Realistic WWII Scenario
@schulz I really like equirectangular. The directions are true, which is more important for game purposes than equal area.
Check out this XKCD cartoon What Your Favorite Map Projection Says About You
Equirectangular is good if (like in this case) you want to depict a relatively small portion of the globle (like only mostly Europe). However, if you want to depict a large parte of the globe, that projection is still too distortive (about in the same way as Mercator albeit much less than that): you should always use equal-area projections for that.
@Schulz That is just in case the distortions Mercator gives happen to be what you want. But do you really want to over-size Australia, Siberia and Alaska with respect to Insulindia? Moreover, as I said, good luck having Moscow closer to Leningrad than to Stalingrad while using Mercator.
@cernel I don't want oversize Siberia or Alaska that's why I said I am fine with Mercator only if anything over Leningrad is cut.
Equal-Area projection imho isn't good either for a world map project because you will end up with abundance of territories that will see no action like Sub Sahara Africa, Inner America/Asia Oceans etc... I am just thinkink that a realistic game should either cover only European fronts or it should have two separate maps inside the same game to avoid having too many unneeded territories like this one;
@schulz Equal-area projections distort direction which for this purpose is worse than distorting areas. The distance distortion near the poles can be compensated for by using wider areas.
With a zoomable computer map (as opposed to boardgame) the empty parts of the world are less of a problem. It would be interesting to see if such map is good for play. There are lots of scenarios with distorted maps.
@rogercooper I would like to create a world map with the most realistic frontlines and least distortions as much as possible but there are problems:
My current map is already 5000 pixel wide turning it into World Map without distortions would make it probably 50000 pixel wide which would make it almost impossible to work over it. Plus incorporating tons of new territiories and adding Japan-China would exceed XML hence slow down games especially on online.
I don't think it is easy to depict the Pacific front realistically. There would be not much reason for US to invest in here when the distances even greater than Atlantic plus lack of valuable targets unlike Northwestern Europe.
Japan will also have not much options other than rushing India. It is also problematic to set Japanese-Russian situation.
@cernel I will use 48x48 images with 100% zoom rate. I think doubling the zoom rate would be unthinkable. How could anyone play missing to see air units and their possible travel routes.
@cernel I will use 48x48 images with 100% zoom rate.
With your drawing at 5,000 pixels wide, I guess more than half of the territories will have less than 6 spots to display the units, which may be unsufficient at times (requiring units to over-flow): I'm not seeing the space you have being enough, with your drawing, if you go with a 5,000 pixels wide map and 48 per 48 units unless you intend to have very few unit types.
However, I would agree that the map doesn't need ot be enlarged as much as doubling both axis (quadrupling the area). I guess that a 8,000 pixel wideness should be already more than enough.
Since you are detailing so much, you may consider splitting the Novgorod territory in two so that you can connect to Leningrad without having to have Novgorod.
@RogerCooper Would this be the first and only map in TripleA in which Leningrad is correctly drawn, as a matter of its connections? I cannot remember another one: them all get Leningrad wrong for the times of the siege.
@cernel doubling the zoom rate would automatically force people zoom out significantly hence ending up with more placement spots but with way smaller units. I would try keeping unit roster small as much as possible to avoid lack of placement issue on the Eastern front.
I think the current Novgorod is fine to represent siege of Leningrad, the Soviets did establish a land connection through multiple times without taking all Novgorod but they were temporarily advancements.
I am undecided about adding Rhodes along with Sevastopol, Oranienbaum Bridgehead, Malta and Gibraltar.
@schulz Oh wow! I didn't even notice the absence of Malta. I cannot imagine you may even think about not having it for a map of this scope.
Sevastopol, really, would be better represented by allowing contested territories (something like that happened in other places, like Brest and Odessa). It happens that one side controls most of a territory but the other side "holes up" in a small section of that territory, sometimes holding up for a long time. An historical example is Constantinople for many decades before 1453.
@cernel Since there is no circle territory, I would prefer significantly enlarge Malta (but still smaller than Sicily) to keep consistency.
I was thinking naming Crimea peninsula as Sevastopol because there is no space to represent both Crimea and Sevastopol. Contested territory idea is also makes sense.
@schulz We should think about the reasons while historically the United States pursued a 2 ocean strategy.
- The Japanese had attacked the US, making a military response necessary.
- In December 1941, the US had the world's largest navy, but a relatively small & untrained army
- As long as proper bases exist, large bodies of water can be crossed quickly. Freighters cross the Pacific in 3 weeks. It can be much harder to cross land, especially if the transportation system is weak or damaged.
- The limiting factor in offensives by sea tends to be the enemy, rather than distance. It wasn't until 1944 the US had build up an army capable of taking on the Wehrmacht.
- The difficulty of conducting large-scale amphibious invasions encouraged the US to make major investments in air power.
In game terms I would suggest
- Naval units getting big boosts from naval bases
- A starting setup with the Americans at near parity to the Japanese in the Pacific (and substantial forces in the Atlantic).
- Fast transports, but limited in how many can be built each turn.
- Penalties for amphibious landings for land units in combat, so air power is the key to victory.
- Bombable logistics centers with factories, giving movement bonuses on land.
@rogercooper I think political factors drove the intense US interest in the Pacific. What I mean by that is that it was attitudes among the American people at large, rather than strictly military or strategic factors.
By the 1930s there was considerable disillusionment in the US about our involvement in WW1 in Europe since it did not seem to have made the world "safe for democracy". We should have listened to George Washington and stayed out of foreign entanglements. Of course some disagreed and said we should help the UK. But for every American who wanted to help UK there was an American who felt, especially after the fall of France, that German domination of Europe was a fact that we might as well get used to.
