@black_elk said in Working on a New Map 40/41: Seeking Suggestions:
perhaps with some map making type tutorials in the same way that Pact of Steel 2 taught how to create an xml and such
:+1:
IPC distribution: how would you feel about a map like this?
-
See here’s the rub though…
In the real war the acquisition of industrialized territories did not have the same kind of relevance to the patterns of conflict as they do in the board game. The strategic significance of Midway or Wake in a military sense, completely trumped any discussion of their latent industry. I mean, we’re talking about guano fertilizer and coaling stations here for industry significance, compared to airbases, and communications hubs, and the prestige elements that all factored into their total ‘value’ during the actual War. The game doesn’t really account for this (well ok National Objectives are going to try) but I mean, the strategic significance of these territories is not going to play a factor in determining the IPC distribution. It should though, because the IPC scheme is what rules this game. Its the only resource we have to work with, and I think it should represent “value” in a more wholistic way. IPCs are the easiest thing to explain, and the most basic way to indicate overall value on the game board.
I wish they had been called Strategic-Industrial Production Certificates or something similarly broad, so that we could use them more effectively. I see no inherent value to the IPC scheme from an educational standpoint, if doesn’t also encourage some reasonably historical patterns of conflict. Where is Nimitz in A&A Revised? Its like he never even existed for most players. No one is going to start island hopping unless the islands are worth something, and 1 ipc is just chump change for most people. They’ll maybe take it on an opportunity kill, but nobody is going to launch into a major Pacific campaign for a bunch of islands at 1 or 0 IPCs. If they were worth 2 it would change the gameplay completely. Especially with Australia at 3
In the real War it came down to more than just industry, but in this game industry is the only measure. It seems unbalanced to me, and it produces a fundamentally ahistorical style of gameplay (at least among people who are out to win.) I know that you can achieve an excellent game if both players commit to the Pacific, but that doesn’t happen when people are going for the jugular. If we tweaked the IPCs up, then we would draw this part of the board into play, even for experts.
All I’m saying is, its only 2 ipcs
What’s 2 ipcs from a gameplay standpoint?
What’s 2 ipcs really from the educational standpoint?Isn’t it better to have the kids fighting over spaces like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and actually remembering the names because they’re now worth something in gameplay terms? Because the alternative I see is people just ignoring the islands altogether (and the Pacific theater in general), like they’ve been doing for a while now.
-
WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
That whole thing is wrong most part factories is a good idea for soem countries. but japanese navy was bigger then the usas and the only reason why they won was because of gambles and luck dice rollls please remeber allies won with luckI am not sure where you get the idea that the Japanese Navy was larger than the US, except that is what the game shows. The actual basic numbers follow. Once the war started, the Japanese completed only 3 major warships, the battleships Yamato and Musashi and the carrier Taiho, and converted the large liners Junyo and Hiyo to serve as fleet carriers. The 5 light cruisers completed were small and only carried six 6" guns, compared to the US Cleveland Class with twelve 6" and the Baltimore Class heavy cruisers with nine 8" guns, plus twelve 5" AA guns on all of the Cleveland and Baltimore class ships. The Shinano, sister ship to the Yamato and Musashi, was being converted to a carrier following the losses at Midway, but was sunk by US submarine attack prior to completion.
Japanese Navy in December, 1941, major ships: 10 battleships, with 2 building and later completed; 6 large carriers, 3 light carriers, 1 training carrier, with 1 large carrier building and 2 large passengers liners being converted with all later completed; 17 small light cruisers and 18 heavy (8") cruisers, with 5 light cruisers building and later completed.
US Navy in December, 1941, major ships: 17 battleships, with 8 building and later completed; 7 large carriers and 1 escort carrier, with 5 large and 5 light carriers building and completed, along with a large number of additional fleet carriers, light carriers, and escort carriers later completed; 10 older light cruisers, 18 heavy (8") cruisers and 9 large light (6") cruisers ( equal is displacement to 2 of the older Japanese light cruisers), with 4 AA light cruisers, 9 light cruisers and 4 heavy cruisers building and later completed, along with a large number of additional cruisers, included 2 ships regarded as battlecruisers.
With respect to detroyers, the US had considerably more at the start of the war, and the advantage increased rapidly for the US. In submarines, numbers were roughly equal, with the US again building far more during the war than the Japanese. In destroyer escorts, escort carriers, attack transports, amphibious warfare vessels, there is simply no comparison between the US and Japan. All of this data can be found in Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1922-1946, as standard reference on WW2 naval vessels and construction. Note, I am not even adding the enormous number of Liberty and Victory ships built by the US during the war, which basically replaced all of the merchant ships lost during the war.
I did not add the British Navy to the list, but it was also larger than the actual Japanese Navy, but was otherwise occupied with Germany and Italy. For the sake of game balance, the US and UK fleets are drastically reduced, along with US production. If the fleet reduction did not take place, and the US production was not drastically reduced, the only question for the Axis would be how long do they stave off destruction.
-
Hes talking about the Pacific Theater only. The American forces in the Atlantic were engaged in supporting the coming war against Germany and protecting its assets on the other side. In terms of just quantity, timerover is correct but in terms of pilot quality which was crucial in the first period of the war Japan was supreme. The starting setup in the game in both cases is reflective of the period before Midway.
Japanese carrier forces were better at the start of the war. After Dec 7th Japanese battleships were stronger than Americans. The other stuff is a washout until after the first year when we caught up.
Also, you cant count various stages of building. Thats not a starting fleet which he is eluding too.
-
Order of Battle:
Japan:
CV=10,BB=10,CA=36,DD=113,SS=63USA:
CV=8, BB =17, CA=36, DD=171, SS=112 -
I’m only talking about pacific but if pacific and atlantic added together i beleive that they wer even i am againts it also i ahev not played the 2004 1 but saw a video of it and japans navy is big but for a good reason.
-
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.That one was just for you Italiansarecoming :-D
On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.
Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.
-
Yea Italian fix your spelling errors before posting.
-
OK Ok! I am sorry (not really) if you noticed from my 1st posts they were horrible at least you can see less mistakes! It is all good now though i still make common errors that i will still make in the “near future”
-
Its fine Italiansarecoming, just try to be a little more thoughtful when responding to threads in the future. Like, before adding a one line response to a thread, first think: “Is this really going to contribute to the discussion at hand?” and then if it doesn’t, consider not responding, or responding via a private message instead. Its fine this time, just remember that the forums are for everyone and they get easily cluttered. Instead of weighing in on 8-10 topics each time you log in, just respond to the top 2 or 3 threads that are the most interesting to you. Try for a full paragraph, and remember to double check it before posting, that way your thoughts will come across with more clarity.
:)None of that has to do with the current topic of discussion though. Here, let me quote myself from the previous page, just to get us back on track…
:-DOn a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.
Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.
Any thoughts?
-
Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.
Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.
Any thoughts?
I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot. Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry. The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)
Suggested Topics
