New A&A map - new zones?

[jbs_pocket]

I'm curious of one major question which will probably determine whether I buy the new A&A:

Will there be enough zones on the map?

That is definitely a major plus with the A&A Pacific and A&A Europe that was terribly lacking in the original A&A; there were far too few regions on the map. I'm hoping that this new map will generally be the link that connects the A&AP and A&AE.

Avalon Hill can add all the special features it wants to, but unless the amount of land and sea zones are similar to the new A&AP and A&AE, or, at the least, add many more than there were in the original game, it will still be lacking from a great game and the same frustration will result.

I realize that more zones can actually add length to the game time, but I'm sure the creators of the game can surely come up with a means of filling up the extra zones as had been done in A&AE and A&AP.

Is there anyone else who shares this view?

[ButchOHare1]

In a few areas yes I agree.

In Second edition a transport off Finland/Norway could go into Hudson Bay pick up men from West Canada and unload them back in Norway - a trip of about 7,000 miles. Meanwhile to go from Gibralter to Cairo also took 2 MPs and was about 1,200 miles(?). 3rd edition changed the map so you could not do this, but North America is still too close to Europe and North Africa. In AAE there was another sea zone added in the Atlantic. I hope they do that again in the new A & A.

Playability is the overriding factor. Do you really want to spend 10 hours on a board game? Do you want to deal with hexes and all? Avalon Hill has the Squad Leader series for the hardcore types. My eyesight isn't good enough anymore for those games.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by jbs_pocket:

I'm curious of one major question which will probably determine whether I buy the new A&A:

Will there be enough zones on the map?
The number of sea zones, by itself, does not necessary answer the question about the playability of the map. Take A&A:E for example. A lot of territories, yet the real fighting is taking place on the narrow corridor starting from Belgium through Germany, Poland, East Poland, Belorussia, Moscow. Why? Because victory conditions say that direct approach against enemy capital is the most effective strategy.

So, unless there's a good reason to go away from capital conquests, most of the map will serve no purpose.

Another aspect is the capability of individual units to travel certain distances. I am arguing for long enough than armour/cavalry units in grand strategic area games should move no faster than infantry units but designers think otherwise :(

The greater mobility of armor/cavalry units is visible only tactically, i.e. within a single territory which in the case of armor is reflected in its increased attack strength. For non-combat movement (i.e. redeployment), both armor and infantry units used the same type of transport, railroads, thus both armor and infantry had EQUAL movement ability.

I always thought "blitzing" is when you crush opposing defense with your infantry and artillery and THEN advances with armor into the undefended territory. The A&A concept of "blitzing" is undeserving of the name.

So, in a way, I don't think we need any more territories/sea zones. What is important is how the game handles the interaction between opposing units, what are the movement capabilities of individual units etc.

You may put as eastern front to be four territories wide and if there are no stack limits nor supply rules, you'll still have one huge stack marching directly towards the enemy capital defended by equally big stack.

Drax

[ January 09, 2004, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Drax Kramer ]

[jbs_pocket]

I really believe that A&AE and A&AP were very good maps with a very good amount of land and sea zones. What's more the A&AE made a very good land battle whereas A&AP made a very good naval battle; but the only thing missing, of course, was the rest of the world that not only provided more flexibility in the game but allowed for more players to join together into the same game.

I still believe the best idea would be one of two solutions: either make the game board bigger with somewhat reduced size of the A&AE and A&AP zones, or, add zones that can connect between key portions of Atlantic, Indian, Pacific Oceans as well as key portions of Africa and Asia that would connect the East and West maps.

[Desert Fox]

Yes, I was hoping for an expansion that could connect E and P.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by jbs_pocket:

I really believe that A&AE and A&AP were very good maps with a very good amount of land and sea zones.A&A:P has a very good map with two exceptions. There was no need for the rightmost column of territories and sea zones. Since Hawaii start with an unlimited IC, there could have been a convoy centre representing US. If game ends with the fall of India or New South Wales (neither of which was going to force historical allies to surrender) the same rule could have existed for Hawaii as well.

Another thing was the miniscule space called "USSR" that prevented any variant allowing Soviet participation or link up module with A&A:E.

A&A:E on the other hand had an awful map with Lybia being a single territory, with Belorussia bordering Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, with Germany being a single territory etc. The values of individual territories had nothing to do with the real values so Romania was as worth to Germany as Morocco or Denmark.

Drax

[jbs_pocket]

You might be right concerning the A&AE map, historically speaking -- I was happy with the additional zones that were added.

However, I particularly like the extra zones included on the right edge of the A&AP map. Although the chance of Japan invading US are slim to none, there is still that alternative available that can altar a tremendous change in strategy with it being there.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by jbs_pocket:

However, I particularly like the extra zones included on the right edge of the A&AP map. Although the chance of Japan invading US are slim to none, there is still that alternative available that can altar a tremendous change in strategy with it being there.That alternative automatically assumes that US player is a beginner or that he made a terrible mistake. In either case, this is not something to base your Japanese strategies on nor likely to ever again happen within the same game group. A&A:P wouldn't have lost any of its appeal if the map has been stripped of its rightmost column.

In addition, the otherwise "right" look of the map is terribly distorted by the inclusion of US. Just take a look how far US West coast really is from the Hawaii. So, both the historical appeal and geography have been sacrifices to satisfy the infinitesimal chance that Japanese might be able to invade US.

The territory of US belongs to the games like Risk or Attack where the map of the world is merely a template for the game. Axis & Allies did attempt to go one step further, after all.

Drax

[jbs_pocket]

All that Pacific Ocean in A&AP adds a fantastic naval game into A&A that the original game left little to consider in comparison -- a little bit of distortion is no problem to me.

Otherwise, in what you're suggesting, I think the game would require a very large mapboard to offer the extra amount of sea zones we find in A&AP. True scale adds a very troublesome hindrance to gamemakers -- surely you realize that the A&AP and A&AE are nowhere near the same map scale. Which, coincidentally, is no doubt the big problem with matching the A&AP and A&AE.

(For this reason I think it might be well to add a third portion or third board that shows more of Africa, Indian Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean and Sinai Peninsula. These could further be connected by land or sea boxes that indicate connections to the other mapboards via full-turn movement per box -- as an example).

I truly believe they did an excellent job on the mapboards of the A&AP and A&AE, but I'm just looking for a connection to bring it all together. I may not be so accessible via a single world map, but there are alternatives that would make it possible. Perhaps I'll just have to design one for my own personal use because I'm not seeing the likeliness of them doing so.