Posts made by deepblue

DH,

Did you actually read the post?

These are not the proposed numbers.  These are the historical numbers.  In my post I address some of your concerns.

CraigBee,

250 was just a number I picked to do a comparison.

It appears that the group does not like the currently proposed IPC system and are looking for a more historical system.  I would have to agree.

Murraymoto & Adlertag,
Thanks for posting the numbers they will be a great help.

Now we need to convert these numbers into something we can use on the map.

I calculated each nation’s percentage of world production for the time period.

Keep in mind that our map is 1941 and not 1938.
So…
The trading blocks have been added to the US and Germany
Neutrals have been added to the controlling nation on our map if no longer neutral.
France has been added to Germany.
Etc…

Below you will find the raw unadjusted numbers for the time period.  Compared with what each nation would be making on our map if the world’s production was 250 IPCs.

These numbers will have to be adjusted for balancing reasons.

Issues to address:

1. Italy needs to make more than 4% to be playable.
2. I have not adjusted China & Japan’s percentage to account for the Japanese controlled territories in China on our map.  This needs to be
           adjusted.
3. The overall difference in production between the Axis & Allies needs to be lowered.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[attachment deleted by admin]

A link to all the drafts is in my signature.

@Deaths:

The original Convoy boxes add up to 18 not 22, I was wrong with 15 myself.

I don’t know what map your looking at DH, but the US has 2 CBs in the Atlantic that add up to 10, 3 CBs in the Pacific that add up to 13 which in turn equals a total of 23.

DH,

Issue!  There are no current territories that have 10 IPCs.

I could create one but it most likely won’t match.

I will try a few things and let you know.  In the mean time you might want to reevaluate anything above an 8.

Also,

I have looked at your US numbers and they don’t add up. 
Are you aware that currently the US CBs add up to 23 not 15?

In the interest of world peace and to get this project moving again I will adopt DH’s IPC system.

I still feel that the Convoy Box system Imperious suggested would be a good addition, but without support for it I am no longer going to argue.

But incase you have an open mind I have explained the concept in detail below.

CBs will remain where they are (they will not be removed from the map).  They will work almost identical as in AAP in the fact that you can attack a CB which will cause the controlling player to lose money.  The difference is that this attack reduces the player’s current available income.

Example:  It is the German’s turn and they choose to attack the Soviet CB in the North Atlantic.  After winning the attack (if enemy units were present) the Soviet player returns IPCs from his hand back to the bank in effect reducing his available income for his next purchase phase.

I’m sure you asking well how much does the Soviet player return.  Well that still needs to be decided.

Imperious suggested a dynamic system where the attacking player rolls a dice and that is the amount the player loses.  This adds a bit of variability to it which I fell represents a convoy attack better, i.e. sometimes you get two ships other times you might get three or more.  I would say that a minimum number is need such as 2 + d6 that way the minimum result is a 3 (cost of a trooper) instead of the possibility of an attack resulting in just 1 IPC lose.

OR

We can use the fixed numbers on the convoy boxes and that is the amount lost, period.

I would also say a CB can only be attacked once per Nation per turn.

I feel this represents convoy boxes better and removes the feeling of double dipping and allows the CB attack to have an immediate affect.

Craig Bee,

I don’t think you understand the magnitude of what you’re asking. The water is on the same layer as the land and wave effect.  I played around with a few ideas but in the end I would have to cut out the water clean up the edges then reapply a new water layer.  I would be happy to do it but that would just take way too much time.

Sorry for the inconvenience, try your local print shop (don’t go to kinkos, too expensive).  Try to find a specialty shop they usually print for less.

@Deaths:

Saigon, This territory IMHO is a very useful territory,

Added.

@Deaths:

Roads and rails- A easy and non complicated way for INF. and Art to be able to move 2 spaces. They also give strategic value to other wise non valuable territories

Will post a version with roads on it.

@Deaths:

For piece density reasons I don’t think a berlin circle is a good Idea

Be aware that I have removed Slovakia AND actually enlarged Germany.  I printed it out when I was doing it and you can place 4 chips in Germany and the Berlin circle is just as big as the others.

