My advanced map design

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Voorschoten, The Netherlands

My advanced map design

Post by Defiance » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:35 am

Allright, this is my second stage of design of an advanced map. I hope you guys don’t mind for opening up a different topic, because otherwise we’d be mixing all kind of map designs up too badly into one thread, and my picture file is very broad... :shock:

I posted the picture on a sort of image provider on the web.... I hope it will stay long enough here for the limited bandwidth I got.... Maybe somebody can help me to post it somewhere on the web?????

How do the colors look now? Should I go without colors but country icons instead for each territory to designate it? Are the names I chose for the territories correct? Or should I change some territories or borders? All comments on the map are welcome.

I made up for a 3 type of industrial complexes which are fixed on the map. The small ones only produce infantry, artillery, transports and subs. Medium IC's can produce everything except for Aircraft Carriers, Battleships and Bombers (and maybe fighters, not done with that desicion yet).

Oil is also incorporated in a way Eldar described here on the board.

A few things I'd like to add / which still needs improvement / or where I have questions with:

- Making a better gameplay setup near the Norway/Finland/Karelia border. Right now forces from Norway can attack Karelia... this should be changed....
- Should I divide up the mainland Europe (Germany/France/Italy) into a few more territories?
- The Yunnan/Burma/Szechuan border still not very happy with it, will make movement between Szechuan and Burma not possible probably
- Should I add Iwo Jima? Or what more can be done to enhance the islands on the map in the sea zones?
- The sea zone between Kamchatkya and Alaska is the last sea zone, no momevent to Yukon or Northwest territories is allowed. Same goes for Komi and Yamalia, they cannot be reached by sea: Archangel and Karelia are the only territories able to reach there. The small factory is in Archangel to be able to produce subs and transports as the russian player.

In the final stages of the design I'll add Seaports and Airfields, Convoys, ICP numbers and sea zone numbers, possibly railroads, and most important of all: icons in each territory to show it's landscape (either a desert, forest, mountain, arctic or normal area)

Map Submission from Defiance

Victory city selection are as follows. Purpose of this selection is to show that the Allies 'controls' most of the world, and should be reflected with more victory cities. Axis have fewer victory cities, otherwise every territory in europe and starting point is asia will get VC's: that won't be good for gameplay. Now with a total of 27 victory cities, and axis start out with 9 of them (that's 1/3 of the total), their goal will be to capture more than 50 % in order to win the game (that means they need to get 5 more VC's in order to win a normal game). To balance things out, of course agreements can be made to raise or lower the number. Allies will need -1 less of the same amount of victory cities in addition in order to win ( thus get a total of 22 victory cities!)

UK (7)

- London
- Caïro
- Calcutta
- Singapore
- Sydney
- Cape Town
- Montreal

US (6)

- Washington
- Los Angeles
- Honolulu
- Manila
- Chungking
- Rio de Janeiro

USSR (5)

- Moscow
- Leningrad
- Stalingrad
- Chelyabinsk
- Novosibirsk

Germany (4)

- Berlin
- Paris
- Bucharest
- Warchaw

Japan (3)

- Tokyo
- Shanghai
- Saigon

Italy (2)

- Rome
- Tripoli

So, I hope this inspires you guys :D Let me know what you think :!:


link to mega map post -elbowmaster

Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:47 am

hey, coming along quite nicely...!
ive some comments, will post a bit later, have to head out to work... ;(

User avatar
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:50 am

Beautiful, Defiance.

Norway can be cut in half, Northern Norway and Southern Norway.
From south tip of Norway to north tip is same distance as from south tip of Italy to north tip of Denmark. Except that Norway in 1940 had no railroads, and only a few bad roads, because of the wild mountains.

Volga territory contained half Sovjet industry in 1940, but not in your world. Please give Volga some factories, just for the link to reality.

Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Voorschoten, The Netherlands

Post by Defiance » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:59 am

Thanks for your comments Adlertag.

I will add a factory in de Volga territory if that is indeed true... I didn't knew that.. :oops:

Norway will be split into a northern and southern part.... I was thinking about that too.

Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:46 pm

1. tint still not working for me (but its your map)

2. need more territory in europe, otherwise germany gets to moscov too fast...

3. line work could be cleaned up where you indicated...would be easier to show the example than describe...

4. add bonin islands... (iwo jima) and others from pacific map...

5. convoy zones in atlantic should be own space...

6. norway 2 territories??? why???

7. dont have norway boarder karelia...

8. rework smaller pacific islands like conquest map...

9. why people insist on so many usa territories is beyond me...
how many times have you actually seen anything happen there???

10. more to follow

11. as before, id be happy to post your map on my webserver...

12. not so sure about all those oil derrick, oil in egypt? southern brazil??

13. not so sure about all your IC's...

14. adjust europe to close to depanzinators / and adjust pacific like aap...

15. excellent work around se pacific (java / sumentara) do that with the rest of the islands...
Last edited by elbowmaster on Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:21 pm

Ahh this is much better.... please dont make norway into 3-40 different zones.. Let adlertag do that on his own copy. Elbow is correct you need more eastern europe zones, plus that island he wants. I like that factory icon. good. can you post it as a seperate link?

