Great customer service. They didn’t need to do this. I am getting my pieces and extra chips in a couple weeks now.
Merry Christmas!
they DID need to… actually.
they are still saving money on every person who bought the game and never got the pieces and didn’t ask for them after the fact already.
having downloaded your original blank map and the last one you just posted I notice that the IMAGE size of both maps is very different when loaded in Photoshop.
For instance your original rough drawn map
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30675.msg1110731#msg1110731 <– 1st post
has a image/canvas size of 41.639 inches by 19.5 and a resolution of 72 pixels / inch.
your latest post with the “finished product”
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30675.msg1178854#msg1178854
has a image/canvas size of 15.625 inches by 7.323 and a resolution of 96 pixels / inch.
Might this difference be the reason you see the noise around the borders like you are commenting about in your post?
I’m curious, if someone took that original posting and did their own edits to it (coloration and sea zones / zone edits) would it print without noise? I REALLY want to make a custom map for the extreme customization me and my wife play but don’t know the canvas size I should start with, and this original post pic would be awesome as a starting place to make it what we want.
I think that the map most definitely achieves your criteria’s. I am not such a fan of the colors but they fit with what you want, and are simply a knee-jerk omg reaction that will dissipate. I like the de-cluttering of it thou, and it is definitely easy to see who starts where this way.
When you get a final version up I’d be tempted to print it out as a replacement board myself specially if you put up the PSD and allow us to make our own modifications if needed… Love modifying my boards!
I own the first edition 1939 map by tigerman, and have played it a lot of times with my wife. I liked your map that shows the proportions of both maps back on the first or second page
I haven’t been able to find one like that of the 1939 changes between first and second edition and ultimately what you did with the land masses is so much what me and my wife noticed and critiqued on our very first play through on 1939… too much emphasis on areas that just don’t need emphasis. Although we play with our own special house rules and see fights through africa and the turkey / saudi arabia / Iran area’s quite more often because of it so having those areas works well for us.
Looking at how you did the hexes I find it confusing on some of your island chains, you most likely will have to customize positions of islands a bit out of geographically correct positions in order for them to ‘flow’ with the hexes, but I really like the idea of the hexes as it makes the sea zone battles a lot more tactical then strategical as with the bigger zones in 1939. As much as I liked 1939 we drew extra sea zones on the map on our 3rd game because we found it too easy to get to specific spots to quickly (including Atlantic crossing, we made it where it takes 2 turns to get across from ANY point as well with a black sharpie)
I personally really dislike the road art on the map, I would have to seriously think twice about buying it if it is as prevalent as it is in these pictures. Its ‘TOO’ distracting from the borders, even with them being enlarged/darkened… I have no real preference on solid color over realistic over some background noise as the background of the map, but I just find the straight lines of the roads and such to prevalent and distracting. Hopefully you make them less visible but still noticeable. Your choice thou.
The 1939 first edition was annoying with sea ports and airports displayed on the map, but with the lack of space in most places for units it worked well…
Might I ask ‘has completely stalled’ is that still in effect?
thank you for doing this page, it helps me find pieces I want from other games to make upgrades / house rules!
I’ve been thinking of playing a game where you can only build IC’s on original owned territories. Whenever you capture a territory (wich doesn’t originaly belong to you) with an IC on it, that IC is destroyed. This way the German advance into Russia might be a little bit more difficult and would give it more of a historical feel to it (as supply lines back then were a major issue too).
I have yet to try it out tho.
ya, we ALWAYS play with the can only build in your own starting territories rule in our games eitherway. Never done the destroy enemy ICs when captured, would be more like put them into fully damaged state and unrepairable till the person who built them repairs them is what we do… supply lines make the game much fun, specially in the bigger maps.
Thats why this is called the house rules forum.
Ultimately I agree with the OP and my wife and myself when we play our 1939 8’/4’ map use almost this exact rule for the Mech towing the Artillery. Although our Art don’t effect mech’s attack rolls, the bonus is the movement and being able to keep up to the tanks.
I don’t think it was a problem that Japan could land in the states, more the other way around. It is to quick for the states to land in japan. We actually added sea zones by drawing a line through a few to better represent what we felt was more realistic and cohesive to the game we were playing. House changes ftw :)
States masses up on the coast, and wham they in japan mainland right at the onset of combat. Why piddle with the islands when you can take away all their money with a lot less chance of losing it back to them.
Ya I can never go back to 1940 now… we play a completely reworked 1939 version ourselves. Kicks 1940 out the window!
it just gets so confusing on who is doing what at times, lol… but its a great resource for sure!
Sometimes i’ll point out to the wife some potential conquest that really isn’t my intended target, to get her thinking about my potential attack lanes so that she divides her attention from attacking me and defending herself
Wow Salan! You beat your wife?
constantly…
that sounds so wrong!
I’m not a big fan of buying on the fly as invaded, it allows the defender to tailor their units specifically to what is attacking them way more then the game is designed to allow.
