AARHE: Map files

@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:

Sounds pretty cool! I’d watch the video haha. I have a lot of old pewters from the 80s, but mine are all high fantasy, dragons and the like. My uncle had some kick ass Napoleonic era pewters, and a great set of plastic army men from the early 60s that I always pined over.

My first serious attempt at the map concept was for the computer in tripleA, a few decades ago, so pretty limited by what the thing could do at the time. It worked for a bit, but was kinda wonky and used some gimmicky ideas for the naval movement and convoys, as a way to delay the USA. It had a kind of one direction flow from the Americas to support the Entente, but the game was basically decided by what happened in Europe with the CP. I was never very satisfied, but it was a fun project cause I like the era. You can see the map down at the bottom here…

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Great_War

Then I tried to revisit the era again, but ended up not using the WW1 map abstraction concept, opting for something that just had the whole world on view and a more free form 1898-1918 vibe, so the factions could be less rigid. Basically I wanted it to include the Spanish American war, and Africa scrambles, or Boxer rebellion-y stuff with a kind of slow build into WW1. I split the Entente into Anglo-American and Franco-Russian sides, to see if I could find a way of dividing up the world and then tacked some others minors onto each team just to see how it would work. I think I had America-Britain-Portugal-Japan on one team, France-Spain-Italy-Russia on another. Germany-Austria-Ottomans-the Dutch and China on the last. Just so the spread would be evenly distributed with some fronts in each theater to tease out. I determined it as too simplistic and anachronistic though. It was basically the dilemma of the 3 faction game and being modelled more on the playscale of Risk than A&A that proved kind of intractable. The factions weren’t entirely satisfying, though I thought it kind of fun for make believe, and colonial competition. I just called it “Domination” lol. That one had a very limited unit roster, and simplified economy, but a much larger scale of territory divisions. I think it still would have worked on a 6 ft table, but only because of the limited units. Really it was just an excuse to draw a world map projection with a warp that I liked a little better than the traditional A&A map.

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Domination

I wanted something a bit closer to Mercator, but which would still give a much larger Europe. The squish-blob challenge I found was in how to manage South Asia and Africa, where the map compression becomes more extreme due to what has to happen with Europe/Med in A&A style games, so there was some abstraction, but a bit different than the earlier idea. I abandoned that one too, but Hepster picked it up again and revised it considerably for a 1914 era game using the same base projection but focused more on politics and a much more highly evolved roster/ruleset for this one…

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1063/power-of-politics-1914-a-wwi-scenario

I’m not sure if that one would work as a physical game though without a very large map. Perhaps 2x6 ft tables to make a large square with a more extreme warp in the map projection? But basically its better on a computer I’d imagine since you can map zoom and scale to micro with the imaginary sculpts. But work on it has gone a bit quiet since last year. Anyhow, it have a few of the abstraction concepts for stuff like convoys or how to handle the Bolshevik revolution (always a toughy), or things like cities through an abstracted scheme, but not so much with the playboxes ideas.

I’m definitely interested in different ways to push the map around though. I enjoyed the Classic playboxes in the first A&A map I picked up, even if they were just sort of cosmetic zooms in that one. I liked the look of it.

I was referring to @Black_Elk 's project.

Ever tried this?

ok ill make a third version with the changes you asked for. Tonight.

@oldsalty:

Bierwagan:

How would you have played your example if it were a bomber instead of a ftr?

Moin OldSalty!

I haven’t had a lone bomber defending a territory yet.  But, it wouldn’t really change anything.  Air units only get full attack strength when coupled with ground forces on a 1-to-1 basis.

@AAHRE:

Air Supremacy
When only one side has air units at the beginning of
combat cycle, air units fight with normal combat values
when matched 1-to-1 with a friendly land unit. Excess
air units fight at combat value of 1.

So, the bomber would have Air Supremacy but would only get a parting shot at 1 (n.b., bombers don’t get to select targets it is just carpet bombing) – then it would have to withdraw due to:

@AAHRE:

Land Combat: Retreat Decision
At the end of a land combat cycle, if only one side has
land units the other side must retreat.

TTP (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) insight for the day!
This becomes tactically significant later on in the game when you don’t have many ground units left.  I’ve seen people attack what looks like a solid defense in Berlin by tying up all the airplanes in the sky.  Then all you have to do is blast away the few defenders on the ground and “voila!” the vaunted Luftwaffe is forced to retreat because they have no land units, giving you the country and victory!

This really causes you to re-evaluate defense on the ground.  You have to watch UK as well because normally it’s just used as a non-mobile aircraft carrier – but NO MORE!

It’s all about balance… and aircover!  IL & Tekkyy have done a wondermus job of levelling the playing field and making it a real slobberknocker of a tactical puzzle.

Enjoy the day!

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink: