Posts made by Trenacker

The map is still a mess. MS Paint’s paintbrush option doesn’t appear to lay an even coat, so I can’t auto-fill within national borders, meaning that each country must be painted by hand. I’m trying to figure out if it would be wise to invest in a WaCom tablet for this kind of work and would greatly appreciate any suggestions from some of the community’s seasoned mapmakers.

I’ve calculated income (IPC values) for all the major and minor powers in the game at this point, so let’s shift gears tonight and take a look at how that breaks down, with some additional points of interest for each country. Here’s an early (albeit incomplete) preview.

Allied Powers

United Kingdom & Dominions: 54

Representing His Majesty’s possessions and Commonwealth allies west of Suez. The U.K. starts with sevenof the Empire’s eight battleships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and one of its two battlecruisers. The British also field a pair of fleet carriers, divided between either station.

British Far East Command: 50

All British Empire forces east of Suez, inclusive of Australia and New Zealand. There are 10 INF in greater India alone, and another 4 in Malaya or on Singapore at game start. By contrast, Australia and New Zealand are virtually defenseless. A battleship, battlecruiser, cruiser, and two destroyers comprise the Royal Navy presence here.

France: 37

France is a going concern in this game, with powerful armies concentrated along the Maginot Line, the Alpine Line on the Franco-Italian border, and in North Africa. The French Indochina garrison is also formidable, with 1 INF, 1 ARTY, and 1 FTR. Powerful squadrons of the French Navy, including 2 BB and 1 BC, are at Toulon and Mers el-Kébir. A cruiser lays at anchor off Indochina. A troop transport in the Indian Ocean carries 1 additional INF and 1 AAA.

United States of America: 130

The wealthiest nation on Earth, but humbled by the Depression. The United States Navy counts ten battleships and one fleet carrier.

Pro-Allied Minors

United Netherlands: 28

Anticipating war with Japan rather than Germany, the Dutch spent heavily on air and naval defenses in the Indies, where a BC and a SUB patrol, backed by a TAC. At game start, a Dutch FTR on Java is the closest possible air cover available for Malaya. A modest increase to the army began more recently, but there can be no illusions about what will happen if Europe falls into another war.

Communist Powers

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: 57

An industrial behemoth, the Soviets are arrayed against the Germans in the west and the Japanese in the Far East. The massive Red Army fields 24 infantry in total.

Axis Powers

Japan: 35

In terms of capital ships, the Japanese operate three BB and one BC, as well as two fleet carriers.

Italy: 22

Still smarting over the abandonment of her Entente partners in the last war, Italy has renewed its membership in the Triple Alliance. The Italian army in North Africa, amounting to 2 INF, 1 ARTY, 1 armored car (AC), and 1 ARM, is a significant threat to French possessions there. The Italian Navy includes 1 BB and 1 fleet carrier. Italy’s mobilization factor of 11 INF is high for a country of her size; by way of comparison, the British Far East Command fields 17 INF at game start, spread across a far wider operational area.

Pro-Allied Minors

Polish Commonwealth: 11

In this timeline, a client state of Germany. Considering the weight of Soviet metal arrayed on its eastern border, the Poles are likely to serve as the doormat over which its neighbors stomp with reckless abandon.

Siam 2

A client state of Japan. Poised to invade French Indochina at game start with a formidable army of 3 INF, 1 ARM, and 1 FTR. The Siamese navy is a destroyer, standing in for the pair of coast defense ships it operated historically.

I would associate an IPC payout only with achievements, not actions. The purpose of changing victory conditions should be to push play in directions it would not otherwise be likely to go.

Let achievements be defined as any action that is predictably difficult because it can be readily opposed.

Therefore, an achievement would be the Italian conquest of Egypt or British retention of the East Indies. Actions might be Italo-German conquest of Yugoslavia or German occupation of Rumania.

In this game, Japan and its possessions are worth 35 IPC at game start. As with Italy, its colonies at this time contributed virtually nothing to its national income.

I had planned to distribute Home Islands income (25 IPC) thusly: Kyushu-Shikoku, 7; Honshu, 14; Hokkaido, 4. I’m open to suggestions that the ratio be altered for accuracy.

In terms of Japan’s colonial possessions, Northern Korea, Jehol, and Kiangsi are worth 1, Manchuria is worth 3, and Shantung and Kiangsu are both worth 2.

The Maldives are on the map and will remain.