If you want neutrals to have money to spend, give them a ‘Neutral purchasing’ turn in the order of events at either the beginning of a round or at the end of a round. They shouldn’t exist outside of the normal rules simply for the sake of simplicity because it unbalanaces the effect of attacking them.
oh hey Germany brought 3 airplanes, i’ll buy a AA gun as they invade, ha ha! instead of germany player thinking ‘they have a AA gun, i’ll bring tanks…’
@Imperious:
Ok new rule:
• Fortifications are now standard units and can protect your territoryfrom enemy attack. These cost 6 IPC and provide a +1 defense to Infantry or Artillery up to the limit of the IPC value of the territory. Once built they are placed inside the territory and cannot move and if captured are destroyed. If the attack is an amphibious invasion, on the first round all defending artillery gets a free shot (after any Shore Bombardments). Note: Gibraltar fortification defends against attack from either sea zone.
Im curious why you would choose to give the defenders more damage dealing capability rather then the opposite in survivability… the idea of fortifications is to do damage to the enemy while removing their ability to do the same to yourself. So in essence either way would ‘work’, but for logical argument wouldn’t any enemy attacking force (in our house rules we have directional qualifiers (did it cross the border the fort was on)) have a harder time killing the defenders then the defenders receiving an easier time killing the attackers while the attackers having the same chance as without a fort being present?
we use a -1 to attackers rolls to signify the defensive build up. how do you find the +1 defender rolls works in play? I find our -1 is a huge in game and psychological boundry. We see a lot more flanking and amphibious assaults to get around them.
Wife and myself are loving our '39 map. We don’t play with any of the rules or setup charts from this thread.
Doing more of a ‘true 39’ game. not a historical timeline '39 game. replayability will be really high and we’re loving it so far!
I’d be willing to buy a second map at some point if I could work out some customized changes into it(color of country mostly)
Sometimes i’ll point out to the wife some potential conquest that really isn’t my intended target, to get her thinking about my potential attack lanes so that she divides her attention from attacking me and defending herself :)
@Cmdr:
@Young:
@Vance:
Notice that affects Japan, USSR and ANZAC too. The big tech developer would be Germany early on and then USA later on, which is historically correct.
HOORRAAYY FOR HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS !!
I was going to say something, but did not.
It would not be unreasonable to see Germany, Japan and America with all 6 technologies by the end of the game, and I have no problem with that.
ya, its really rather interesting to see the major players advance past the minor players in more then just units. Its logically sound and historically true in that the war developed far beyond simple ownership of land.
In our house rules we have Research Facilities… these work like Industrial Facilities in that they can be bombed by enemy forces. They have 4 / 8 health, each currently functioning research facility rolls 1 die on ‘research development’ phase. can have 1 per territory, are destroyed when conquered (conquering nation can loot a technology on a roll of 6 when destroying (looting) the facility).
Facilities cost 15 IPC to purchase in our games.
we found this works awesome, as it represents a repeatable die roll, with strategic and tactical placement and objectives of having a building that needs to be defended and attacked, while still maintaining the same ON BOARD style that every other aspect of the game features.
Couple of questions. Do you play 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3? Which countries start with research faciliities and how many? How does ANZAC or Italy fair in this scheme, do they ever tech? Do you notice one power getting techs more than others? Perhaps one side?
since i got the global 1940 (europe/pacific combined) we’ve been playing with just me and my wife… takes maybe a month for a game as we added finland and canada nations, and play rather slowly. In our G40 games no one started with facilities and everyone had the option of buying them. we found that majority of the powers would tend to buy a 1 to 2 at the start, and maybe one later on. the initial investment needed 3 turns to turn a profit vs purchasing dice so doing so earlier was ideal… This style really favored UK and US over say Germany or Russia thou, and we found the allies getting a distinct advantage. So the last few games we played of G40 we started what we classified as Major powers with 2 facilities, and regional powers with 1 facility, and minor nations with 0.
Majors:
US/UK/Russia/Germany/Japan
Regional:
Italy/Anzac/IndiaUK
Minor:
Canada/Finland/France/China
again by pure numbers, allies should gain more tech over time. you could start the axis players with an extra research facility each if wanted, which with a 1 per territory rule would at least make it easier to lose the extra one as it would need to be placed in a spot that might not be as easily defensible.
I don’t think I’m missing someone. We both enjoyed the free starting technology Idea way more then purchasing from scratch. After all nations start with IC’s for free. we play technology as a way to speed the game up, once they start getting out there people start getting a bit of an advantage beyond pure map layout. the world war was not a balanced affair, the nations and people involved didn’t strive to make it so. We see this represented in the map board and IPC per turn layout and value of territory, and axis and allies is generally a historically inspired strategy game.
what we do now a days thou is play the variant 1939 map from HBG/FMG with 6 majors, 6 regional, 6 minor nations and 9 neutral blocks represented with their own custom painted armies. In the new game style Majors start with 2, Regionals start with 1, and minors can never buy them, but have the ability to ‘learn’ from a allied major gaining tech then rolling a 6 after the tech breakthrough in order to share with 1 minor nation, or looting from a conquered facility.
to answer your other question, we found that nations who normally wouldn’t have any technologies in our previous (before facilities) games were actually getting into the technology races and it wasn’t all that unbalanced as everyone was getting 1 to 3 by the end of the game minimally.
I always get mixed up between these two companies on who makes what, as both seem to sell a lot of the same custom pieces… :(
thx for posting them by who made em!