Global Map Alterations

[aethervox]

Greetings fellow A&Aers. Here I offer my alterations for A&A Global 1940 Map.
I’m no expert or anything, however, where A & A falls short (imho) are the maps and/or some of the PF values.
So here are my alterations (& suggested changes) to the 1940 Global Maps (the 1940 Europe & Pacific maps combined)
(from West to East all changes I’ve made to the maps)
Soviet Far East - (meaning no value)
British Columbia 2
Western United States 10 (no second value shown)
Mexico 1
Queensland 1
Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba 2
Ontario 3
Quebec 3
Southeast Mexico 2 & 2 Inf
Columbia 1
Peru 1 & 2 Inf
Brazil 3
Scotland 3
Eire 1 & 2 Inf
Western Germany 9
France 6
Southern France 2
Morocco -
Norway 1
Finland 1
Greater southern Germany 3
Slovakia Hungary 2
Poland 3
Novgorod 3
Baltic States 2
Eastern Poland 2
Belarus 2
Western Ukraine 3
Russia 6
Urals -
Northern Italy 5
Romania 2
Albania -
Ukraine 3
Turkey 3
Trans-Jordan -
Saudi Arabia 1
West India 3
South India 1
South West Africa -
Timguska -
Evenkiyskiy -
Buryatia -
Sakha -
Siberia -
India 6
Shan State -
Sumatra 2
Borneo 2
Celebes 1
Moluccas - (island east of Celebes)
Dutch New Guinea 1
Northern Territory -
Western Australia -
South Australia -

Note:these changes do not alter the base PFs, however, these alterations more accurately reflect the relative PF values of the affected Territories

[Kreuzfeld]

these are difficult to respond do without you supplying any rationale. It seems like you have made many chises without saying why. I have the following questions:

1. It seems like you think number of people are more important than resources, but, in WW2, the resources was really what put a cap on industry, not people.
2. Seems like you put a great emphasis on canada, why?
3.  you put a very high value on capitols. and not the reaas supplying the resources and industry. I Disagree with the increased values of France, West germany and russia.
4. OIL!!!- You have just removed value from so many oilregions, it is insane. Rumania should be a 6, not a 2, the money-islands are vital to the war because of the oil and rubber there. There is a reason shan-state, sumatra, borneo and the celebs are some of the most important areas of WW2.
5. Did you know that Urals and Novosibirsk where the areas where USSR produced most of their tanks and airplanes in WW2?

[aethervox]

My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;

1. The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected.
2. There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here).
3. The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
   4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest.
4. I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space  reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
   I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
   Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
   As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
   Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.