@Tjoek Some pics below. They’ve been through Google photos compression and aren’t the raws, but the map still looks great. It is virtually impossible to overstate how clean it is in person. I decided to kill two birds with one stone and also demo some of my custom 3D printed pieces on the map as well- please forgive the shameless cross-promotion :) As I mentioned above, I did this on a 36" HP T850 plotter on heavyweight satin photo paper, on maximum quality, at a feed speed of about 3"/min.
@CWO-Marc I too wanted to find a more generic term than ‘colonial’ which does have the aforementioned “optics” and historical accuracy problems. Remote was the word (instead of colonial) that I couldn’t think of until I read your post; so “Remote” or “Forward” or perhaps “Frontier” would be good, less politically loaded terms; “Outpost” could then either remain or be replaced with “Command” or “Base” or “Base of Operations”. These names might work especially well with ‘additional consideration’ option where any IC placed as part of a bid (or the whole bid) takes on this rule.
Regarding what it’s supposed to represent, definitely the historical presence of centers of production and vectors of attack that weren’t the very capitals of the powers in question. NO power in AA50 or 42 has a second vector but the US, and vector #2 (the PTO) is basically a giant trap. The very first thing I always tell any new player with the UK is “don’t get excited”. I think it’s apparent that someone goofed when you look at the design in 1941 (or, of course, G40), neither of which commits this same mistake (41, anemic as it is, gives the British TWO extra factories (to place WHAT units, one might ask?). Why should the two most playable versions not do the same?
I have nothing against bids for tournament play, but bids are kinda lame for games with friends until you know what you’re doing- and obviously newbies in particular cannot bid (or understand why a bid would be needed) and instead should have more fun and more options. I think this will work well.
Regarding if a power can do this in a different power’s territory, I think certainly not. That’s confusing and against the spirit of the rule, which is to do something really simple with loads of fun, balance-y potential.
@axis_roll said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):
I can only speak strongly of AA50-41, that is what we mostly play.
Two others on your list might be a USA colonial outpost in brazil. Also, If russian were going to pressure Japan, I think a bryatia IC might be better than the SFE listed. USA can support with fighters off SZ56 based carriers.
BRY is more positionally valued than SFE.Other comments on current list (ordered in highest to least valuable):
India. Best all around, will need initial help from russia to sustain
Egypt. Can you hold it round 1? if so, very key as well
South Africa. Good, solid way to fight the Africa Korps and hold onto UK IPCs. Will the axis commit that much to africa?
Australia. To use most effectively, USA needs a fleet to back up small UK navy that would help to take back UK islands
Hawaii. Don’t see too much advantage to a 2-unit producing 1 sea zone forward naval base.
Soviet Far East. might be acceptable since farther away from Japan mainland
Great ideas, of course. India has got to be the main play, but then you forfeit the IPC boost… Is there a strat where hardcore KJF works with a Buryatia OC and an R1 2tnk buy, followed by UK1 Indian IC? There is a lot of Russian cannon fodder there that only wants for some offensive punch. I think that northern land threat is key to cracking Japan, especially if the UK has to pivot completely to Europe due to Sea Lion or big German tanks or something.
Hi @AAGamer, I’m doing the latter; preparing and posting them on thingiverse (for anyone with a 3D printer to print for free).
The sources for these aren’t mine, so I won’t/can’t sell them. If you’re interested in having them printed, download them from my thingiverse and find a service provider online who will print and ship the parts to you.
The only happy exception to the above would be if you happen to live in the Portland OR region… then I could potentially print some of these and give them to you at cost, providing I have the bandwidth and time available on the machines I use.
Not going to lie I really want to see if this makes a Russian Bearing Strait Sea of Okhotsk navy a thing.
@Midnight_Reaper said in 25 extra unit 3D models, scaled and tweaked for A&A, including Gliders, Light Tanks, Escort Carriers and Landing Craft:
First of all, let me say that it’s great that you’ve made these wonderful sculpts and it’s also wonderful that you’ve decided to share them with us.
I do have some thoughts to share about some of your design decisions. They are your decisions and I respect that. But I think you might be able to take them to the next level with a little help. Says the guy with the ideas, to the guy who would have to do the work if it’s to be done. I’m not going to comment on all of them, just some. If I don’t say anything, then I like it and have nothing constructive to add.
