The Rising Sun
I was curious to discuss the map and hear more about it from people. I haven't played it much myself, and unlike the other 2 Sieg maps, this one sees very little play. Seems like it'd be interesting to try to understand why, what we can learn about mapmaking from that, and ponder if anything could/should be done.
Talking to some people elsewhere, the general impression was that it slightly favors axis, and that the opening moves are very sensitive and complex.
I found the old thread on it on a prior forum for reference:
Some particular things I've noted with the help and advice of others:
low strategic diversity for the Allies. The Allies play is more reactive than they are in most maps (including compared to other Sieg maps). Most allied nations only really have one front they can fight on. While there's tactical decisions to be made, strategic there isn't much, it's just go as far forward from that nations' position as you safely can. It's not like say NWO, where the biggest choice is between focusing on Italy or Germany. Not having to balance multiple competing priorities/fronts makes it rather blander.
Lots of Coastal caps. Most of hte capitals in this area coastal; and the nation splitup means it's quite possible to form 2 fleets such that neither side can attack the other and win a fleet battle, since all the fleets are mixes of several nations. THis leads to the weird situation where it's about positioning/breakthroughs, and in particular that you can't sink an enemy fleet as it advances into your area, even though it coudln't beat your fleet if it had to attack. Others have also noted how sneak captures by the super subs can too easily take out a cap if you screwup the requisite blocking chains, given how many nations there are to potentially use can openers. The Japanese capitals are all split up, so it's not possible to guard them against a naval invasion.
some significant not guaranteed opening battle possibilities; not sure how much they truly affect things, but it's weird having things like turn 1 factoyr captures that are dice rolls.
and that's all I've got so far.
@zlefin I think one of the biggest issues with Sieg maps in general, although they are still cool maps. There is too much money on the map. Leads to stackiness. The units should cost more to fix it, then there would be some tough decision making to be made. Mainly, where to deploy limited new forces.
Oh and non v3 naval is a turnoff for me. A fleet of transports can make a fleet bullet proof.
@zlefin Honestly, I think its mostly that people prefer (feel more comfortable) in the Atlantic over Pacific theater. Which just leads to less people playing the map and then less balance. I recently revamped Red Sun Over China which I think is a much more interesting map than TRS: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/986/red-sun-over-china-rsoc-official-thread
another hypothesis that occurred to me after I spent a bit playing TRS vs the ai, not sure about it at all though because I haven't played enough WAW:
Pacific Theater WAW and TRS may be too similar in how they play, such that it doesn't feel interesting. From what little I've done, they look like they play very similar, look quite similar, have many of the same chokepoints/provinces.
Atlantic Theater WAW and NWO seem quite different; the style of the drawn maps is different, the scale really feels different (like how far planes go in a turn)
I wonder if i'ts affected by default zoom levels/physical size of the map.
@zlefin I think @General_Zod kinda hit it. Anytime I have seen one of these maps in action it is just a Stacktravaganza. Combine that with the mechanic of attacking with a fleet of transports and it only compounds the issue.
But there are other underlying aspects that affect play-ability.
The units all need to be set to a microscopic scale to even play.
Half of all territories have one placement. So everything becomes giant extension bars.
The map is rife with abstractions and inaccuracies.
These are purely observations... I have the highest respect for Sieg's work. He developed so many interesting maps and contributed so much to the community. These are simply things that turned me away from playing it.
zod's explanations don't account for it at all though. his stuff applies to ALL sieg maps, by his own statement.
While the situation we have here is TRS receives very little play, while NWO and WAW receive a good amount.
In order to be an explanation it needs to account for that discrepancy.
which means it needs to point to something that differentiates TRS from the other Sieg maps.