AARHE: Map files

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;

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. 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). 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. 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’.

Yup! Scale was perfect for the map…the infantry are too large to fit comfortably in Belorussia or West Russia, but they fit great in France, Italy, Africa, and China! Quality is 3.5/5 stars. Some of the infantry didn’t detach cleanly from the sprue, and the modeling is slightly chunky, but overall the pieces are durable, handsome, and clearly distinguishable.

@Black_Elk:

That’s a clean map Ryuzaki_Lawlie!

The color selection is ideal. Though the black impassibles still jump out at me

From a design standpoint the only things that catch my eye are the two round sea zones surrounding Japan and Hawaii.

It feel like you need one in the Atlantic to balance things out aesthetically. Have you considered the possibility of one surrounding the British Isles?

Or maybe Iceland? Or maybe both?

I still think Mercator is a bit tight in Europe, a little stretching there might be ideal, even if it was just along the vertical axis. I think the map would still read fine, but you’d get a few more pixel for units into those key European spots. Also if you were willing to shrink South America slightly you could almost curve off a 10th of the map height at the bottom of the screen (which is notorious for players forgetting units in the south sea hehe) without really needing to change Africa/Australia of the pacific. Basically a slight bend would go a long way, even if using Mercator for the baseline.

Oh and I think the possession colors for Dutch Borneo and British Sarawak and North Borneo should be reversed.

My only suggestions :)

Nice work man. That would be a fun map to form the basis of a 1939 game, or any year from 39 on.

I like that you have not yet imposed on the map any extraneous information such as IPC values or VC. This means the map is adaptive for many purposes. I like the general division of territories. Only that the projection is a bit large at the poles for my tastes. If we could shrink them up slightly I think the map would be ideal. Its really more about screen dimension for me when it comes to the Big World Map that Wandering Head made. These days most screens are very long relative to their height, so standard Mercator always seems blown out a bit in tripleA to me, especially at the south end, and of course Europe is always tight. I wish the center picker for tripleA was better at housing units to smaller scales. Its a little better than it used to be, especially with the guiding lines, but still Europe loves to clutter up haha.
:-D

Again though, great design direction!

I’ll probably shift the continents (turning their general direction), and stretch out northern Africa and Europe, will probably require North America to get a bit skinny, but I think the big benefit from this, is that potentially more European spaces can be added. This will allow me to add more to the Mediterranean however (and it really needs the space), perhaps round out where Rome is. Africa, I think needs a bit more work. South America possibly as well, but I sort of need an idea of which cities can be considered major not only there, but elsewhere. Vladivostok will defiantly get added in with it’s own space.

I picked black for impassables, since it tells me that there is nothing there, no play space, it’s simply temporary, and they are there for the designer’s benefit.

I’m not sure where else to put a rounded Sea Zone, I’m considering more though.

yeah its the intentional
the strategic situation is different between 39 and 42
China was isolated from help due to losing coastal areas

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

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.

Note: This is not a complete list of all the modifications we’ve made in Phase 1. I will try to continually add to this as new ideas are posted. Please post any suggestions to the following rules at the Main Topic Board http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6470.0 or directly at one of the following related AARHE Phase 1 specific topics:

National Units http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6469.0
Unit Purchases and Mobilization http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6471.0
Income http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6473.0

Victory Cities

Every nation starts with 7 victory cities (VCs), each worth a certain number of victory city points (VCPs). Of these 7 VCs, 1 is designated as a capital (worth 5 VCPs), 1 other is designated as a major VC (worth 3 VCPs), 2 others are designated as moderate VCs (worth 2 VCPs each), and the last 3 are designated as a minor VCs (worth 1 VCP each).

The following is the list of VCs, the corresponding VCP value for that VC and the territory in which each is located. The VCs are organized by nation.

Russia:
Moscow (5)–Russia
Stalingrad (3)–Caucasus
Leningrad (2)–Karelia
Novosibirsk (2)–Novosibirsk
Archangel (1)–Archangel
Almaty (1)–Kazakh
Vladivostok (1)–Buryatia

Germany:
Berlin (5)–Germany
Rome (3)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Kiev (2)–Ukraine
Warsaw (1)–E. Europe
Oslo (1)–Norway
Kursk (1)–W. Russia

UK:
London (5)–UK
Toronto (3)–E. Canada
Calcutta (2)–India
Sydney (2)–Australia
Cairo (1)—Anglo-Egypt
Damascus (1)–Trans-Jordan
Cape Town (1)–South Africa