Avalanche Press is a hex-and-counter wargame company with an alternate history property that deals with a Second World War set after an early peace in 1916.

The president of the company, Dr. Mike Bennighof, posts some intriguing stuff in their Daily Content session.

My history also borrows from a story called Cherry Trees Spared, about a scotched Washington Naval Treaty.

All right. So, I grabbed a copy of Historical Board Gaming’s Global War 1914 map and used my very minimal artistic skills in MS Paint to begin preparing a modified board for play.

It can be found here.

The map isn’t yet finished. The IPCs are incorrect for most powers, many roundels must be changed, and I haven’t gotten around to filling in the correct colors for even half the powers in play. I wanted to share to stimulate interest.

The idea is a 1936 or '38 game start subject to an alternate history in which the Great War ended in a negotiated peace (credit to Avalanche Press). This outcome significantly blunts the impact of the Great Depression, especially outside the United States. It also leads to an arms race that, by the late 1930s, is threatening to spiral into another world war.

Right now, the scenario for game start is this: The Poles and the Swedes have been skirmishing along their Baltic border. A recent intensification of fighting has led the Soviet Union to begin an invasion of the Baltic states, provoking Germany and Austria-Hungary to declare war out of fear that, in future, the European balance of power can only tilt to their disadvantage.

What is chiefly missing, I think, is somebody with the skill to produce a superior map. I’ve fumbled about, but MS Word had trouble translating the original .jpeg file into flat colors, meaning that I couldn’t use the “fill” function. I was also unable to separate the map into what I assume are the layers that house different assets, like the roundels. And, of course, there is no option to make anything transparent. In short, I had to paint each change by hand, which I am sure will translate to a fantastic pig’s breakfast if ever I try to print this map.

My goal is to have a test map printed in very large scale ahead of NashCon in early June. I will bring the map, along with a set-up that I am preparing. I have got the economics figured using real-world 1938 data.

This leads to some very interesting revelations of which I doubt most people are aware, including the following:

• Virtually none of Italy’s wealth during this period was from her colonies. I was forced to add an IPC to discourage whole-sale abandonment of Africa, although I suppose that’s all right, as a shorter war would have preserved some of her blood and treasure despite the loss of Venetia.

• Even after adjusting for war spoils, Bulgaria’s total national value should have been 2. I added an IPC so that Thrace is strategically valuable.

• Greek victory in the Greco-Turkish War is pie-in-the-sky to begin with, and the cost of rebuilding a depopulated Ionia and Colchis are more than the Greek economy can bear. The point of the Greek nation is to add a bit of flavor and pull attention to areas of the map that are often no more than a crossroads for our gaming group. I don’t expect the Greeks to last long against predation.

• The Netherlands had world-class industry during this time, including ship-building capability, but chose not to employ it. The Dutch East Indies were probably the most lucrative colony in the world, providing nearly twice as much output as the metropole itself. Combining the Dutch with the Belgians turns the Netherlands into a power stronger than Italy, though vastly more vulnerable. The Dutch generate the equivalent of 28 IPC’s in this game.

• The Japanese Home Islands and all the Empire’s possessions in 1938 were worth a good deal less in terms of national income than the combined British and Empire presence east of Suez (converting their national incomes from the period yields 35 IPC’s versus 49 IPC’s). That said, the Japanese were producing more in terms of finished goods.

• The Soviet Union is an industrial power house by 1938, with 57 worth of income before we calculate the negligible loss to White rebels (who, in this timeline, are still kicking). For comparison, with her whole empire accounted for, France totals only 37.

I’ve bought all of the country-themed expansions except the one for Turkey, which is currently sold out.

I’ve also purchased many after-market pieces from HBG, FMG (the Italians), and Airfix.

I find that the rules for the G1936 game are clunky and that, while the map is gorgeous, territory distribution doesn’t suit the vision I have for a modified game. I’m trying to figure out how to print an alternative map for that reason.

I think the next expansion HBG offers should be focused on South America, providing pieces for Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Perhaps something titled “Under the Southern Cross.”

@Ichabod:

Pretty ambitious project your taking on. I suggest titling your setup 1938 or whatever the date is when Russia didn’t yet have control of the Baltic states or make it August 1939 and readjust. 1938 would be unique.

Since the map is based on an alternate history premise, it isn’t technically a 1938 setup in the same sense that other folks have produced a 1941 or 1942 setup.

