AARHE: Map files

@cds

Here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32236/oztea-s-1939-global-setup?page=1

I don’t think it says either way, which is why I have all these questions.

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.

@Chiclet:

One more thing:

Aircraft carriers should not cost 12.  They are essentially worthless without a fighter or two so to make a them worth while you would need to spend a minimum of 22 IPC. way too much.

I’d bump it down to 9.

Dont think so. Imho they are already to cheap at 12. I don’t know why they reduced the price, as it was 14 before. Reducing this even more would make other naval units like battleships totally unnecessary.

as we are learning now, 1940 is an easier year to set up, because the Axis and Allies are a little more clearley defined

Try using ANZAC pieces to represent France on the AA 50th board

France gets ….

France, Morocco Algeria, French West Africa, French Central Africa, Madagascar, and French Indochina.
A french infantry in Trans-Jordan to represent Syria, and a french canadian infantry too.

If paris falls on the first turn then at the end of the victorious nations turn (Germany or Italy) do the following. Roll a die, any French units AND/or territories (that do not contain other allied units) convert to axis units if they are the able to be reached from france by any route in the number of game spaces shown on the die. If other allied land units are present (UK) then those french units remain free french. French naval vessels are scuttled IF they convert and vessels of any other nation are present (including the allies)

On a roll of a 1 Germany gets the French Mediteranin fleet (Destroyer and Transport) and the french atlantic fleet (if the uk player took its units there as casualties and only french vessles remained after combat)
On a roll of a 2 they also get Morocco Algeria
On a roll of a 3 they cant claim any more units because there are no elegible units 3 game spaces away from france
On a roll of a 4 french west africa converts to the axis, syrian french do not convert because there are UK units there.
On a roll of a 5 french equatorial africa also converts
On a roll of a 6 Madagascar also converts.

AA scale for destroyers is approximately 1/2400, 1" equals 200 feet.  On that scale an Iowa-class battleship would be almost 4.5" long, rather than the 2.25" it actually is.  Scale for the battleships runs from about 1/3600 for the UK Royal Soveriegn to about 1/4700 for the Iowa.  The Yamato is about 1/4200 and the Bismarck is about 1/4300.  The scale for the aircraft carriers ranges from the Wasp at about 1/3500 to the Shinano at about 1/4200, as all of the carriers are the same length, 2.5".  The two cruisers are about 1/3700 scale.  The subs range from the German Type VIIC at about 1/1400 to the Japanese I-15 class at about 1/2400.

If you buy 1/3000 scale ships, which is 1" equals 250 feet, an Iowa will run about 3.5 inches, considerably larger than the destroyers in the game.

Quote from: oldsalty on September 01, 2008, 07:17:52 am
That appears to make sense from the few pieces I’ve ordered to compare size and quality.

What is the difference between 1/2400 and 1/3000 in inches?  Looks like the 1/2400 is an USA scale (based in ft/in).  Is the 1/3000 the European scale based in meters?

Side by side, would a 1/2400 piece actually be 20% smaller than a 1/3000 scale piece?

A 1/3000 scale ship will actually be about 20% smaller than a 1/2400 scale ship.

I will post the scales for the aircraft once I finish measuring them.

Thats a complete waste of time…. The only scales for small inexpensive metal ships THAT IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY IN PRODUCTION IS 1/2400 AND 1/3000…SO THE ONLY REALISTIC OPTION IS TO BUY 1/2400 SCALE WHICH ARE OFFERED FROM NAVWAR AND SKYTREX, WHILE 1/3000 SCALE IS TOO LARGE.

The scales are the same regardless representing objects 1/3000 or 1/2400 times smaller than original. Its not a Metric vs. English system.

Axis and allies uses 1/700 scale planes and 1/285 armor and 15 MM infantry ( or to convert you use HO 1/87 plastic or 1/72). These are the scales your looking for and i already posted the order sheet in another thread.

So, DD & SS are separated out from the rest combat and this warfare is accomplished first.  Then Air Combat.  Then fleet warfare.

yes and its on your naval combat sequence player aid.  sub interaction,then survivors allocate air units and they fight concurrently with ongoing naval actions.