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.