@Ichabod:

It will be tough to find out the right balance to ensure a fair game for both sides. I think Germany may have been too beefed up. I advise looking at the G40 setup for all nations, then scaling a little bit back (as Germany was less powerful in early 1939 then they were in say May of 1940). Since Germany has to attack more places, I think the balance works itself out. Do reposition the units to coincide with your scenario a little more I think. For Germany, to me, that means, enough forces within range of Poland and forces along the border of France and Netherlands whereas I saw the layout of the units too evenly distributed throughout German territory.

I based Germany on the original G40 set-up, but clustered units from areas they had not yet conquered. Consider that I also considerably enhanced the Royal Navy, the French defenses, and the Dutch while making the Italians weaker on the land side of things. The Germans also need to spend time conquering Poland.

I’m completely open, at this point, to altering distribution of units within the German territories at game start.

@Ichabod:

For whatever additional units are added to an axis power or pro-axis power (Spain), then, on the other side match the same value (like the Netherlands concept) with a similar minor power. If Poland is a country, make Finland a separate country with similar amounts of units. For either of them (in keeping the pro-axis or pro-allies neutral OOB concept), perhaps once all of their territories are occupied they could never be a “minor” power again?

The Allies will pick up Greece and the Netherlands. I may add a Karelian Union – basically, Sweden, Finland, and the Baltics. I will balance the neutrals once I’ve figured out the new minors.

@Ichabod:

I like how your adding more sea zones to the Mediterranean. It might make “playing the med” more fun and interesting; especially making it one space longer to go from Gibraltar/S. France to Cairo in one turn. Perhaps re-draw Sea Zone 96 instead of 94. Let the ships go as far as Alexandria or Tobruk?

Yes, I can see the value of splitting Sea Zone 96. I’ll incorporate that change.

@Ichabod:

Regarding SZ 97, I don’t think you should split the sea zones for gamism reasons. That would take away another ability for Germany to help their junior partner play the med. Yugo and Greece sharing SZ 97 permits Germany the ability to purchase an airbase in either territory to add additional scramble cover for an Italian navy struggling. It also permits Germany a chance to buy an IC and launch boats into a sea zone with a pre-existing air base (s. Italy). It’s hard enough as it is for Germany to play the med and any expenditures there usually mean a safer Russia.

Depending on how the alternate history shakes out, I may add Austria-Hungary back into the mix. Probably Poland will be turned into a fascist nation in its own right, serving as a kind of rampart for the Germans. But I plan to sub-divide Yugoslavia either way, so the damage to Germany’s power projection is already done.

@Ichabod:

If you separate SZ 80, I suggest the zone line permit ships in the Arabian sea land on e. Persia.

Why do you favor that approach?

@Ichabod:

SZ 100, I think against separating it as the benefits of building an IC in Romania and launching boats area already not really worth it. Rarely as it is already do people ever try to launch boats there. An extra sea zone would make it even less likely to occur. Germany has to buy at least one surface warship and an airbase to protect transports there. In a 2 sea zone map, if they moved to unload on Caucasus, then they’d be exposed.

I’m thinking of adding Greece as another minor power once I can mark up a version of the map.

I am going to try to get a version of the map from Cyanight that I can print at unusually large dimensions. That will give me space to subdivide territories without worrying about trying to cram units in.

@barney:

I thought it’d be cool to split the Med too. I don’t like how Gib, S France and Egypt can control each other. I was gonna split 96sz. That way you can’t make it to Egypt in one turn from S France.

I like it.

I recently attended the Battle of Tennessee IV, held by the Nashville Axis & Allies Meetup the weekend of March 3. As usual, I had a terrific time.

On the final evening, I had the opportunity to set up a 1939 start using some after-market pieces and a friend’s board. Note that he has traced the borders of each territory and sea zone with silver marker to ensure that they stand out. You can view the results for the European Theater here, and for the Pacific Theater here.

This was strictly an experiment to determine whether the out-of-box board is of a size suitable for modified play. My sense is that the out-of-box board is indeed suitable. Based on this conclusion, I will probably try to have an enlarged paper version of one of Cyanight’s maps printed out, reducing congestion considerably.

Some thoughts that may be of interest:

• I am thinking of adding a number of sea zones to the map. In Europe, I plan to further divide Sea Zone 94 (dividing the Western Mediterranean), Sea Zone 100 (bisecting the Black Sea), and Sea Zone 97 (separating the Ionian and the Adriatic Seas), and Sea Zone 114 (North and South Baltic). In the Pacific, I think there ought to be a division of Sea Zone 37 to depict the Gulf of Siam. I’d also like to see Sea Zone 35 divided so that the Philippines are bisected by two different zones, but the island chain itself is so small that this may not be worthwhile. More important will be dividing Sea Zone 80 so that the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea are two different waterways. I will also delineate the Gulf of Aden inside its own Sea Zone.