We had felt a kind of paternalistic sympathy for China since the 1800s when we patted ourselves on the back that we were not like the diabolical European empires who were trying to colonize China. Historically Americans have tended to focus on things which make us different from, and we believe, superior to, Europe from which we escaped to create a new and better society. When Japan began attacking China in the 1920s and 30s our focus turned to Japan. We strongly confronted Japanese expansionism with the relocation of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor and with the oil embargo in 1941 which instantly eliminated 80% of Japan's oil imports upon which it totally relied.
So in Europe we wanted to have as little to do with it as possible and anything FDR tried to do in that area was very controversial. But in the Pacific we had great interest in everything that was going on and were quick to take strong actions to counter Japanese expansionism. Japan struck first, as FDR hoped, and then Germany declared war. My personal theory is that Hitler wanted to, by reinforcing the Tripartite Pact, encourage Japan to fight harder and longer and not make peace very soon, thus diverting US attention to the Pacific. But Churchill convinced FDR to put Germany first, for all the sound strategic reasons that every TripleA player knows, and everyone including Hitler underestimated the potential of the American war machine.
But for the political reasons noted above we still made a major effort in the Pacific.
In game terms I think there needs to be a political approach to diverting at least some US effort to the Pacific. Probably the best way to do this is with national objectives. I have been toying with using a negative NO - negative PUs on US if US forces move into the eastern Atlantic or into Europe. This would delay the Americans from going to Europe or perhaps, for the more enterprising Allied player, prompt them to adopt an entirely Pacific strategy. Historically this was a possiblity, at least intially, if Hitler had not declared war.
I think the issue is double sided. For example why would Japan try to extend its defensive zone towards the Middle Pacific rather than rushing India or defeating China which are closer and more valuable targets. When Japan ignores Pacific, there is no reason to advance in here as US too because of the same issue. Even longer distances than Atlantic with less valuable targets compared to Northwestern Europe.
While faster naval units would be great in the Oceans but it would make extremely hard for Germany and Italy to protect their coastlines. For example even with only 4 movement, An Allies transport in Gibraltar can threaten everything from South France to Athens.
Instead of Amphibios penalty (which would make harder things to calculate), I could make transports more expensive or having cheaper devensive units.
To make fighting on the Pacific Islands worth, I think these islands should definitely boost all units stats especially defensively (more realistic than overvaluing).
- BWT when I try to grab territories with "Polygon Grabber" it gives memory issue due to excessive size, it becomes like 22000 pixel wide if turns into a World Map.
@schulz unlike US, Japanese army was large and well trained. But the great majority of the 50 or so divisions were in China making slow progress against the Chinese. The army was extremely stingy about releasing forces for operations anywhere else. Triplea usually depicts the Japanese flooding Asia with troops and understates the degree to which China tied down the Japanese. And by 1941 the Japanese army wanted nothing to do with Russia.
Japan was not in a position to win on its own, it was effectively contained and was tying down Allied forces. Similar to what Italy/Africa Korps did on a smaller scale in the Med. So it is possible to have a realistic game that focuses on Europe. The decisive theaters in the War were western ussr and the Atlantic. If Germany could overcome Russia and delay the Anglo American counter offensive, the war would enter a phase where the Axis would have a reasonable chance to win.
@andrewthree Actually it is possible to prevent Japan stemrolling all China without making China unrealistically strong. Just giving China very cheap devensive units would solve the issue. The problem is impossibility of properly representing the Pacific front.
I am still not sure if it is better to extend the map towards Arctic.
In this case there will be 4 Axis nations (Germany, Italy, Romania and Finland). I definitely feel the necessarity to add Romania.
But how to represent Finnish political situation? Should their movement be restricted to certain areas like China in v3?
4.th allies nation could be either France or Canada.
In this case there will be 4 Axis nations (Germany, Italy, Romania and Finland). I definitely feel the necessarity to add Romania.
What kind of Roumania? I very much dislike the so-called Romania which is actually a conglomerate of Roumania, Hungary and Bulgaria, like in "New Wold Order". If Roumania is (only) Roumania, then I guess you should have at least Hungary too, but Bulgaria is maybe even more sensible to have as its own nation, since it was a special case of a Tripartite country which was not at war with the Soviet Union (and should have Chinese-like movement limitations of its forces).
@schulz Also remember than, back then, Romania was called either Roumania or Rumania unless you were writing in ancient Latin. I believe this is a very common misspelling amongst TripleA games, but I'm not entirely sure Romania was not an English spelling in use at the time.
@cernel I am planning to add "Rumania" which will control Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and anything that they annexed in the war. Here are the reasons why Rumania is not part of Germany or there will be no separate Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.
- To make it more multi friendly.
- Germany would unhistorically easily dominate Black sea if Rumania is part of Germany.
- Two ally nations fighting on the same front is more interesting rather than two country fighting on a giant frontline.
- Bulgaria could have declared war on the Soviets.
- If Rumania was part of Germany, then Germany unhistorically could use all Rumanian resources for other fronts.
- Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania would be too weak as separate nations and they would slow down games.
@schulz Hungary and Rumania are like the very least countries which can be represented as a single power unless they are both part of Germany: Hungarians and Rumanians hated each other so much I doubt it would be even realistic for any one of them to stay or move through the territory of the other one! Besides, such a weird power should be at least called something like "Rumania-Hungary-Bulgaria", instead of just "Rumania".