Japan:
Tokyo (5)—Japan
Changchun (3)–Manchuria
Shanghai (2)–Kwangtung
Singapore (2)–FIC
Manila (1)—Philippines
Guadalcanal (1)–Solomon Islands
Milne Bay (1)–New Guinea

US:
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (3)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Chongqing (2)–China
Ãœrümqi (1)–Sinkiang
Honolulu (1)–Hawaii
Sao Paulo (1)–Brazil

Infantry Unit Placement at VCs

ICs no longer build infantry units. Infantry units are assembled only in territories containing VCs. They are still purchased and mobilized at the same time as non-infantry units. In order to purchase and place any infantry in a VC, that VC must have been in your control at the start of your turn (placing an infantry unit in a VC can be considered the same as placing the infantry in the territory containing that VC).

For each of the 7 VCs that are originally owned by each nation, the maximum number of infantry that may be purchased and placed at the VC per turn is equal to the corresponding value of VCPs except for the following nation-specific exceptions:

Exception for the nations of Russia, Germany and Japan: If the VC is not connected to the capital VC thorugh a continuous line of friendly territories (not including SZs or neutral territories), then the maximum infantry placement is 1 less than the corresponding VCP value.

Exception for the Western Allies (UK and US): The maximum infantry placement for the capital VC is 3.

For each captured VC, the infantry placement limit is half of the VCP value for that captured VC (rounded down). This means that 0 infantry may be purchased and placed at a captured minor VC, 1 infantry at a captured moderate or major VC, and 2 infantry at a captured capital VC.

If any territory containing a VC is attacked before the defender’s first turn, then the defender of that VC gets to immediately purchase any number of infantry not exceeding more than the respective maximums outlined above and place them at that VC. These infantry units are purchased and placed just before the battle takes place. This rule applies only before the defender’s first turn. For example, it can apply to Russia attacking the Ukraine on Russia’s first turn but cannot apply to Germany attacking Karelia on Germany’s first turn (since Russia already had their first turn by the time Germany gets to move).Â

Non-Infantry Unit Placement at ICs

All non-infantry units are still built at ICs, however, unit placement limits at ICs have changed. The total IPC value of all non-infantry units placed per turn at any IC in a given territory may not exceed 4 times the IPC value of that territory. If a certain territory contains both a VC and an IC, then the infantry placement limits for the VC are treated independently from the non-infantry placement limits for the IC.

The cost of purchasing new ICs now depends on the territory in which the IC will be placed. Any player purchasing an IC must declare where the IC will be placed during the ‘Purchase Units’ phase. The IC is still placed during the ‘Mobilize New Units’ phase. To determine the cost of an IC in a given territory, multiply the number of IPCs for that territory by the number of VCPs within that territory and subtract this number from the base IC cost of 15. For example, an IC in India, FIC or Kwangtung now costs 15 - (3 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 9 IPCs. An IC in W. Europe or C. US now costs only 15 – (6 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 3 IPCs.  All ICs in territories not containing a VC cost 15 IPCs since 0 VCPs multiplied by any number of IPCs always results in a reduction of no IPCs from the base cost.

An IC can only be placed in a territory that was in your possession at the start of your turn. Furthermore, non-infantry units may only be placed at an IC that was there at the start of your turn. (This means once you take over a territory you have to wait 1 turn to build an IC and yet another turn to build units).

There are 2 types of ICs, initial ICs and purchased ICs. All territories containing either a capital or major VC automatically start with an iniitial IC (note that this just adds ICs to Manchuria and E. Canada). These inital ICs do not have to be represented by an IC piece on the game board since they cannot be moved or destroyed so they are always present in that territory.  All purchased ICs are represented by an IC piece and can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.

Infantry Unit Costs

Infantry purchased to be placed in that nation’s capital cost 2 IPCs each.
Infantry purchased to be placed in all other territories of that nation’s color cost 3 IPCs each.
Infantry purchased to be placed in any captured territory cost 4 IPCs each.

Victory Conditions

Just like in the AAR box rules, players agree before the start of the game which set of victory conditions they will use; Total Victory, Major Victory or Minor Victory.

Total Victory: The winning team is the first to control every territory by the end of any US player’s turn.

Major Victory: The Axis win if they control 45 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn. Likewise, the Allies win if they control 55 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn.

Minor Victory: Both sides bid the number of turns that they want the game to last if they are the Axis. The team that bids the higher number of turns gets to play as the Axis. The game will automatically end after the US player’s turn on the turn number that won the bid. The team controlling the majority of the VCPs at that time wins the game. Note: This is unlike the major victory conditions or traditional victory city rules in that the winner is not the first side to reach a certain number of VCPs, but the side who maintains control of the majority of the VCPs by a certain turn number agreed upon by both sides. This is intended to better fix the game duration and to allow for quicker games if players are pressured by a time constraint.