@Deaths:

Phillipines. The multi sea zones fits with this island chain, it is rather large, the largest on the map aside from Madagascar

I made the Philippines one sea zone because on the AAE and AAP maps it is one sea zone.  If you feel that it should have two what about splitting the Philippines in to two territories, this would ease my reservations about two SZs around it.  Northern and southern Philippines, it actually would fit history as MacArthur had to fight his way across the islands from south to north.

Yes, Barbarossa has commenced.  It is “Julyish” 1941 on the eastern front.

This topic has been discussed at length.  For this map I did not plan to add a diplomatic rule set (which in turn adds another layer of complexity).

@Deaths:

If anyone else has any suggestions about the map that doesn’t involve changing the mechanics but the prettyness of the map please chime in at anytime.

This seems to be in contradiction.  I thought you wanted a basic map?

The game starts with everyone knowing who their opponents are. Classic AA style.

I believe that the idea you’re suggesting is more suited for a 1939 style map.

In my last post I did not mean to imply that I was dropping from the thread.

What I was trying to say with my pervious post was that I would no long make the rest of this thread endure my bickering with others. And to give the folks like DH who are just looking for minor corrections to the map, what they want.  While trying to express that I truly would like everyone’s input on further improvements even if it is for or against my suggested ideas.

DH,

We have both proven that we are (I will use the word) “passionate” about our ideas.

Is the above map not what you’re looking for?

Not sure if I understand you correctly but the idea of starting over makes my stomach turn.

I would be happy to address any of your concerns about previous changes and I will add a Saigon city circle. (Someday you will need to tell me about your affection for Saigon.)

Imp,

I will lower Paris as well.

Gentlemen,

I will no longer be wasting my free time arguing with someone as stubborn as myself.

Below is a link to an updated version of Positronica’s map prior to my joining of this thread.  This map hopefully has achieved our original goal of correcting all the spelling errors and other suggested changes from pdel21, Craig A Yope, and others from page 6 and back of this thread.

**Be aware you may see a “file not found” warning that is just for the preview image.  You can download the actual file by clicking on the file name link on the right.

Hopefully this is what DH and others are looking for.

It was not my intent to blow smoke up anyone’s anything, or to make you feel neglected or ignored.  I truly joined this thread to get suggestions to improve this map beyond my own vision and despite DH’s claims I believe this map has gone far beyond my vision thanks to you.

I would like to thank all who has taken their valuable time to provide feedback for this project and apologize for making you endure the last few posts.

deepblue

Fantastic, some activity.  Hopefully we can get a few more people to chime in on the subject.

CraigBee,
300 IPCs is too high but 328 is ok? What changed your mind?

Craig A Yope,
Yes, this will probably not be the final IPCs count, but which one do YOU like?

Murraymoto,
Thanks for the input.

@Deaths:

Whats the point in convoy boxes if they make no $.

Like I stated in my pervious post, convoys do not produce income.  They are transit points (ships do not make income, they move income).  These represent vulnerabilities in the supply lines.  I believe that CBs should be attacked and when attacked they reduce the available income of the owning nation.

@Deaths:

I have extensively play tested on original map. I truly believe that these will be appropriate totals for each country.

Playing games with the same friends does not constitute play testing.  Yes you have an insight that most of us do not, so tell me this.  Did you win most of the time?  Did you play the same people? How long did it take to play?  Honestly rate your competition?

Did you test it or just play?

Can you provide pictures of the board 3 turns to 5 turns in, the next time you play?  That would actually be a great help.

@Deaths:

So what we will have in the grand scheme of things is-

ALLIES = 205 IPC’s
AXIS + 123 IPC’s

I appreciate the time it takes to devise a IPCs system.  And yours will probably work just fine.  I am not saying it is bad or wrong.  I am entitled to my own opinion as well.

And you still have not addressed my concerns:

1. With such a high IPC count the piece density will be high.  This will slow the game down and consume even more of the limited space on the map.

Yes… the map is larger but the majority of the growth is in Russia and China.  If you look at the historical fronts they are not that much bigger and surely this does not constitute the 85 IPCs you have given the US.  Do you really think the US needs that much money when on the map they have not actually gained that much territory?

2. Historical relevance.  I don’t think your IPC values reflect the economic situation of the war.  Where did these figures come from?

You make a valid point concerning Britain.  After reviewing the AAR map I noticed that Japan is in control of the South Pacific whereas on our map Britain controls these territories.  And considering the time frame in which our map is reflecting, Britain should receive a larger percentage then Japan.  I also believe that if Japan starts with fewer IPCs this will encourage a more aggressive opening by the Japanese player, reflecting the war in better detail.

So I will post my new suggested IPC count.

@Deaths:

My Marker is going to draw it on if it’s not printed on.

If you use the Strategic Moves you will not need your Sharpie to draw on the trans Siberian Railway.  But feel free to do whatever you feel is necessary to your map.

@Imperious:

They will have to add some lend lease rules to balance it out.

I love that it is “they” now.  Your not part of this discussion?

Yes, like previously stated a lend lease system should be put in place.

My suggestion:
Lend Lease
Axis
Germany may send up to 15 IPCs to Italy during Germany’s purchase phase.

Allies
While the Soviet Union convoy box is Allied controlled.  Britain may send up to 15 IPCs to the Soviet Union during Britain’s purchase phase.

While the North Atlantic US convoy box is allied controlled the US may send up to 25 IPCs to Britain during US’s purchase phase.

my 2 cents

It’s a shame that you feel that I have been ignoring the participants of this thread, but I would have to say that the previous 32 pages show unequivalently that I have in fact given every “reasonable” idea its due. True, some ideas deserve more due then others, while others do not need a response.

For all the viewers out there,

They are right, this can not continue without input or feedback.  My production spreadsheet has had 16 views but only 3 people have giving feedback.

If I or someone else post an idea I need to know if you like it or not.  Just because one person post saying “ya” or “nay” that is still just one person I need to get an idea of what the group wants.  That can only happen if people contribute.

So where did everyone go?

Due to lack of progress this week I will not be posting a draft.

I am a little surprised by the lack of input from the group on such an important topic as IPCs.  IPCs are a major issue but I have only received feedback from 3 people.  I can only assume that the rest of you have been too busy this week to write.  Hopefully this weekend we will see some more activity from the group.

See you next week
deepblue

I do not plan on changing the cost of the units.

So…  We need to decide what the total world production is going to be while keeping the piece count reasonable but allowing adequate forces to defend territory and to launch offensive operations on a larger map.

I have broken down the income each nation will receive in addition to what they earn in AA Revised.  I have also listed the number of each type of unit a nation could produce per turn in addition to their original AA Revised production.

I have global figures for a 300, 280 and 250 IPC world.

Example of how to read the charts:

On the world income table for 280. (Center table)
We set the Total Global Income to 280.

The Soviet Union will get an additional 12 IPCs to build 4 more infantry or 2 & 1/2 more tanks or 1 fighter, etc.

Japan will get an additional 18 IPCs to build 4 more artillery or 1 bomber or 2 transports, etc.

All figures are “Per Turn”.

Review the tables and let me know which option you like best.

(Tables are in the image below)

[attachment deleted by admin]

Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs)

I would like to paint the big picture of how I think IPCs should be divided.

There is one word I would like each of you to keep in mind when posting your suggestions “BALANCE”.  IPCs must be balanced giving each side a fair shot at winning.

The best way IMO to get balance without excessive game testing is to leverage the work already done by Larry Harris and AH.  The AA Revised does a good job of balancing the economic struggle between the powers.

| A&A REVISED |
| | IPCs | % of World Total |
| US | 42 | 25% |
| UK | 30 | 18% |
| SU | 24 | 14% |
| Allied Total | 96 | 58% |
| |
| GER | 40 | 24% |
| JAP | 30 | 18% |
| Axis Total | 70 | 42% |
| |
| Total Diff | 16% |
| World Total IPCs | 166 |

Our world is bigger that is a fact.  So it should produce more IPCs.

Our first decision is to determine how many IPCs our new world produces.

I am sure there is more than one way to figure this and I can’t wait to see what the group comes up with.

Here is my idea.
AAR map has 56 IPC producing territories.
Our map has 130.  That is more than double.  So we could double the world’s output to 332.  That puts US at 84 a turn and Russia at 46 a turn.  I think that is a bit too high.
So why not 300 (I like round numbers), that puts US at 76 a turn and Russia at 42 a turn.

So let’s start with 300.

In theory we could just plug-in 300 and using Larry’s percentages get our new national totals.  Just one catch, Italy.  By adding Italy we now need to account for it.

So we need to decide what percentage Italy should produce and from who we should take it from.  The primary source of Italy’s income should come from Germany.  But to make Italy truly playable we may need to move around some of the global income.

I don’t have a book on the subject nor have I found a good web site to reference.  So I went with what I know.  I have played several other games that have Italy as a player nation and the majority of these games have Italy producing about 1/3 of Germany’s production.

So after some financial wrangling and massaging I came up with this.

| PROPOSED |
| | IPCs | % of World Total |
| US | 72 | 24% |
| UK | 51 | 17% |
| SU | 39 | 13% |
| Allied Total | 162 | 54% |
| |
| GER | 63 | 21% |
| JAP | 51 | 17% |
| ITA | 24 | 8% |
| Axis Total | 138 | 46% |
| |
| Total Diff | 8% |
| World Total IPCs | 300 |

This keeps the majority of Larry’s percentages almost intact.  The exception “Total Difference” has been cut in half (I just don’t see any way around that).  I tried to balance several factors Total % in difference of sides, Total % of each side, the relations each nation had with one another, total world wealth, etc.

Other things to keep in mind:

Average Piece Count on the board at any given time.  We don’t want this to get too out of hand, requiring hundreds of pieces to play.  (Need to keep World Production reasonable)

IPCs and Convoy Boxes
You might have noticed I have not mentioned Convoy Boxes.  This is because I don’t think convoy boxes should produce IPCs.  That seems to be double dipping in my option.  Convoys don’t produce IPCs they are transfer points that are vulnerable to attack.  And that is how they should work.

Lend Lease
I plan on using Lend Lease rules for this map.  (Rules to follow at a later date)

Let me know what you think.  I am looking for constructive discussions.

If you think you have a better idea or can improve on this one (I’m sure it can use improvement),  Please share it.

deepblue

It’s Friday !!

But… Not much has changed with the map so I will not be posting a draft this week.

I will be starting the IPC discussion. (post to follow)

Have a great Weekend.

deepblue

Berlin Version 2

[attachment deleted by admin]

Berlin City Circle

If the Berlin City Circle has no value then neither does London, Washington, Moscow, Etc.

City Circles provide garrison points, last stand locations.

The Berlin circle increases the distance between Berlin and London, limiting direct attacks by either city on one another.

Berlin is not a coastal city.  It would be a shame for the German player to lose Berlin (their capital) from an amphibious assault on a map of this detail.

@Rowdy:

Just curious, I’ve noticed “city circles”: Berlin, D.C., Calcutta, Hong Kong, Stalingrad, Moscow, London, et all.

Why isn’t there one for Tokyo?

Was there something I missed?

Your right, Tokyo and Rome do not have city circles due to size restrictions (there just is not enough room).  I tried working the Tokyo circle but after a few tries I still felt it was just to cramped.

@Randmacts:

I have noticed that you have failed to include Victoria on the map ( Victoria is the Southern tip of Eastern Australia ) as well as the little Island State of Tasmania ( which should be below Victoria ).
Just thought I’d bring it to your attention should you want to add them. Cheers 8-)

Sorry, but I have to declined due to the fact that this map will never finish if I keep adding to it.  (I will make sure to add them to my vector map version)

@Adlertag:

As for convoys, I miss a german 3 point convoy zone in seazone 10, because all the high grade Swedish steel and iron ore from nort sweden was shipped from port Narvik, because the Baltic sea is frozen most of the year

This topic has already been discussed at length.

@djensen:

If you want to host any Axis & Allies related files, I’m more than happy to host them here on this site so that you don’t have to wait and watch a video trailer to download a map.

Thanks for the offer but,  MediaFire does not require you to watch a video or anything else to download a file.