back on the Atlantic Islands. Like/Dislike? Needs more/less?
Imp, do you still have heartburn over Vichy?
Roads In or Out?
I am in favor of the rule I suggested (obviously). How does the group feel?
Victory Cities
I feel that to get the VC conversation moving forward we should use the following approach.
Review the current list, then post what cities on that list you disagree with and why, along with your suggested replacement.
I think this approach will allow us to focus on specific cities and allow for pointed debates. (Please don’t just post your list of cities.)
Other VC goals:
This is not set in stone but for parity and continuity I would like each nation to have the same number of VCs.
Try to keep fairness/balance in mind when choosing cities.
Try to keep one territory between the VCs. (I know we have some exceptions, if you have a better city please let me know.)
It’s my understanding everyone likes the tiered system of (1) 20, (1) 15, (3) 10 if I am wrong let me know.
Let’s try to suggest cities and not oil fields or areas of major battles I’m sure some of these have merit but like Larry Harris I like the idea of cities being discussed around the war tables.
Remember that a city can be on the map that is not a VC. So if you think a city was important during the war put does not merit VC status, let me know I will try to add it.
Something not up for debate, Total Cities
The max number is 30. I know it is hard to choose, with so many great options out there. (It’s like being a kid in a candy store with a twenty dollar bill.) But do try.
CURRENT LIST
National Capitals 20 point
US
San Francisco 15 point
10 point
Honolulu
Manila
Panama City
UK
Calcutta 15 point
10 point
Canberra
Cairo
Singapore
RUSSIA
Stalingrad 15 point
10 point
Leningrad
Baku
Vladivostok
GERMANY
Paris 15 point
10 point
Oslo
Warsaw
Budapest
ITALY
Athens 15 point
10 point
Tripoli
Addis Ababa
Palermo
JAPAN
Peiping 15 point
10 point
Okinawa
Seoul
Taipei
Goals for This Week.
I would like to finalize the following by next Friday (30th of March).
1. Victory Cities
2. Starting Territories, their borders, names and any final additions/removals. (IPCs will be discusses at a later date)
3. Turn Order
4. Roads in or out? (I am willing to make a version with roads if enough people want one.)
but if it’s '42 then Barbarossa had begun the previous year.
The map is set at June 1941, with a few exceptions.
The third draft is on its way.
The file sharing service I use is currently down. I will post the map as soon as it comes up. Sorry for the wait. Below are the changes I have made.
Added:
Portugal
Changed:
Baltic States, Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine, and Crimea are under Russian control.
Former sea zones 92, 93 and 107 have been combined.
Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland are now Italian.
Add Addis Ababa as the fifth VC for Italy.
Imp,
I like your turn sequence. My only concern is combined movement/combat may lead to balance issues.
Deaths Head 420,
Your turn sequence is way too complicated. The turn sequence should not have an If statement in it.
Another thing,
If we can bend space/time for the map, we can do the same for the turn sequence. Don’t get too hung up on who was the aggressor or what state the UK was in for turn 1. It’s only one turn of many. I think game mechanics/balance should be the driving force when determining the turn order.
Micoom,
I like the idea of simultaneous movement as an option, but would also like to discuss/decide on a turn based system to allow a more traditional A&A play style as well.
If we go with Italy in Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa instead of Mogadishu is fine by me.
Positronica,
Trying to have one setup to accommodate two methods of playing is a lost cause. I think it would be best to decide on a play style and make a setup for it. Then if it is not too much trouble have a setup for the other style. My preference would be to make a turn based system with a setup. Then list the modifications to that setup to allow for simultaneous movement.
I like the idea of simultaneous movement, but I know a few of the older guys in my game group would not like it and would probably turn down an opportunity to try this new version due to it. They like slow and steady, gives them time to think, I guess.