• I have all the appropriate colors and roundels to flesh out the Neutrals and additional minors. The limited number of new pieces on display in these pictures is just a reflection of the fact that the lion’s share of my pieces are in storage pending a move to a new city.

• Our gaming group traditionally takes few actions in the Baltic, the Middle East, and South America. Adding an Iberian power was one way to counteract that tendency.

• It was realized that the Far East Command and Dutch ought to go first, followed by Germany, in order to prevent the “blobbing” of naval units by the British in the Atlantic.

• The Dutch begin as True Neutrals. They cannot be attacked by the Allies, and default to that alliance bloc if attacked by the Axis. The Dutch may not declare war on the Japanese until war has been declared upon them first or the Japanese enter a Sea Zone adjacent to a Dutch possession.

• The Grafton Axis & Allies Group has incorporated a rule for entrenchment whereby each player may put down a number of entrenchment tokens each turn. These tokens may be taken as casualties and represent the efforts of particular army commands to “dig in.” I like the idea, and am inclined to use it.

• I will probably use a d12 system for dice. We were inspired to try out a system based on block war games that allows certain types of units to attack and inflict casualties before others.

• I wanted to add a Naval Search mechanic that involves rolling dice to determine whether two naval or air units in the same Sea Zone actually manage to locate one another. Benefits would be provided if a side includes aircraft. It was pointed out to me that this was inconsistent with the duration of time represented by each turn, and I acknowledged that, although it is of only minor concern to me.

• Cruisers will receive a roll against aircraft on a 1:1 basis to simulate their value as AA platforms.

• I am inspired to use General Hand Grenade’s rule for spies, but only with respect to the ability to move one unit its full movement potential prior to the round starting, representing the input of signals intelligence.

• I am considering the addition of Armored Car, Cavalry, Torpedo-Boat Destroyer, and Transport Plane units, as well as Paratroopers. The Armored Car would allow a player to reroll a die during combat (simulating reconnaissance). Cavalry may gain a bonus if they attack infantry only. Torpedo-Boat Destroyers are effectively a 1/1/1 piece that may select casualties against other naval units but may not enter an open sea zone. Transport planes can deposit airborne infantry at any point on their route. They have the same range as bombers but are cheaper.

• Added a Home Guard/Territorials rule that requires all units entering an undefended enemy territory to roll a die. If it is a 1, the attacker must select one casualty. If the attacker has only one piece, the defender retains the territory after casualties are assigned.

I welcome further questions.

“At first, I played Axis & Allies alone. I was so ashamed. Later, I started playing Axis & Allies with friends. I guess you could say I just started hanging out with that crowd. Pretty soon, I didn’t even have to bring my own board.”

Did you make the map yourself using Photoshop? What kind of material is it printed on?

My instant reaction to the title of this thread was, “Boy, I’d sure hate it if my teenage children were experimenting with combating huge infantry stacks… How can I best warn them about the dangers of huge infantry stacks?”

In the actual war, a German victory in South Africa was never in the cards. Because of the greater randomness created by the dice, it is possible that the lone German infantry in South West Africa could survive an attack by, say, the full garrison of South Africans (say, 2 infantry and 1 cavalry), and later march directly into South Africa. At that point, the Boer revolt is a moot point.

I recommend linking the Revolt to a German combat victory in South West Africa, or else to the arrival of a second German unit (representing, in theory, expanding military capability). At that point, the Germans might receive, say, a free casualty when attacking South Africa, to simulate the fifth columnists. That leads to other questions about how to track and apply the rule consistently, which we can set aside for now.

My opinion is that Rumania and Bulgaria should base their alignment on bids. Alternatively, you can have them align historically, but subject to specific rules that govern how they function as player nations prior to the declaration of war.

If London or Paris fall, the Netherlands would cling to their neutrality in hopes of avoiding the same fate. But, in theory, the Dutch East Indies give something for the German and Japanese players to think about in the Pacific theater of war.

You may also want to play around with the British and the Dutch. Allowing the British to attack Dutch territory in the Indies on the pretext of needing to bolster the defenses at Singapore or prevent abuse of neutrality by German and Austro-Hungarian commerce raiders could create an opportunity for the Dutch to align with the Germans.

