AARHE Historical Map

@black_elk said in Working on a New Map 40/41: Seeking Suggestions:

perhaps with some map making type tutorials in the same way that Pact of Steel 2 taught how to create an xml and such

:+1:

@Chiclet:

One more thing:

Aircraft carriers should not cost 12.  They are essentially worthless without a fighter or two so to make a them worth while you would need to spend a minimum of 22 IPC. way too much.

I’d bump it down to 9.

Dont think so. Imho they are already to cheap at 12. I don’t know why they reduced the price, as it was 14 before. Reducing this even more would make other naval units like battleships totally unnecessary.

here is a 2009 post from me at HGD: ( note this applies to when AA50 came out)

All you have to do to extrapolate these GDP numbers is to divide the GDP by 15

using 1941 numbers:
Axis: 911 divided by 15= 60.73

Allies: 1798 divided by 15= 119.86

IN AA50 the axis are at 60 total

IN AA50 the allies are at 112 total

This is why the game is somewhat accurate, and the balancing is all force projection with the advantage going to the axis, and the US and UK player facing the commitment of their forces all over the map.

For 1940 you have to make additional considerations because the game will have say 50% more territories than AA50, so the number you divide will be smaller and the total will be greater in the game so that you don’t have too many worthless territories.

So lets do June 4th, 1940:

Germany: 387, plus Poland 76.6, Czecho-Slovakia 30.3, Netherlands 44.5, Belgium 39.6, Norway 11.6, Denmark 20.9, Austria 27=637.5

42.5 IPC

Italy:147 = 9.8 IPC

Japan: 192= 12.8 IPC

Allies:
USA: 943
US colonies: 23.9
Total: 966.9= 64.4 IPC

UK: 316
UK colonies 14.4
Total 330.4= 22 IPC

France 82
French colonies 10.9
Total 92.9= 6.2 IPC

USSR 417
Baltic states 12.9
Total 429.9= 28.6 IPC

Now you have to account for peace time status vs. total war mobilization for both USA and USSR. The amount of GDP used for wartime purposes was at least twice as great for the current belligerents than neutrals. So i would put USA and USSR at 50% rate with the difference going to domestic purposes.

So problem solved. Game balanced unless your trying to make the game unhistorical with notions that the axis had ZERO chance to win, which is a bogus argument even by economics.

Again go by the set up. Thats official.

once you find all discrepancies ill fix everything so its correct.I have no idea why these errors exist but we will fix them.

oh no worries
we can still have your goals instead of territories
just copy over the goals you had initially and we go from there

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.

Ok I’ll make it more precise.

I am touching up the the player aids atm.