Proposed Map: Domination 1941
-
Here is a quick detail with some example units, just give a sense of the scale.
I think we could easily develop a more advanced naval game with extra convoys or more sz divisions at the subdivided level. Perhaps not for sz 113 hehe, but you know, some of the other spots around the gameboard. You could fit some pretty large fleets I'd think at 16000.
-
@black_elk like the frontier crossing lol That Frostion ?
-
Yeah he's got some cool different angles on it too! I just got your note, I'm rethinking the angles now for sure. I think if I follow just a couple smaller ones like you mentioned for sz110 and 95 more traditional. Then up in the top of the baltic, we run the line into Sweden and maybe that would be a zone were one could fit a smaller division, if they wanted to add another sz subdivision or convoy lane or whatever. I think as long as the angles arent' too severe it looks ok, like if I can keep it at 45 degrees and not too long it should work in most spots. I think as long as we get enough space for units should be gravy hopefully. This is kinda coming along. Maybe we'll have it done by Xmas if not Turkey day lol. All those ships are at like 72 px wide I think.
I wasn't sure about the Convoy or Anchor or that hockey puck roundel, as maybe working for sz related stuff, but I think we got space. I forgot the damaged carrier lol, but you can see we can surely fit him in there too and prob some Italian fighters without having to break too much of a sweat haha. The invading Allies might spill into the Sweden or adjacent tiles if they're piling on with units, but even there we got a good amount of space to work with I think.
Puzzling out the Domination stuff could take longer, but at least for the standard or expansion G40 type scale, off to a pretty good start I'd say.
-
The Allies weren't about to let that German naval grandstanding go unanswered! lol
And we won't go home - till it's over - over there!
Anyhow, just to give a quickie impression haha. Catch ya next round
lol
-
Ok so how do you feel about something like this for the North Atlantic/Med?
I tried to prioritize the zones where units end up, or where they stack together, so basically larger sz tiles at the starts and the endpoints, and not so much in the transits. You know like for sz 109, 119, 111, 105 etc. Even if all the sea zones are pretty sufficient in scale, I think it's gotta be better that way for the fleets right?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6wdj4i1rcka8y99/TripleA_4k_baseline_G40_subdivisions_sz.png?dl=0
Anyhow we got the basic blocking I think. I reconsidered the angle thing. Fidelity to the board is board is probably better for those tiles, just so it's a bit more familiar. If the sz are given some subdivisions like the land TTs, then those could probably be made more consistent once the G40 tiles are laid down.
Here's a detail showing the naval units, just to give a sense of how many can comfortably fit around England and in the Channel.
Even with the angled sz border, they fit with room to spare, so I'm not too worried. As long as the angles are 45 degree the rescale from 3 pixels will still look good.
The forums will rescale the detail a bit, but if you click in you can get it at 100%. I think a likely playscale is Map view 80%, kinda where I usually play. Then bounce out 25% to scan, but usually like 65-85% something in that range. I mean like when you're getting into it heheh. I'd probably upscale these units to 110% myself since there's room for that and still plenty of space before you start spilling into adjacent tiles. I think this scale at G40 we could do 72 px units no prob.
I think that would be cool cause it's similar to 1:72 models, which is kinda the standard issue in the physical realm, so our digital Infantry would be more legit that way lol. That'd have some charm probably!
-
-
I think northwestern Germany should be widened. Also it feels like Germany is slighly rotated to South-East in this map. I would prefer not distorting the directions as much as possible.
-
The connection between England and this Northwestern Sea Zone is game changer. Because this connection ensures that Germany cannot cover all sea zones around Britain by placing fighters to the Western front.
-
Is there any idea about the representation of the Battle of Atlantic? This idea can really affect the drawings.
-
-
@schulz Yeah I'm really not certain about any of the subdivisions displayed. I think we can get something a little more accurate with less of a shifty shift, if knock down to just a couple subdivisions. I just wasn't sure which would be cool. For sz I'm just trying to follow the G40 map for all the connections and such, as far as I can, so if I goofed something there, it's just a goof rather than my grand design lol. I've been tinkering and coming back and tinkering again, so I might have let a connection slip somewhere here or there. I prob just drew the wrong line coming off Ireland right?
It should look like the Global map in terms of the connections, but the OOB board is kinda distorted so sometimes I think I got the money line, but then it accidentally lands on the wrong TT. You're right, that would be a game changer big time. Just an error, I'll correct it tomorrow
For the Battle of the Atlantic, I feel like we need some intermediate tiles so there's room to maneuver. And maybe use the islands like Bermuda Bahama and come on pretty momma Azores and such. I mean they're drawn might was well try to come up with something that has fighter transits there. Or same for the route to out of Canada to Greenland Iceland. Also intermediate zones for convoys worth more than the regular might be another approach. The numbers could be determined after the playbalance needs eventually, but just the idea that we could have spots at the ready might be good.
At this phase I almost just want to do the entire global map with all the sz and tt laid out so it works for that game. Then decide how to break up the more nuanced/advanced playscale. Cause just laying into the sz stuff here, I was already shift a few things around. Usually just trying to get another column or row that could fit units at 54 or 72 px wide.
Yeah G has a bit of tilt down there, we can fix that up on the next pass for sure. Good suggestion! Let me know if anything else looks super weird. I cleaned up Syria and Transjordan area a bit while fixing up the Med sz stuff. Hopefully that looks a bit better now, and Iraq Iran etc. The earlier map was based on the Ottoman provinces I think that Hepps had in place, we needed something more partition-y and angular to make it look like the 1940s heheh.
-
@black_elk The general problem for the battle of Atlantic is Germany's inability to reinforce Northern Atlantic with new subs. I have had one idea about to represent this theater.
In specific sea zones in the North Atlantic, German subs might be spawned each round.
For examle, in a specific 4 sea zones, Germany will have 1/4 chance to get a sub each of sea zone in each round.
This unpredictability would make harder to invade France which would be more realistic. It is matbe not the best idea but I couldn't came up with different ideas yet.
-
@schulz I like that idea a lot! Let's do that! Frostion's already got that anchor image called "sub-pen." In Iron War it is used to spawn 1 sub per round, but in that game it's attached to a coastal factory. I like your proposal better. Basically they get some cutty zones, where they can send their wolf pack captains without just getting trapped behind the blockade. If we handled those like the smaller land tiles in black lines could be another easy expansion type feature.
The reason I keep going back to G40 is because I think it's just easier to have something to build from, where we can kinda predict or at least make better guesses about how the changes might impact the 'standardish' playpattern in that game. Obviously we can do a thousand things, but if it can hit that harmony with Global then it'll at least have that cornerstone and appeal.
Here I'm fixing Germany right now. I think what happened is the after the initial warp it just got ballooned a bit. Switz was made a bit wonky and Holland a bit too bulbous. I had to start eliminating more of the Hepps tiles just to get myself to focus on the broader contours. Sometimes I think the impression of shape can come down to just one subtle line, being off. Let me know if you think that works a little better for the overall sweep for that area now.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6wdj4i1rcka8y99/TripleA_4k_baseline_G40_subdivisions_sz.png?dl=0
-
I generally like realistic looking borders and landmasses as much as possible for aesthetic reason. Countries can be enlarged proportionally to have more room for unit placements.
-
@schulz yeah me too. I mean I guess that's kinda the whole reason I started drawing this thing way back when. I just didn't like how everything looked so blob-ish, both on the OOB physical boards and in the TripleA renditions. Hopefully we can get something that's close enough that we can just nod and be happy with it when we're done heheh.
Let me know which things stand out as weird, it probably just means I need to return to the area and rework the contours there. Of course there are some limits, cause it is definitely warped pretty hard Europe and the entire Globe, like it wasn't just scaled, but also morphed and tilted and such too to get the broader continents to align under the heavy distortion, but as long as we can go back in and tweak the shapes to feel like they're coming across I'm all for it!
-
@schulz said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:
@black_elk >
For examle, in a specific 4 sea zones, Germany will have 1/4 chance to get a sub each of sea zone in each round.Thanks Schulz its on my list.
-
How does this feel for the SZ around Japan?
Obviously the Pacific is kinda tricky to maintain the same geometry, cause like OOB the map doesn't even show Sakhalin and many of the islands are pretty far out of position on the gameboard. I try to maintain the same suggested shapes, but with a slightly different sweep. You know like sz 18 which is mostly a transit, becomes a square, rather than a longer rectangle just so we could preserve the angles on the surround zones. Basically because the OOB sz design is based on a world that show tons of distortion. It's a compromise, but I think it's a bit stronger than what we've got currently for Global.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/syqflj4p3wbgezr/TripleA_4k_baseline_G40_subdivisions_sz_pacific.png?dl=0
For potential subdivisions at sea in the Pacific, I think the simplest way to make the map more engaging would be to bisect some of the islands with sea zones. Basically the Pact of Steel Midway approach of way back when heheh. Essentially you could just go through and split some of the larger sz in two with a black line and have that be sorta the deal. Perhaps along with some kinda action similar to the battle of the Atlantic idea, but more Pacific themed.
-
Looking at Europe and the Strategic bombing of Germany, that's 4TT away, so 8TT round trip, so Strategic Bombers move 8, yes?
-
@thedog it's a good question. Movement is the most important aspect of any unit. I mean that and hitpoints, they are easily the most important decisions to be made when deciding what kind of game you're going to be playing. If movement is increased, like say you wanted tanks or warships to move 3, or aircraft moving something more than 4/6, then virtually everything about the map changes. It's also why bases in G40 are such wild units, compared to the standard midscale games. I don't have any strong suggestions here, or many hard preferences honestly.
My personal take is that, if the unit interactions are made super complex, and the map itself is also super complex, you get to a point where the game loses the familiar points of entry. So you end up with a game that is sorta entirely new or new-ish rather than just a supped up version of A&A on a larger board. How desirable that is depends on how different you want the game to feel compared to the norm I guess.
For SBR, beelee knows a lot of my thoughts there from the various HR threads lol.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28846/house-rules-master-list?page=1
3rd post down in that thread I mentioned an HR that I liked to get strategic bombers moving 8, and behaving more like actual Strategic Bombers as opposed to Tactical Bombers, but I don't know how popular it was haha.
Basically for me it boils down to separating the combat role from the SBR role. So you don't have a combat air unit that can move 8, but just a Strategic bombing unit that can move 8. If that makes sense? But yeah, it's certainly something worth thinking about, no doubt.
The role of the Strategic Bomber in normal A&A play is primarily combat oriented, like for screening fleets in the dark skies approach etc. With the bombing role playing second fiddle to that. If you change it, change how the Strategic bomber unit works, you change a pretty fundamental aspect of the game, since virtually all the game strategies are built around it post v3 ruleset. Some might enjoy that kind of change others might find it more jarring, so kind of a tough call.
-
@black_elk
Here is my current Bomber stats, without reading your A&A thread, which I shall do now.Only Britain & USA can produce Bomber in 1941.
-
@thedog sounds cool! The HR rule I proposed was a while back, so not sure how well it would fit the new map concept we were kicking around on previous pages here. I had a cost suggested there based on high attrition rates and a very niche role for the unit, hence less expensive. But again, not sure how well it accords with other ideas here or any of the stuff Kurt mentioned in the OP haha
Ps. In my view any unit with a hitpoint is a combat unit. Regardless of movement/cost/att/def. If it has a hitpoint and can be used as fodder it's role will be primarily combat, unless other rules change to specifically prevent that. Like that's just how players will use them, to support defensive stacks or to complement attacking forces to hedge the odds there. Just because the ability to move a hitpoint 6 or more spaces is so powerful in A&A
-
@Black_Elk
Great minds think alike.
Confession time, I have only played an A&A about 3 times and my perception of WW2 is based on history, so what I have read and not A&A game play.
Your A&A post do you still broadly believe in your HR or a close variant?
-
@thedog right on!
Yeah most of the ideas were iterated into the experimental G40 HR package thanks to Beelee. For me the main issue with any HR in A&A is always the same, and comes down to whether you can actually convince people to use it heheh.
I think we tend to see two approaches there, either small changes/additions at the margins of the unit roster on one end of the spectrum vs a total conversion/complete unit overhaul on the other end of the spectrum.
Sort of like toes in the pool vs a full on diving cannon ball I guess lol.
Not sure what peeps are looking for out of this one really. Sounded like Kurt wanted to do a pretty complete overhaul in some of those posts he made. It's admirable to attempt a big redesign of the unit interactions, to make the big waves, but that does increase the likelihood of potentially belly flops probably heheh
I think I tend to hew closer to what I think is achievable on the physical board, just so I'm not too off-in-the-deep-end all by myself lol
Ps. Just to further clarify. I think HRs for ftf games tend to focus on units, because the map is so much harder to change. People don't want to draw on their boards with sharpies generally heheh. So in ftf you focus on changes that can be achieved short of redrawing the mapboard.
On the other hand, here we have the chance to change the map itself, so we got some options that aren't usually available to create interest from that alone.
Changing PU values is relatively simple, since that can be done with IPC markers on the physical board, but here we're also thinking about new map divisions. So I kinda think more standard units might be attractive here, just to have something that remains constant or familiar, but on the much more nuanced and divided up map. But then that is sorta tying our own hands I guess.
I keep trying to think if there might be a way to describe the TT or SZ subdivisions in such a way that they could be covered by a universal rule? I mean so that one could potentially use the g40 board as the starting point there and still have it work somehow? But then I remember that most people are stuck with a board at the boxed size and not giant pool table size print outs of it and physical sculpts can't scale, so subdivisions aren't all that practical for the ftf conversion, though I suppose that's no reason not to try em for the Domination scale hahah.
-
@black_elk
Im going for a belly flop = complete overhaul and hoping that players like it. If you liked the style of The Shogun, then its along those lines.Im hoping that Kurt likes the direction as its their thread.
A WiP version is available for viewing unit stats and playing a punch up in cupboard with 4 nations, Germany, USSR, Japan, USA in 61TT.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-command-decision-domination-1941-code
Currently in game it has;
- Germany, Japan v USSR, USA
- Frostions 54px high unit sets
- Two types of factory, called Industry-Hvy and Industry-Lgt, they combine Production, TechTokens, AA, railways(enhanced movement)
- Blitzkrieg style synergy of units; Infantry, Armour, Bomber-Lgt(Dive bombers), Artillery, Anti-Tank (see ingame Unit Help)
- Only two nations Britain & USA will start with Strategic Bombers
- Ships with AA
- Order of Player Phases; Tech, CombatMove, Battle, NonCombatMove, Purchase, Place, TechActivation
- Land Battle Rounds=3, Sea Battle Rounds=2, Air Battle Rounds=1
- Air, Army, Fleet, Submarine Combat Command HQs, representing the HQs of the likes of Rommel, Monty, Patton, US 8th Air Force, UK Combined Operations Headquarters (Admiralty MoD). This is the reason for calling the Map/Scenario 1941 Command Decision, ie. where to best use the Command HQs. The Germans will have lots of HQ-Army, the Russians a few. The Germans using HQ-Submarines would be like Pack Tactics.
.
In the future- Sea Zones will have PUs (U-Boats in the Atlantic, will cause mayhem, if not hunted down)
- VCs will be Capitals, Oil Reserve territories, Heavy Industry territories
Tech trees - More Nations
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login