@vodot said in 25 extra unit 3D models, scaled and tweaked for A&A, including Gliders, Light Tanks, Escort Carriers and Landing Craft:
- USS Independence (Allied Escort Carrier)
From what I can see of the sculpt, it looks nice. I would point out, though, that the Independence class carriers were not escort carriers (CVEs) but were known as light fleet carriers (CVLs). The difference being that light fleet carriers worked with the main fleet and the escort carriers worked with amphibious groups and escorting convoys. A typical allied escort carrier class would be the Casablanca class. That said, I like having a source for Independence class ships, as HBG has the US fleet carrier (Essex) and US escort carrier (Casablanca) sculpts covered already.
@vodot * IJN Royujo (Axis Escort Carrier)
I assume you mean the Ryujo class here. Again, this class was made up of light carriers, not escort carriers. They were very, very light carriers, but the mis-designation bugs my inner order-of-battle analyst all the same…
@vodot * Me-262 (Axis Jet Fighter)
More Me-262s is always something I can get behind
@vodot * IS-2 (Allied Heavy Tank)
I like your IS-2s better than the IS-2 in A&A 1941, at least from the angle I’m looking at.
@vodot * HMS Atherstone (Escort)
I’m sure she’s a fine escort ship, and the allies do have need of such a vessel in expanded games. It’s just that as the real-life HMS Atherstone was known as a Hunt class destroyer, why did you call it the HMS Atherstone instead of the HMS Hunt?
@vodot * USS Midway (Super Carrier)
I dig the Midways as a class of ships. It’s just that yours has an angled deck, and they didn’t have those when they were built, they were put in place later in refits in the 1950s. It looks out of place in a game of WW2. Would you consider making an axial deck (a non-angled deck) Midway?
@vodot * D9 (Engineers)
It’s nice to give the engineers some love and using a bulldozer to do so works for me.
@vodot * Wirbelwind (Axis Mobile AAA)
I like having options for SPAAGs (Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Guns) and you’ve picked a good one here.
@vodot * Me-410 (Heavy Fighter)
Other than by size, how will someone tell the Me-410s from the Ju-88s, He-111s, and the Mosquitos?
@vodot * Flaktrack (Allied Mobile AAA)
Again, I like having options for SPAAGs and you’ve picked another good one here.
@vodot * USS Des Moines (Battlecruiser)
While I dig have sculpts for the Des Moines class available, the Des Moines weren’t battlecruisers, they were just heavy cruisers. The US only designed two classes of battlecruisers, the Lexingtons and the Alaskas, and in the end only ever built one class - the Alaskas. Mind you, if you want to offer Des Moines class cruisers and not Alaskas, that’s your deal. I just might get someone to make them for me, but calling them battlecruisers is a historical inaccuracy in my opinion.
Just my 2 IPCs,
-Midnight_Reaper
Hey MR, thanks so much for the feedback! Let me reiterate that I didn’t create the raw models for most of these, just reworked them for compatibility and printability for A&A. I’m proud of the work (in some cases, significant) it has taken to get them to a printable and playable state, but mad props to the original designers, not all of which I remember off the top of my head.
I knew going in that I was committing some historical faux pas both intentionally and via ignorance, but I’m a “easily-distinguishable-on-the-board” and WYSIWYG-first sort of person with historical fidelity coming in third; nonetheless historicity should be paramount once the first two are assured. I want my group, none of which are WW2 enthusiasts/super nerds, to just immediately “get it”.
RE: Midway’s anachronistic 50’s deck retrofit, that was a rare intentional historical solecism- which isn’t to say it was in good taste- intended to reflect a “Super Carrier” tech that was not achieved in the actual WW2 timeline. Perhaps I could achieve the same end using a rectangular (Axial? I’ll take your word for it) 40’s Midway sculpt by merely enlarging it over the essex/etc? I was worried it would look like just a huge rectange, but I confess I didn’t try printing one. Needs investigation.
