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.

Thanks! I mostly agree with your comment about per-dice research efficiency; the only reason I didn’t include additional penalties for triple-stacking your scientists is for the sake of simplicity. If you want to play with a -3 penalty, or (even better) a -4 penalty that rounds up to a -3 penalty if you roll three 1’s, then go right ahead!

Giving each Axis nation 3 tokens and each Allied nation 2 tokens tends to give the Axis an early edge in research (they will manage their first couple of breakthroughs earlier than the Allies will), but then the Allies will start to catch up and then overtake the Axis later in the war, because the Axis scientists (on average) will be more “crowded” and will take more stacking penalties.

You could bump Radar to 14 pts. or even to 16 pts. if you really want to, but there are limited opportunities to make full use of the potential synergy. E.g., suppose Germany is using a “Dark Skies” approach to ward off Allied fleets with its enormous Nazi bomber squadrons. Britain might want both Radar and Anti-Aircraft Cruisers to help protect its fleet. Russia, on the other hand, only needs Radar – they’re not going to build any cruisers. Similarly, Russia doesn’t have much use for Jet Fighters, since if it’s suffering from a strategic bombing campaign, it won’t be able to afford much in the way of extra fighters. There’s also the concern that “Heavy Bombers” has always been an overpowered technology in every version of Axis & Allies that had tech. I tried to err in the opposite direction by making the anti-aircraft techs roughly as powerful as the aircraft-enhancement techs!

There is an “Improved Artillery” tech in some of the OOB versions of Axis & Allies, and I’ve never seen anyone buy it, except maybe Russia, who really does have to count every dollar and might not be able to afford enough artillery to fully power its infantry stacks. It is really challenging to fully exploit the advantage of 2:1 artillery support is that it’s really hard to maintain the desired ratio. E.g. if I have a stack of 10 infantry and 5 artillery, then after one round of combat, I probably have something like 2 infantry and 5 artillery, and the extra artillery support becomes moot. It stays moot on defense, too, when those artillery try to hold the ground they just captured. But if I have a stack of 20 infantry and 5 artillery instead, then my army is hugely inefficient – even with 2:1 artillery support, I’m only generating 40 pips of punch on 25 units, so I’m going to give you multiple rounds of combat in which to score hits and wear down my army.

You get the same problem in reverse if you want to only boost the artillery’s native attack power. With a stack of, e.g., 8 infantry and 3 artillery, the tech would only give you +3 pips of punch – it’s just not very exciting. You could try attacking with a stack of all artillery, e.g., 10 artillery for $40, but that just seems weird and un-thematic.

Anyway, let me know if you try out the rules, with or without some modifications! I’d be curious to see how they work in live play. I’m defending my rules so you have the benefit of my opinions, but they’re just opinions, and ultimately the house rules are there for everyone to enjoy however they like…if you think you’ll have more fun tweaking the costs or nerfing a couple of the techs, then go with what seems fun! :-)

The Allies may indeed have problems getting numbers of units into Europe and Asia, but the whole reason they need to do this in the first place is because Russia has such woefully inadequate starting attack power!

The Soviets can barely trade with Germany or Japan for 2 territories a turn, before they start hemorrhaging ground units in the process, forced to make terrible trades at a loss just to prevent Axis blitz paths or landing spots. This means that the Germans can advanced along a broad front, with only modest sized stacks, and Russia is totally unable to contest them.

Instead, because they cant attack on their own, the Soviets are almost completely reliant on UK/USA to run direct counter attacks for them, against a relentless Axis advance. And this all happens in their own backyard, right in their own core Russian territories!

And its not as if Russia collapses only when they receive zero aid from the West (which might be understandable) but they collapse when they don’t receive the full maximum aid. Like literally almost all the UK/US ipcs from the early rounds dedicated just to holding the center.

The western Allies routinely send dozens of fighters and as many ground units as they can to prop up Moscow. And even then Moscow gets hammered.

Honestly if I was designing this thing from the ground up, I’d give Russia an airforce on par with the other powers. Like 3 fighters AND a bomber. Or hell even 4 fighters AND a bomber!

They’d still have the weakest starting airforce on the board.

I just think its rather lame, that the Russians are so nerfed in A&A. It feels totally ahistorical.

They had superior tanks to the Germans, even by the time this game is supposed to start, and yet it is the Germans who always tank drive. They had some the best fighter aircraft in the world by the time this game is supposed to start, and yet it is the Luftwaffe that always crushes. They had the numbers, and yet it is Germany who always pushes the massive ground stacks.

It just doesn’t look like World War 2.

The way the Royal Air Force is always camped out in Russia, and Monty is taking his tank columns on escapades through the Caucasus. For real?

If you want their income so low, they should have starting TUV. Or conversely, if you want them to have low starting TUV, then give them more income. But if you shaft them in both areas, then the game turns into this weird deal, with the western Allies running the show in Red territories.

The Russia design is just silly OOB. They have low income and as such will buy infantry and artillery as a matter of course, almost exclusively. They don’t need more inf, what they need is air power, so they can trade that infantry effectively, the way the other player nations do.

I think a single additional Russian bomber is a decidedly modest expansion compared to what they should really have, if you want to reflect their historical position during this period.

Thank you all.

http://www.mediafire.com/?0jj2zyunrwm

ok all issues fixed. I left off Rio De Oro. not needed for any reason.

@oldsalty:

OK.  Cost of the IC is not an issue.  Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15.    Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?

They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then).  I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.

yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15

“4 x IPC  income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both

*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build

Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism?  Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.

no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out

AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible

simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it

unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map

but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism

Hi tekky and Imperious Leader,

thanks very much for the quick clarifications! I’ll post if other things pop up during gameplay  :-)

Regards,
sponge