Changes to Fighter Movement

Fighters that begin a certain turn on an aircraft carrier must also end that turn on an aircraft carrier, unless the aircraft carrier they started the turn on is destroyed during that turn. Note: Fighters do not have to start and end the turn on the same aircraft carrier. Fighters that start the turn in a territory can always end the turn on either an aircraft carrier or in a territory.

As before, the sum of the spaces moved during the combat and non-combat move phases cannot exceed the total movement for the fighter, however, now all fighters must count 1 extra move during the combat phase whenever they conduct a SZ battle.

Fighters that don’t move in the combat move phase of a certain turn may then move in the non-combat move phase of that turn the number of spaces up to their maximum movement, land in a friendly territory, and then again move up to their maximum movement to land in another friendly territory.

Turn Sequence

1. Purchase units
2. Collect income
3. Combat Move
4. Conduct Combat
5. Place newly purchased units
6. Noncombat move
7. Develop weapons

Optional Rules

Technology

Radar: Every surface naval unit and fighter unit now detects enemy subs on a roll of 4 or less instead of just a 2 or less. Also, every AA gun (max of 3 may fire per territory) may detect enemy air units flying over the territory on a roll of 4 or less.

Rockets: You may purchase rockets at a cost of 2 IPCs each. Any number of rockets may be fired from any number of your territories, provided that every one of those territories is contiguously connected to your capital. Once a rocket is fired from a territory, it may move up to 2 spaces to reach an enemy IC. The amount of damage done to the IC is equal to the larger of 2 dice rolls. Always roll for each rocket individually (i.e always roll only 2 dice at a time). You may rocket attack any number of enemy ICs, but the max damage done to any IC is equal to the territory’s IPC value.

Super Subs= All your subs attack/ defend and interdict enemy commerce at a roll of 3 or less. Also, subs may move 3 in the non-combat move phase (Note that subs still can’t move in both the combat and non-combat move phases in the same turn).

Long-range aircraft= All your fighters move 6. All your bombers that don’t move in the combat move phase get to move 8 in the non-combat move phase of that same turn. Whenever any of your bombers get shot down you have a choice of either (a) paying 10 IPCs and losing the ability of bombing the enemy in that same turn or (b) assigning the bomber as a casualty as usual.

Jet Fighters= Your AA gun units hit enemy air units on a 1 or 2. Your fighters are detected by enemy AA gun units at half the  number they would otherwise detect them (i.e. they detect your fighters only on a 1 without radar and on a 1 or 2 with radar). Also, your fighters defend at a 5.

Heavy Bombers= Enemy AA gun units detect your bombers at half the number that they would otherwise detect them (i.e. they detect your bombers only on a 1 without radar and on a 1 or 2 with radar). Also, take the larger of 2 rolls to determine damage during tactical and strategic bombing.

Rules regarding techs:

Tech Development Re-startup fee:
If on any turn a given nation doesn’t purchase any tech rolls, then on the next turn that the nation buys at least 1 tech roll, the nation must pay an additional 5 IPCs as a re-startup penalty.

Each tech roll still costs 5 IPCs. No nation may spend more than half their IPCs in the Technology Development phase of that turn.

The tech/s you are rolling to develop are declared before you roll. If you roll the same number as the ‘target number’ associated with the tech (see above) then you develop the tech. If you roll the number that equals 7 minus the target number, then you achieved a technology breakthrough. A technology breakthrough makes it much easier to develop that specific tech later in the game. For every technology breakthrough you achieve in a certain tech category, you get 1 additional free die roll in every turn that you buy at least 1 tech roll for that same tech. For example if you achieved 2 breakthroughs in Super Subs (i.e. you previously you rolled a 4 two separate times while attempting to get Super Subs) but still have not developed Super Subs, then on the next turn that you buy a tech roll for Super Subs you get to roll a total of 3 dice to develop that tech (1 for the purchased roll + 2 free die rolls for the 2 breakthroughs). Breakthroughs may only be used in the same tech category that you obtained them in.

Diplomatic Relations

(This section still under construction)

Russian Xenophobia

Neutral Aid

Joint Strike

Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression Treaty

Lend-Lease

Yeah I recall seeing some photos somewhere on the internet.

Someone traced a real map.
Painted it on a huge piece of wood. A0 or A-1.  :mrgreen: