Welcome Raider & OutsideLime,
Glad to see some new “faces†on the thread.
Raider your suggestions are good but…
Group do you agree with Raider’s suggestion?
3 & 4) The map is set except for game play issues like the one you discovered. I can’t keep adding to this map it will never get finished.
A Western US port would only function if you also had one in Kamchatka, Solomons, Gilberts, Wake, or Johnston…. or Cuba/East coast of Panama!
Does anyone like any of these ports? It is a bit odd to not have a port on the western United States.
Thanks for the support, keep the suggestions coming.
Gentlemen,
I would like to close the port topic soon.
So… is everyone happy with the current ports? If not please get your suggestions up on the thread. Remember that ports need a pair so list pairs and use the names on the map so thread members can follow the discussion easier.
Airfields?
Everyone happy with the current airfields. I will be adding one on the Azores per Micoom’s suggestion.
How about Europe or Russia? There seems to be a shortage of airfields in the Atlantic theater.
Changing up the Baltic seazones, per Raider, I think is a good call.
I think you have to be careful with the airfields, if you go with historical aspects for it, you quickly end up with one on every seaside territory, Northern Africa for instance
Morocco–2 airfields near Mehdia, Morocco, 80 miles north of Casablanca
Northern Algeria–“Maison Blanche” airfield near Algiers
Tunis–Djeddeida, Tunisia airfields
Tripolitania–Castle Benito Airfield, near Tripoli
Cyrenaica–El Adam airfield, or El Adem
Personally, I am not too big on the whole port/airfield concept. I think they add to the game in smaller theatre operations like AAP, but not so much in a global map. The US dropping troops into southern Europe in 2 turns does not scream, “possible chance of an Axis win to me”.
I would suggest to consider restricting airfields to island territories; midway, solomons, malta, crete, even azores or London if you are going to have them.
It’s Friday!!!
But… not much has changed with the map, so I will not be posting a draft this week. Get your suggestions in. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, we are almost there.
Open Topics:
Ports
Airfields
Have a great weekend,
deepblue
(I will be out of town with limited internet access until next week)
Deepblue:
So how are you adding the SZ to the Baltic?
Numbering SZs. I know this is late but numbering SZs by their major regional Ocean/Sea might work better and helps players locate a given SZ faster. Example use the following abbreviations: NP - North Pacific; SP South Pacific; NA - North Atlantic; SA - South Atlantic; WI - West Indian; EI - East Indian; MS - Mediterranean Sea (region). If you add a Baltic NA-7 then you don’t have to renumber the whole map – just the North Atlantic SZs.
Convoys: I’d number these also for PBEM. Suggest using something like: USA-NAC1 (US North Atlantic Convoy 1) or UK-SAC3 or USSR-NAC or IJ-SPC2.
Airfields in the North Atlantic: I would think that the year-round weather uncertainty of the North Atlantic would also limit effective use of ‘airfields’ in this region.
Is overflight of “impassable” zones possible; ie ‘Flying the Hump’ from Burma to China? I would think so. However, if overflight is possible, you should consider splitting them somehow to prevent abuse such as flying: Morocco to Lower Egypt or Singkiang to Burma.
I understand your position on adding Diego Garcia to SZ63 and the Falklands to SZ39, but I would hope you would reconsider. Either way – thanks anyway.
Cheers,
Raider
What happened to Ceylon, Kiel, Dakar, Calcutta, Mariannas,Port Moresby,Puget sound, Vladivlastok, Portsmouth, and San diego?
Hey All,
New to the board, but have been following the forum for quite some time. Especially this thread as I’m very interested in obtaining this map/rules once finished.
You guys are way advanced on myself in terms of map setup. I think it looks fantastic!!
Like I stated above, I am assuming this will have its own set of rules that are a subset/combination of AAR, AAE and AAP. That has got to be quite a checkout in and of itself. Thanks to whomever is assigned that task.
With that in mind, and as a tangent to all the map focus and comments, if I may so be allowed; I’m wondering… Has anyone ever thought or discussed the possibility of airborne troop transports? Historically it would be accurate, and would only be able to carry either infrantry and/or artillery. I’m not aware of any tank carrying capability at that time…
I’m sure its been thought of before, but I’ve never seen such a thread.
Forgive me if this isn’t a good time to bring this one up, but since it seems this is quite a task with regards to enhancing this fantastic game, I was wondering if this has been discussed?
Thanks…
Rowdy
Airfields?
Everyone happy with the current airfields. I will be adding one on the Azores per Micoom’s suggestion.
How about Europe or Russia? There seems to be a shortage of airfields in the Atlantic theater.
Put an Airfield in Iceland so that planes flying from the US capital can get there in one turn. Western France could use an Airfield, too.
When it comes to adding airfields, you really need to ignore history. The most important thing is to look at the relationship in size between the territory with an airfield and the sea zone next to it. The purpose of airfields in the game are to get rid of the unrealistic situation of having a plane eat up one movement point crossing over a very large body of water, and then lose another movement point moving over a relatively tiny piece of land. (Or vice versa.) So, in other words, if a piece of land, such as an island is very tiny in relation to the sea zone around it, then you’re justified putting an airfield there. Or, is the sea zone next to a territory is rather small, and most likely only represents the coastal waters, than an airfield would be justified there, too. Now, by these criteria, you could end up putting airbases all over the place. You really only need airbases for high traffic areas, or in places where they’re needed for gameplay reasons. For example, Morocco doesn’t need an airfield since both the US and the UK can get planes there from their capitals in one turn. Iceland on the other hand needs an airbase so that it can be linked up with the US capital. Its possible one or two of the new islands in the Atlantic could justify an airfield, too, but I’m not certain. In my original version of the map, Washington, Iceland, Western France, and Malta were the only airfields in the atlantic theater.
From a game-mechanics point of view, each port should connect to more than one other port at its maximum 3-space range, otherwise it is too simplistic a feature. You have done a great job of making sure that is the case, I cannot see a single port on the map that fails to connect in this way to at least 2 other ports.
If you want to add a seaport to W.USA, I would suggest the following two ports as complementary: Wake Island and Gilbert Islands. I have no idea if these were significant ports historically, I am just looking at this in a game-design frame of mind. This way you create two diverging shipping lanes from San Diego; a northern route to Wake and a southern route to Gilberts. Each of those two islands 3-links to a number of other ports, so they themselves could be hotly contested jumping-off points to other areas in the Pacific.
Wake 3-links to: (Western US), (Gilbert Islands), Caroline Islands, Shantung, the Philippines, and Hong Kong.
Gilbert 3-links to: (Western US), (Wake Island), Western Australia, New South Wales, and the Philippines.
What do you think about this?
~Josh
Okay, I’ve done a careful review of all of the ports on the latest draft of the map. The list below shows all of the ports that each port 3-links to, and (in brackets), the ports that each port could 3-link to if all more-direct routes were blockaded.
The only real useless one is the port that straddles sz 10/17 off Great Britain, as SZ 10 does not 3-link or (3-link) to any other port at all. Move it down to just sz17. (into London, why not?)
Washington S. and Japan are both pretty weak, with only one 3-link and one (3-link) each. Other than that, everything else looks strongly interconnected. Here’s the list:
Hawaii – Carolines, New Guinea
Carolines – Japan, Hong Kong, Hawaii, Java, Shangtung (Philippines)
New Guinea – Hawaii, New South Wales, Philippines, Java (Western Australia)
Japan -Â Carolines (Philippines)
Hong Kong – Carolines, Java
Java – New Guinea, Hong Kong, Madras W. (Philippines, Malay, Madras E.)
Shangtung – Carolines, Malay
New South Wales – New Guinea, Western Australia
Western Australia –New South Wales, Malay, Philippines, Madras W., Madras E.
(New Guinea)
Philippines -Â New Guinea, Western Australia, (Carolines, Japan, Java, Malay)
Madras W. – Java, Western Australia, South Africa, Lower Egypt N., Malay
Malay – Shangtung, Madras W., Western Australia (Java, Philippines)
Madras E. – Western Australia, Abyssinia & Lower Egypt S. (Java)
South Africa - Madras W., Abyssinia & Lower Egypt S., Brazil
Lower Egypt N. – Madras W., Gibraltar (Tunisia, Southern Italy)
Abyssinia & Lower Egypt S. – Madras E., South Africa, Crimea, Tunisia, Southern Italy
Brazil – South Africa, Gibraltar, Washington N. (Washington S.)
Gibraltar – Brazil, Lower Egypt N., Western France, Great Britain W. (Southern Italy)
Crimea – Abyssinia & Lower Egypt S., Tunisia
Tunisia – Abyssinia & Lower Egypt S., Crimea (Lower Egypt N.)
Southern Italy – Abyssinia & Lower Egypt S., Morocco. (Lower Egypt N., Gibraltar)
Western France – Gibraltar, Morocco,
Great Britain W. – Gibraltar, Morocco, Washington N., Germany, Great Britain SE.
Morocco – Southern Italy, Western France, Great Britain W., Washington N., Washington S.
Washington N. – Great Britain W., Morocco, Brazil,
Germany – Great Britain W., Archangel,
Great Britain SE. -Â Great Britain W., Archangel
Washington S. – Morocco, (Brazil)
Archangel – Germany, Great Britain SE.
Great Britain NE. -Â nothing
Hope this is useful!
~Josh
Greetings, been watching the map develop. This is a bit off topic but big picture, and I wanted to mention it because I had some development with the Maksimik’s Supreme Command map that I believe yours used. A big primary issue was playability for Europe. The Africa distortion largely came from a need to keep the Med. playable, but it just isn’t fun to have troops in Germany without room. One suggestion would be to get rid of Bavaria and perhaps another spot, and move Berlin in off the coast. Unfortunate to have Berlin fall from a sea assault in a game of this detail.
I am not sure if your program would allow a “bubble” of sorts to expand Europe – it would greatly increase playability.
THe map needs another sea zone dividing line in the Baltic. As it stands now You can industrialy raid london and Berlin Respectively form each other. In other words they are to close via air and sea through the baltic. just my 2 cents
Not trying to break your momentum, but I have to hand it to you. Good Job!
I have been working on a map for A&A Mini’s of Operation Market Garden. It’s very detailed work.
Again great job,
-LT04
Welcome Rowdy,
I figured we could discuss rules once the map is complete. But your right there will be additional rules such as strategic moves, and a new turn order, etc.
Positronica,
@Positronica:
Put an Airfield in Iceland so that planes flying from the US capital can get there in one turn. Western France could use an Airfield, too.
Iceland on the other hand needs an airbase so that it can be linked up with the US capital.
Why??
OutsideLime,
Thanks for the input your list is a great help (it would be nice if you compiled a complete list when we are finish so they can identified easily).
I did not even notice the SZ10 issue. (Will fix)
Your “Wake, Gilbert, West Coast†idea is the best one yet so I will add it. (We will see what the group thinks)
Welcome RMN,
@RMN:
it just isn’t fun to have troops in Germany without room. One suggestion would be to get rid of Bavaria and perhaps another spot, and move Berlin in off the coast. Unfortunate to have Berlin fall from a sea assault in a game of this detail.
Not a bad idea, a guy in my gaming group suggested the same thing.
Group what do you think about this?
@RMN:
I am not sure if your program would allow a “bubble” of sorts to expand Europe – it would greatly increase playability.
By “bubble†do you mean sectional blowups like the 2nd edition map??
Thanks for the input
Deaths Head 420,
Thanks for the 2 cents. That issue is being addressed.
losttribe04,
Thanks for the support.
Everyone great input. Keep it coming.
What happened to Ceylon, Kiel, Dakar, Calcutta, Mariannas,Port Moresby,Puget sound, Vladivlastok, Portsmouth, and San diego?
It’s Friday!
The Ninth draft has arrived!
I have made the following changes from the eighth draft:
Added:
Using Positronica’s rules for airfields (see post above) I have added the following:
Azores
Western France
London
Italian Somaliland
Calcutta
Ports:
New Guinea
Wake Island
Gilbert Island
US West Coast
West Africa
Norway
Leningrad
NOTE: These are suggested airfields/ports they are not set in stone if you don’t like one let me know.
Changed:
SZ 9 has been divided. (I have not renumbered the sea zones yet)
Moved Great Britain’s Port
Removed Brazil’s Port (I don’t like the idea of a Neutral countries with ports)
Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.
Ports:
The most important Germans port: Kiel/Hamburg
Ceylon. The one in india as listed does not exist.
Mariana islands or Marshall islands. The one in wake island never existed.
Puget Sound. The most important US naval port is not represented, while you represented San francisco rather than San diego, which is where our main base was prior to moving to Hawaii.
Replace Dutch new guinea with Papau ( port Moresby). their was not port of significance where you have it.
Dakar is still missing. It was the major vichy port during the war.
Basra should be a port. The southern lend lease effort was directed there and into southern russia.
How come no neutral ports?
Is overflight of “impassable” zones possible; ie ‘Flying the Hump’ from Burma to China? I would think so. However, if overflight is possible, you should consider splitting them somehow to prevent abuse such as flying: Morocco to Lower Egypt or Singkiang to Burma.
Excellent map. I can’t wait to print and beta test it.
I think it would be prefered to keep SZ 9 in one piece instead of splitting, as in v9 of the map. Adding the sea zone will make naval maneuvers for German very difficult. Is it so bad that London and Berlin can start bomb each other? Isn’t that what happened?
Also, I agree with changing San Franciso to San Deigo. While only cosmetic, San Diego was the more prominant naval port.
Craig
Excellent map. I can’t wait to print and beta test it.
I think it would be prefered to keep SZ 9 in one piece instead of splitting, as in v9 of the map. Adding the sea zone will make naval maneuvers for German very difficult. Is it so bad that London and Berlin can start bomb each other? Isn’t that what happened?
Also, I agree with changing San Franciso to San Deigo. While only cosmetic, San Diego was the more prominant naval port.
Craig
Yes they bombed each other but not Berlin to London or visa versa until later in the war. Yes they bombed the hell out of the Rhineland but not so much Berlin itself. Also we have a little thing called Paratroopers and straight dropping into London from Berlin sounds fun, not very realistic. They have a port in Berlin, so France or northern Norway is only a NC move away.
San Diego is the best Place for The NB
Not sure if this has been covered yet.(2 lazy to back read it all).
Are these the Final IPC rates? current land Values? I counted each several times.
Axis 110 IPC’s
Germany 46
Italy 24
Japan 40
Allies 208 IPC’s
US 74
China 10
Britain 81
Russia 43
Neutrals 18
Should the Allies have twice as much? They should have more but double?
If the Axis powers all out, I mean attack every conceivable bordering and likely sea invasion, it on the first turn they could gain a Max net gain of 46 IPC’s. This not taking into consideration the number of Troops needed to actually need to take each territory.
Japan should make more then Russia. :evil:
You should complete a sea zone circle around Gibralter. As it is now you can invade Rome by sea from the canary’s islands. The circle should allow the zone to the right, the ability to touch Morocco and N. Algeria.
Airbase in London. Why? I know they had them. For what they do the Benifit is to good in that situation. Please take it off IMO.
Any way nice overall. It’s nice not seeing GE in Russia face yet. Keep up the good work.
