AARHE: Map files

TUV counting, making sure the allies start with a clear numbers, tuv, and income advantage to compensate for the drastic positional advantage. Axis quickly catch up in income and the ICs shift to the axis within the first 3 rounds.

More importantly the axis now have to make decisions instead of having one best move to do.

Even more importantly the allies have something to look forward to potentially within the first 3 rounds which typically saw a whole lot of nothing, which is a big reason people do not play this map.

Still favors the axis to win. I like to play the axis so I am a little biased, I just hate to see the game won before it even begun.

@Imperious:

This is how AA should look except with areas carved out. No roundels, just flags. And just one flag per nation, not 15.

Don’t know what you’re talking about.

Manchester should, of course, be in 0934.  I’d put Hamburg in 1228.

One or two slip-ups with the flags, but overall a very impressive map.

I worked on the Wars of the Roses map (the heraldry is mine), and I’m developing an expanded version of Warriors of God.

What would you think if I merged Belgium/Holland, Albania/Yugoslavia, and make Switzerland an impassible territory?

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:

On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?

They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.

Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…

Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot.  Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry.  The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)

GAH!  I always forget the fine print about resorting to OOB/LHTR to clarify – thanks Tekkyy.

Ok that explaination makes more sence. Can you reword it in such a manner that it captures both the examples and the language of your description?

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.

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”