My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ārelativelyā 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 āSiberian Territoriesā , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with āIndonesianā Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on āoilā or āresourcesā only. A&A, in all itās 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 itās 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 āFranceā (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ārelativeā value to as many āspacesā (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the āSiberianā territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of āoilā 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 āUralsā spaceĀ reflects the ānorthern (arctic) Uralsā (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 āspacesā would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of āvalue territoriesā in the spaces that reflect āSiberiaā 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 āNationā from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ārelativeā 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 ārelativeā 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 āproblemsā.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ācompromisesā are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ābetterā.