Regarding the Ryujo (pardon my spelling!) and Independence as Light (not escort) carriers, you’re obviously correct. Serendipitously, in my half-hour of wikipedia research (keeping your expectations low :) ) it seems it was the Light (as opposed to escort) Carriers that were known for their speed, which was a primary mechanic I wanted these units to have- so rebranding them as CVL’s is a win-win! A caveat on the light carriers: their historical decks are so narrow (by design, of course) that it’s basically impossible to balance an A&A-scaled plane on them. So: I’ve abrogated naval design history and added a fat landing pad on the deck so a single fighter has room to live happily. Hopefully the tradeoff is worth it for most, but this will obviously make that particular model a non-starter for some.
RE: HMS Atherstone, I can see your point, given that I called the light carrier the Ryujo. It is indeed a Hunt-class sculpt.
RE: IS-2s and the awesomeness of these models in general- yes, they kick some serious ass. 100% of these props should go to m_bergman at Thingiverse, a minor deity of military history 3D modeling.
RE: Distinguishing Me-410s… you’re right. I spent some time trying to doctor up a Westland Whirlwind (damn planes and their paper-thin wings are super time-consuming to doctor for 3D printing)… and it ended up looking identical to the Me-410. I gave up. This is the reason I only have one sculpt covering heavy fighters for everyone, about which I feel bad… but not bad enough to spend another 2 hours doctoring the whirlwind.
RE: Des Moines, you’re right. When I first started working on this expansion, my “Battlecruiser” unit was called a “Heavy Cruiser” and I think that’s why I pulled the Des Moines. Later on I decided I really like the word ‘battlecruiser’. However, similar to the serendipitous mistake on the light vs. escort distinction above, this unit was also meant to be a sweet spot between the CA and the BB combining the strengths of both, but locked behind tech and advancement. Aaaaand after another half-hour of wikipedia research, it turns out that the Des Moines did not sail until 1946; so I don’t see why I can’t call this unit an advanced “Heavy Cruiser” after all.
Welcome to the forums, DarkHand! I think you’re on the right track with some of these ideas- have you done a few searches for the existing A/C and other re-balance threads? There are a bunch of them, some absolutely massive, many still active, so calling yours “official” might be a bit of an overreach, but who knows? For example, here’s a thread with literally 1500+ posts that might steady you a bit or give you some inspiration: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26089/g40-redesign-currently-taking-suggestions
As for making your own suggestions, playtesting with a dedicated group (enough to figure out the ‘meta’ of a particular HR) is key, so this right here:
@DarkHand said in Official Aircraft Rework Discussion:
I have yet to play test this (or even play regularly really :white_frowning_face: ).
is probably going to be the only limit on what you’re able to come up with. Good luck!
@Argothair @axis_roll you guys are gonna post the game to a thread, right? 0.o
@cjm2112
Thanks for summoning me back :) As I said in the PM, since I use an industrial printer I don’t actually have a ton of hands on experience with desktops. That being said, I’ve gotten good quality out of them before, especially if all of the below are true:
Hey @Bigwatcher, looks awesome! Where can I get the map files?
Hi @ryandascienti - MORE complex than GW36_v3, eh? Wow! I can’t wait to see what you’ve come up with!
RE: Map design on a budget, GIMP and Inkscape are where it’s at. Both of those programs are free, incredible graphics options (GIMP for bitmaps/raster images, Inkscape for vector/PDF) that I and many of the other designers here have used for decades. Many of the people here will let you use their maps as a baseline as well, just ask.
I’d love to work with you on miniatures and board game design in general - if you’re in the market for affordable minis check out my etsy store where I have Wheat/Food minis, Oil Drums, Metal Bars/Ingots and lots of other A&A units and bits for these sorts of prototypes and wargame variants.
@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:
I can post my oil rules and oil bonuses in my game thread on site here.
Then if you want post it at top of your thread
Added your rules to my first post, General. Now I’m reading through the entirety of your amazing thread! :)
Here’s fodder for discussion; what about a system where, in the Collect Income Phase, Each functional Oil Derrick to which you can trace, from an IC, some uninterrupted direct link (TBD; maybe through unoccupied convoy zones and/or land TTs) grants that IC one “Oil Barrel”. During the purchase units phase, that barrel can be “traded in” for a discount on a unit/group of units, according to some simple schema like the below (ignore “wheat” and “iron” for now):
@smith-family-agoge Welsome to A&A.org! Check out my thingiverse page, where I’ve remixed, compiled, correctly scaled, and prepped for printing some of the best/most relevant units for Axis and Allies: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3903067
@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation & Discussion: Oil!:
The funny thing is the axis would of never sold there oil based on how much they needed it.
