AARHE: Map files

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’.

A&A 1914 - Russian Civil War
At the end of the Mobilize New Units phase of any Russian turn starting in round 4, check to see if the conditions for the Bolshevik Revolution have been met. If the conditions are met, then the Bolshevik Revolution takes place immediately and Russia’s Collect Income phase is skipped. After the revolution is complete, Germany may begin their turn.

The Revolution Phase (Steps for setting up the Civil War):
1. All Russian and other Allied forces in Moscow, Karelia, and Kazakhstan are retreated by moving those units one space to any adjacent territory controlled or contested by Russia or a friendly power or onto any friendly transports in an adjacent sea zone. If some units cannot retreat in that manner, then they are removed from the game.
2. Retreat all Central Powers units and control markers from Moscow, Karelia, Tartarstan, and Kazakhstan in the same manner. If some units cannot retreat in that manner, then move them to their respective capitals.
3. Introduce the Soviet Power and assign a Central Powers player to take the responsibility of controlling this new power.
4. Place Soviet units on the board as follows: 3 infantry and 1 artillery in Moscow, 3 infantry and 1 artillery in Karelia, 2 infantry in Kazakhstan, and 1 cruiser in zone 12.
5. Place a Soviet control marker on Moscow, Karelia, and Kazakhstan. Place a Soviet control marker on the national production chart at 9 IPCs and then give 9 IPCs to the Soviets treasury.
6. Imperial Russia keeps any leftover IPCs in its treasury.

The Russian Civil War:
-It is a proxy conflict between the Red/Bolshevik (Soviet) forces supported by the Central Powers and the White/Nationalistic (Imperial) forces supported by the Allies.
-The Civil War begins immediately after the Revolution.
-The goal of Russia and the Allies is to take back Moscow and get Russia back in the war.
-The goal of the Soviets is to control of all of Russia and spread their influence if possible.

The Soviet Russian Republic is a new power. This new power follows the same turn phases as any other power and can purchase units and collect income from territories it controls and national objectives it completes. Soviet Russia’s capital is Moscow. Soviet Russia’s turn occurs at the end of the round after the USA and before Austria-Hungary. Soviet Russia is at war with all the Allied powers. For simplicity, the Soviet units use the red Central Powers chips and Soviet Russia is treated as a member of the Central Powers but with certain limitations regarding the movement of its units.

Per treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the territories that make up “Outer Russia” (Livonia, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, and Sevastopol) are ceded to the Central Powers. Soviet Russia must also recognize and respect the sovereignty of Persia and Afghanistan and Soviet land units cannot enter any these territories. The Central Powers also recognize Soviet Russia’s claim over the territories that make up “Inner Russia” (Karelia, Moscow, Tatarstan, and Kazakhstan) and cannot enter these territories. Soviet units can never enter a territory that was originally, or is currently controlled or contested by the Central Powers.
Soviet sea units can move through sea zones with Central Power but are not allowed to end their movement in any sea zone with Central Powers units. Soviet sea units are hostile to Allied units and are subject to the effects of sea mines of any Allied power.

Contested territories: If the Central Powers and Russia contest any territories in Outer Russia when the revolution occurs, the Imperial White forces there remain in combat with the Central Powers. They are allowed to retreat to any adjacent territory still controlled or contested by Imperial Russia on their turn of course per normal combat rules.

Since Moscow becomes the new Soviet capital and was never captured by any power through a combat, it does not count as a victory city for the Central Powers. When Imperial Russia takes back Moscow, this does not count as a victory city for the Allies.

The Revolution only happens once per game. If the Imperials have taken back Moscow, and are losing the war at the end of their turn and the conditions for Revolution are met, then no Revolution would occur.

While Soviets have Moscow, the Allies can capture and collect IPCs for Russian territories that they control, including Romania and Serbia. Once Moscow is back in Imperial hands, then all original Russian territories controlled by the Allies are reverted back to Imperial Russian control, including Romania and Serbia.

In the event of an Imperial victory, the Soviet Power is still in play and any remaining Soviet forces will remain on the board and participate. Imperials will collect any unspent IPCs left in the Soviet bank.

The Soviets do not need to control Moscow for a Central Powers victory in the game.

Design Note:
These rules do not simulate the Russian Republic of 1917, or any of the minor factions such as the independence movements, the Green armies, and the Black Army.

What software program do you use to edit the map?

@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.

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.

yep

oh no worries
we can still have your goals instead of territories
just copy over the goals you had initially and we go from there

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.