To simulate the Russian Civil War, you’d probably have to create rules for the emergence of minor pro-Central Powers nations in Finland, the Baltics, and Poland. Then, pro-Allied Whites in Crimea, the Caucasus, North Russia, and Siberia.

Leave Italy’s alignment up to the Italian player, is my feeling.

Some thoughts…

Boer Revolt - The British worried about Afrikaner sympathies throughout the war, and put down a minor rebellion involving about 12,000 unreconstructed Boers (the so-called Maritz Rebellion) in 1914. Not sure how to make this a factor in the game without card play, although I suppose you could condition the appearance of a few infantry worth of rebels upon a German victory in South West Africa.

Rumania - Contrary to popular sentiment and the views of his own government, King Carol I was sympathetic to the Central Powers. Romania was in fact signatory to an 1883 defensive treaty with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Perhaps a bid?

Bulgaria - With its large, competent army, Bulgaria was seen as a prize for both alliance blocs.

The Netherlands - The NEI make the Dutch an economic superpower of sorts. May be worth thinking about how they come into the game.

Russian Civil War - You might look at how Historical Board Gaming does the Spanish Civil War and see if you like any of the approaches they take.

Poland/b] - Maybe a nation that can emerge late in the game?

That’s awesome! I really look forward to seeing the result!

Sired, you’re using Photoshop, I take it?

Is there any mapping tutorial you found useful, or was it all just trial and error?

I think that the map would benefit from significant adjustment in certain locations. Historical Board Gaming’s 1939 map probably gets closest to the territorial distribution I consider ideal.

Consider giving the French an increased presence in Indochina, which should be divided into a northern Tonkin and a southern Cochinchina. Add two infantry and a cruiser. Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.

Cut off the bottom of Shan state to create the Kra Isthmus. Expand Indochina in size to allow for the two French territories while preserving Siam.

Enlarge the Philippines so that it is bisected by a pair of sea zones. Consider dividing the Dutch East Indies into smaller districts. Add a neutral cruiser that joins the Allies if an Axis ship enters coastal waters.

Include a Russian destroyer and submarine in the Pacific, along with one tank in Buryatia.

Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.

Add cities to the map, including Singapore, Tobruk (which eponymous territory should be renamed Cyrenaica), and Vladivostok. Divide Amur into two territories (not inclusive of Vladivostok).

This is incredible. I love the new approach to making capital territories stand out more.

Have you given any thought to adding new territories? I really do like the thought to add the Azores and Canaries, but I’d love to see other additions as well. Perhaps dividing Indochina into Cochinchina and Tonkin? Also dividing Thailand into Isan and Isthmus of Kra?

I think it depends on how you want the game to unfold.

Are you trying to simulate the Second World War? If so, Axis & Allies already does that for you, and you might simply design your map to emphasize the immediate prelude to the war (i.e., more space in Spain), the more obvious alternative strategies available to the antagonists (e.g., more territories in the Soviet Far East), or some of the peripheral campaigns, such as the war in North Africa.

If you want to explore alternate history, you have more options.

Based on the fact that Global 1940 and Global War 1936 leave certain parts of the map more or less unloved, I would make the following suggestions:

1. Consider making Brazil a satellite of the American player in the same way that China is right now. Then do the same for Argentina, paired with Italy.

2. Think about whether you want an independent Poland that might possibly ally with Germany. If so, can Italy represent a third way? This idea would involve more territories in southern Europe – places like Yugoslavia and Greece.

3. I’m designing a map in which the Greco-Turkish War is still raging circa the mid-1930s, in order to create a minor power (Greece) astride the Bosporus.

4. You could always return Germany’s old colonies, although the small garrisons would render them an inevitable sideshow, particularly in a “midweight” map. You’d have to choose between writing off those infantry, playing low-stakes cat-and-mouse across the four or five African territories below the Sahara, or else giving the Germans some means of actually bolstering the forces there, either with long-range aircraft (e.g., zeppelins) or shipping.

What software program do you use to edit the map?

Does anybody have any suggestions for really good fold-out maps that can take the place of the AA board? I want to make my own, and I figure a big fold-out map is the right place to start. I’m looking for something that captures the whole world and is relatively large.

(The trick here, of course, is Europe, which, if drawn to scale, will be way too small, unless the map is huge by comparison.)