I agree - I didn’t mean that they’re selling the oil - the idea is that the oil is a crucial component of the production and operation of that unit. If a power doesn’t have the oil, then they have to pay more IPCs to field that unit, with the extra IPCs representing having to buy, synthesize, or cannibalize the oil from somewhere else. Does that make more sense?
…movement penalties for units
As I wrote in my discussion, I think movement and performance penalties for out-of-supply units is a great idea and definitely historical, it’s just a little too complicated for what I’m currently thinking.
Vodot
You have a oil derrick location list yet ?
No, there are so many great lists out there already - yours, ILs, buran’s, siredblood’s etc. My thing is more analyzing rules and mechanics - I’ll gladly lean on the historical research and knowledge of the willing! Plus I would rather come up with a system that could be modular - applied to a variety of maps and other systems.
These are astounding. Well done.
@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation & Discussion: Oil!:
So basically an oil barrel is worth money based on you sold it over the market and collected money for it ?
Yes, particularly on the second version - each oil barrel in that scheme is worth a fixed amount of money, but you can’t just exchange it for IPCs - to use the barrel you have to use the $ towards building mechanized units.
In the first example it’s more subtle, as the discounts apply to different units in different ways (since oil is more important to some units than others). Either way it’s similar; essentially oil = money/discounts for producing mechanized units.
The way this is written currently would encourage powers to lock down multiple sources of oil (because each barrel/source would count individually as money/discount), but we could also structure it more like an on/off switch:
“if a power has access to at least one source of oil, then a set of reduced costs apply. If not, the default cost set applies.”
The above would be a sweeping change amounting to a wholesale cost restructure, but we could soften it by limiting the reduced cost to just the first of each type of unit built by a power each turn; so the first tank built by a power with oil might cost 3 while any additional tanks would cost 6 as normal, etc.
Does anyone know the font used for the IPC value numerals? I’ve been recycling and cleaning up the IPC values that already exist on the map but a custom font would be great.
@barnee said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:
@vodot interesting. Is this how the chart reads, 3 oil barrels = 1 AB at reduced cost of 12 bucks ? 1 oil barrel = 3 Medium Tanks at reduced cost of 5 bucks a piece ? Have to buy all 3 ?
Oil Derricks number are fixed ? Can’t create any new ones ? Or can the Texans keep drilling lol
The intent of that table would be that you can trade in an oil barrel for a $1 discount on up to 3 tanks, or two oil barrels to get the discount on up to 6 tanks, one oil barrel for a $2 discount on up to two fighters, etc… You wouldn’t have to buy all 3 tanks/2 fighters etc.
@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:
It looks that way barnee. Ya I go with continuous open route by land and certain sea zones. But I’d give the attacker some bonus for blocking oil like make the cost go up for your pieces. Thinking most won’t leave a ship for block or inf without some reward and just get killed possibly.
Also if u go with wheat and iron then need to add copper/brass ammo, motors etc.and rubber for wiring.
Is this mainly for G40 ?
RE: G40, yes that’s the ruleset I’m primarily thinking about for the above, with the hope being that if it can work there it could work pretty much anywhere. I think a simplified version could maybe work for AA50 as well.
RE: more resources (aluminum etc.) yes more resources could of course be incorporated. It might get a bit ridiculous managing a Catan-style hand of resources in a game of A&A, but maybe that would still be fun if it was simple enough.
RE: Penalizing powers for not having resources, here’s a slightly different table that takes more of that approach (and also standardizes the value of each unit of resource at 3 IPC). In this table. units have a lower base cost in IPCs, as long as you also consume one or more special resources as shown for their construction.
Then the idea would be that any missing resources you do not spend could be “bought” for 3 IPC each. Therefore a battleship costs 14 IPC + 1 Oil + 1 Iron. If you don’t have (or don’t want to spend) the Oil or Iron then you can still build a battleship normally, but it will cost you the full OOB price of 20 IPC: 14 + 3 (for the missing oil) + 3 (for the missing iron).
