AARHE: Map files

The map is still a mess. MS Paint’s paintbrush option doesn’t appear to lay an even coat, so I can’t auto-fill within national borders, meaning that each country must be painted by hand. I’m trying to figure out if it would be wise to invest in a WaCom tablet for this kind of work and would greatly appreciate any suggestions from some of the community’s seasoned mapmakers.

I’ve calculated income (IPC values) for all the major and minor powers in the game at this point, so let’s shift gears tonight and take a look at how that breaks down, with some additional points of interest for each country. Here’s an early (albeit incomplete) preview.

Allied Powers

United Kingdom & Dominions: 54

Representing His Majesty’s possessions and Commonwealth allies west of Suez. The U.K. starts with sevenof the Empire’s eight battleships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and one of its two battlecruisers. The British also field a pair of fleet carriers, divided between either station.

British Far East Command: 50

All British Empire forces east of Suez, inclusive of Australia and New Zealand. There are 10 INF in greater India alone, and another 4 in Malaya or on Singapore at game start. By contrast, Australia and New Zealand are virtually defenseless. A battleship, battlecruiser, cruiser, and two destroyers comprise the Royal Navy presence here.

France: 37

France is a going concern in this game, with powerful armies concentrated along the Maginot Line, the Alpine Line on the Franco-Italian border, and in North Africa. The French Indochina garrison is also formidable, with 1 INF, 1 ARTY, and 1 FTR. Powerful squadrons of the French Navy, including 2 BB and 1 BC, are at Toulon and Mers el-Kébir. A cruiser lays at anchor off Indochina. A troop transport in the Indian Ocean carries 1 additional INF and 1 AAA.

United States of America: 130

The wealthiest nation on Earth, but humbled by the Depression. The United States Navy counts ten battleships and one fleet carrier.

Pro-Allied Minors

United Netherlands: 28

Anticipating war with Japan rather than Germany, the Dutch spent heavily on air and naval defenses in the Indies, where a BC and a SUB patrol, backed by a TAC. At game start, a Dutch FTR on Java is the closest possible air cover available for Malaya. A modest increase to the army began more recently, but there can be no illusions about what will happen if Europe falls into another war.

Communist Powers

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: 57

An industrial behemoth, the Soviets are arrayed against the Germans in the west and the Japanese in the Far East. The massive Red Army fields 24 infantry in total.

Axis Powers

Japan: 35

In terms of capital ships, the Japanese operate three BB and one BC, as well as two fleet carriers.

Italy: 22

Still smarting over the abandonment of her Entente partners in the last war, Italy has renewed its membership in the Triple Alliance. The Italian army in North Africa, amounting to 2 INF, 1 ARTY, 1 armored car (AC), and 1 ARM, is a significant threat to French possessions there. The Italian Navy includes 1 BB and 1 fleet carrier. Italy’s mobilization factor of 11 INF is high for a country of her size; by way of comparison, the British Far East Command fields 17 INF at game start, spread across a far wider operational area.

Pro-Allied Minors

Polish Commonwealth: 11

In this timeline, a client state of Germany. Considering the weight of Soviet metal arrayed on its eastern border, the Poles are likely to serve as the doormat over which its neighbors stomp with reckless abandon.

Siam 2

A client state of Japan. Poised to invade French Indochina at game start with a formidable army of 3 INF, 1 ARM, and 1 FTR. The Siamese navy is a destroyer, standing in for the pair of coast defense ships it operated historically.

@Argothair:

Should it take more turns, in general, to move a basic unit by land, by sea, or by air? Why?

For whatever it’s worth, sea transporation and land transportation and air transportation in the real world exist on a continuum in which speed is inversely proportional to tonnage.  Shipping by sea is (and has been since ancient times) the cheapest way to move vast quantities of goods over great distances, giant supertankers being a good example of this principle, but it has the disadvantage of being slow and (for obvious reasons) of being limited to oceans and seas and coastlines and certain rivers.  Shipping by air is the fastest method, but it’s expensive and it involves much smaller payloads; it also has limitations imposed by landing strip requirements.  Helicopters are more flexible in this regard than fixed-wing aircraft, but they have terrible fuel consumption, a short range, high maintenance costs and small payload capacities.  Transporation by land is roughly half-way between those two extremes.  Of the two land options, rail shipping is in many ways superior because combines fairly high speed with low fuel consumption and large payload capacity, but it’s limited to places where rail lines exist.  Trucking is more versatile because there are more roads in more places than rail lines, and in a pinch some trucks can operate off-road, but they’re not as efficient at moving tonnage than trains.

@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.

OK so after skimming a number of threads I see a lot of similarities in house rule, can we get a quick run down of all the most popular features to be added to the map?

Not pieces or border changes but stuff like…

1. ports
2. barracks (or other infantry-generating locations)

what else?

@oldsalty:

The way our group plays this is fighters (without attacking land units) are allowed to attack defending land units at an attack value of 1.  Fighters are then allowed only one round of attacks.

your group’s interpretion of the rule is correct

the idea is that defending land units have nothing to fight so they stay in bunkers and what not
attacking air units in excess of attacking land units can still do damage, but at a reduced rate

I think its ok, unless there is a problem I am not seeing

@Imperious:

The rules already cover the idea of planes flying over to just engage other planes. Lets look at them:

think you misunderstood oldsalty
he is not talking about counter-air

IT USED TO BE IN THE FILE UNDER COUNTER-AIR. Now the section has been changed yet again and CA is not explained.
Tekkyy??? why?

yeah I got your PM
repeating my reply for others:

the paragraph “Counter-Air” merely explains the effect unique to Counter-Air
hence it looks a bit short
rules common to all air missions are written under the paragraph “Air Missions”

Counter air is one round of air combat using air values. It allows just air to air units to hit to model the control of the sky thing.

you can already perform an attack with only air units like in OOB/LHTR
air units then engage enemy air units

what Counter-Air is, is that it stops the defender from running (via air unit relocation rule “Defensive Air Support”) from the Counter-Air attack

WOW! that is very impressive. I will get to work on the background sheets. So just make at a patient pace and we will have the final product that will be even more impressive.

good job!

yep

ok good.