Axis and Allies Europe (1999) map in TripleA
-
@cernel 5 distance from Berlin to Moscow is too much I guss which is the same with Berlin-Stalingrad in your example.
I think keeping Berlin-Moscow distance 4 is better and more realistic.
Since British has no factory in N.Africa, I wish Russia has easier time to reinforce the Middle East (like it is in V341). Probably I would consider adding Baku factory, merge Iran-Iraq and Syria-Palestine-Trans Jordan.
-
@schulz I agree that Stalingrad should be farther away from Berlin than Moscow is. I didn't consider this in the early draft I made.
-
@the_good_captain said in Axis and Allies Europe (1999) map in TripleA:
Failed to start game java.lang.IllegalStateException: Error in resource loading. Unable to load expected resource: polygons.txt, the error is that either we did not find the correct path to load. Check the resource loader to make sure the map zip or dir was added. Failing that, the path in this error message should be available relative to the map folder, or relative to the root of the map zip
I think this is a naming error but I can't remember for certain
-
Do you think are sea territories fine? I've always though USA-France distance should be either 3 or 5 to calculate things easier.
-
@schulz I think, in a map of this scope, it should be possible to reach western Europe in 1 turn but not to do back and forth. Hence, I think the current drawing is not too bad and I would set the movement of transports at 4 (so they can also go from USA to Germany in 1 turn). Anyways, I'd say sea units should at the very least move 3 spaces here.
-
@the_good_captain What version of TripleA are you using?
-
@schulz said in Axis and Allies Europe (1999) map in TripleA:
@cernel 5 distance from Berlin to Moscow is too much I guss which is the same with Berlin-Stalingrad in your example.
I think keeping Berlin-Moscow distance 4 is better and more realistic.
The previous drawing was mostly a draft. After all, I didn't have, and still don't have, any intention of making a modified version of this map. Solving some of the problems of the map opened new ones, mainly due to the distorted distances of the original drawing. Here it is a more reasoned redrawing, which also deletes two original borders:
The dotted borders represent borders which were present in the original drawing but have been deleted.
Now the distances from Berlin (EastGermany) are 4 for Leningrad, 5 for Moscow, 6 for Stalingrad and 7 for Kuybyshev (which is likely the last, so the only actual, capital of Russia to fall if Russia loses all its capitals).
As for having 4 spaces between Berlin and Moscow, I want to point out that World War II Revised, v3, v4 and v5 all have 3 spaces between Berlin and Moscow. Only World War II Classic and v6 have only 2 spaces between Berlin and Moscow.
Coming from the recent World War II v5 (which has 3 spaces between Berlin and Moscow), one can expect a mostly European scenario to offer at least 1 more space, especially in the moment in which you can see that the France of v5 (as well as v3) is here split into 3 territories.
World War II Europe/Global 1940 both offer 4 spaces between Berlin and Moscow and 5 spaces between Berlin and Stalingrad (just as my new drawing does). The high popularity of these games (which clearly appear to be much more popular than the old Europe game) seems to affirm they largely meet the expectations, or at least the preferences, of many players.
Looking at other maps, the popular New World Order has 8 (!) territories between Berlin and Moscow (but that map is highly messed up as geography: for example, Berlin is nearer to Gorky than to Moscow, and actually one of the shortest routes from Berlin to Moscow goes through Gorky (!)) and World At War has 7 territories between Berlin and Moscow (but, again, its geography is hardly less of a mess: for example, in World At War, Berlin is even nearer to Stalingrad than to Moscow (!!!)).
The popularity of World At War and New World Order should clarify that people moving to bigger maps from, say, WWII Revised are expecting a longer way to Moscow. These maps meet such likely expectation as you go from the 3 territories-in-between of WWII Revised to the respectively 7 and 8 of World At War and New World Order. If players would not want to have more than 3 territories between Berlin and Moscow, World At War would not be so popular, would it?
@The_Good_Captain I'm curious why you prefer the old Europe game over the new 1940 one if this is the case. Is it just the lighter rules-set (especially the all-war situation with no political delays) or do you also like the old map drawing better? I'm really curious about this, as I've always had the feeling that the 1940 series nearly completely superseded the old Europe and Pacific games, so you would just not play the old Europe if you can play the new Europe 1940 instead.
-
@rogercooper 2.5.22294
@Cernel you can PM me or email me at ryanvoz@yahoo.com about it. trying to keep my comments on this thread related to this TripleA module -
@the_good_captain I am on 2.6. Backup your files before upgrading to 2.6, I had issues with that change.
2.6 is pretty loose about file locations, but it has other issues.
-
@Cernel I think I would prefer transports having the same speed with other naval vessels. I would make speed of all naval units 3 to make France reachable for USA in 1 round.
Looks like advancing in the Eastern front is a lot harder for Germany considering longer distances and faster naval units. And I guess most of shipment to the Eastern front would be sent from Western Germany correct?
I would like this changes if we could something to offset these new German disadvantages. Germany is also now more vulnerable due to being two pieces.
-
@schulz The Baltic sea border should be on the Danish straits: this way, EastGermany is one sea zone farther away than WestGermany. Moreover, the connection between the Baltic and the Skagerrak may be a canal you can move through only if having at least one of the Denmark and WestGermany territories (it would be the combination of the Danish straits and the Kiel canal: you need only one).
To make Germany safer from direct attacks, I think it would be reasonable making both WestGermany and EastGermany capitals, under the rule that you lose your capital only when you lose all your capitals. Also GreatBritain and Canada should be both capitals, as the Britons were determined to continue fighting from Canada should London fall.
I would make sea units movement equal to 4 so that you can go directly from USA to WestGermany because, if you can go from USA to France, it would make very little sense you cannot go to WestGermany too, being only slightly farther away once you consider you made all the voyage through the Atlantic Ocean.
Even though the title of this thread is generally about this map, it seems that @The_Good_Captain meant it to be focused on implementing some given rules, so I guess it would be better opening a new topic if you are determined to make a modification of it, as I surmise it will have to be an other map.
-
@the_good_captain said in Axis and Allies Europe (1999) map in TripleA:
@rogercooper 2.5.22294
@Cernel you can PM me or email me at ryanvoz@yahoo.com about it. trying to keep my comments on this thread related to this TripleA moduleLet's use the topic
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2975/possible-revision-on-europe-1999-map
which @Schulz opened.
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