The tint is another problem thinking there can be some way to make the ownership of original territories look more defined...

Make the fonts larger. I know the board is big but its still gonna be hard to read with the green backround. Perhaps you can put a white rectangle behind the script so it "pops". Also what are the IP values?? Use the old figures from aa europe and aa pacific and perhaps by commitee we can fill in the blanks....

Last word is try to make the territories in europe just like aa europe. That is what larry is doing himself.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Voorschoten, The Netherlands

Post by Defiance » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:55 pm

Allright some replies, and a big thanks for your contributions guys!!

- the icon link: I took it from a certain website, they had numerous icons
for factories and such..... If you search at
google for factory you'll get them even sooner.... I edited mine I must

- The tint I'm bugging with as well. The suggestions IL made before still
hang in my mind... I wanted to use icons to designate 'ownership', but I
still like the fact that the map has some colors. I still think coloring is the
best way to get a clear view of the starting setup for a game. Although I
believe the colors and the shading can be done to a higher degree... I'm not the best photoshop designer out there... I'm looking for possibilities to make it look mor defined, as IL said...

- Fonts were larger, but I disliked that. They're really big enough once you
see it on real size (this picture isn't, reduced more than 50%!) I'm more
leaning towards a shadow behind the territorial name.

- IPC values still to be done. There'll be a new scale in size for the ICP values: it's impossible to use either Revised or Europe/Pacific for the IPC values! Third stage will show them :wink:

- Eastern Europe zones. I disagree on the zones to have more zones between Berlin and Moscow!!! Right now it's the same as Europe and
Revised, but with a better setup (Pripet, West Russia and Donetsk) and I took a long time to see how 'gameplaywise' would be best by taking every move accordingly/IC placement/dead zones/stacking etc...

Although I do am thinking about having more zones around germany and Balkans, like in AAEurope. Thinking about adding in the following:

- Czechoslovakia
- Austria
- Northern Italy (and thus a Southern Italy as well)
- Eastern and Western France (but E.France will touch the sea zone at the English Channel unlike AAeurope, but such as Surpreme command)
- Balkans will remain as a territory representing the 3 axis nations there: Hungaria, Romania and Bulgaria. I don't see by splitting these up brings in something extra for this game. I don't want it to be so detailed like in Europe there in the Balkans. It's of no use having all these territories in this part of Europe for gameplay.

- I still have mixed feeling in splitting up Germany into a western and
eastern part. Poland even more: I am not going to split it up, as that would
put the soviets into an enormous advantage on the eastern front.

As for AAEurope, I think that game is highly unbalanced at the eastern
front, as our gaming group always win with Germany (1st turn massive naval purchase and then 2nd turn go after Russia and middle east till you have all) Bellorussia is the key territory on the eastern front there. And all those small territories in the Balkans don't add any flavor to the game as for being used heavily as battleground!

- Bonin Islands will be added. But no more pacific islands
(Johnston/Guam/New Britain from Pacific) as I don't see how already to get the current amount of islands into action. Same goes here as well: the detail level in pacific is just a bit too detailed. I think I've detailed it enough
already to make it a look-a-like :D

- Convoys will be like Pacific, not like Europe.

- USA territories are done to make it look more real in comparision to the
size of the country: If Germany did manage to take over Eastern USA, it's
stupid that they got control of the entire country immediately. Of course this is not going to happen, but the idea is what counts... I want to make
the territories a but equal in size, hence Siberia.

- Not all oil derricks are exactly as how it was in the '40, but to make it
gameplaywise a bit more interesting, this is what was done. And yes, Egypt
did produce oil. Although I'm not sure about Brazil and Algeria. But according to Eldars resource on the web, Southern America and Northern Africa did produce some oil!!

- IC's: I'm still bugging with Russian IC's. Urals and Russia will get a 3 IC for
sure, but I'm still bugging with the placement in Volga and Archangel. The
IC in the Balkans and Thailand are to represent those Axis nations, and to beef up the Axis position on the mainland. But I didn't want to give Finland one as being an axis nation as well.

- Last is Norway. If you know how that country is (and Adlertag knows it
for sure, he lives there), I think it is ridiculous to be able to attack Karelia straight from Norway. But I don't want to make things impassable there. So given the size of the Territory, I can either let Finland touch the Altantic
like AAEurope, but I don't want that as well. So why not an extra territory? This is also more realistic in regard to defending Norway from an allied invasion. So I think I stick with Adlertag's advice.....

Oh and Elbow, go ahead you can post my map at your site! I've E-mailed you about the blank map but I haven't got any respond / don't know if you got it....
Last edited by Defiance on Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Voorschoten, The Netherlands

Post by Defiance » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:10 pm

Well, about how European territories could be divided, I'd like to hear from
Larry what his intentions are about implementing AAEurope into
AAdvanced. I don't think he's going to make it look exactly the same.

Larry, if you're willing, could you give us a small hint into how many territories you currently feel the following countries could be divided???
I know you're still not doing anything on map design yet, but you could give us a direction?? Please? :roll: :wink: :oops:

- Italy
- France
- Germany (will Germany consist out of Bohemia and Austria as well?)
- Balkans (as of Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests