Proposed Map: Domination 1941

[Cernel]

@schulz It is very easy to address, actually. Under any realistic representation of production values, Japan is going to be so weak that can be handily crushed by using only a quarter of the United States power against it. The only way Japan can do anything like you describe is if you are making a map in which it has a production riduculously above any historical values of any kind.

Both Japan and Italy were not the first world countries they are today. Today Japan is the third richest country in the world (about a quarter the GDP of the United States) and Italy has a higher GDP than Russia. Back in WW2, they were backward and scarcely industrialized countries. Both Japan and Italy had about the same productivity per person, but Japan was stronger because of having more persons in Japan and a more valuable empire. In either country, most of the population was still living almost like in the Middle Ages.

[Schulz]

@cernel If Japan and Italy is going to be weakened, wouldn't Germany need to be unrealistically super strong in order to have a relatively balanced game? With realistic production values, probably the Soviet Union would be designed to doomed to fall.

There is actually another method. Make China impassable and no Japanese-Soviet war. No war with China and the Soviet Union means Japan can afford to have less production values.

[Black_Elk]

So earlier I mentioned that is relatively easy to add circles back in, once we know what's what.

Here's a rough example of how that might present, using circles at 250 for the Capital spots.

As always, it looks a bit weird doing that for Italy for some reason, although at 250 the circle just about lands where the Lines would be hehe. I slapped some fast flags down real quick just for flavor.

I'm not opposed to the circles in principle. I just think if using them, then there needs to be some kind of rough parity around the map, so it doesn't look oddball only having them in a very few places. Another option would be to do some beefy circles like this for capitals but a few smaller circles elsewhere for other key spots that make sense. Not sure what look people prefer, but just for a quickie thought I'd throw something together. I think this looks alright myself, but I don't know what others would dig lol

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0zrfcz78w7ucqi7/TripleA_4k_flags_with_circles.png?dl=0

[Cernel]

@schulz There are Europe-only maps, like NWO, Europe and Europe 1940. A realistic global map would be merely like an Europe-only map with also a Japan that has some minor impact, since the war was indeed over 90% decided in Europe alone: Japan was just a minor distraction.

If you can balance an Europe-only map, you can take that map, add Japan, India, Australia, China and make the United States and the Sovietic Union a little stronger (China, India and Australia together alone should already be about as productive as Japan but militarily weaker at start game). Any other additions are next to irrelevant.

[Cernel]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

So earlier I mentioned that is relatively easy to add circles back in, once we know what's what.

Here's a rough example of how that might present, using circles at 250 for the Capital spots.

As always, it looks a bit weird doing that for Italy for some reason, although at 250 the circle just about lands where the Lines would be hehe. I slapped some fast flags down real quick just for flavor.

I'm not opposed to the circles in principle. I just think if using them, then there needs to be some kind of rough parity around the map, so it doesn't look oddball only having them in a very few places. Another option would be to do some beefy circles like this for capitals but a few smaller circles elsewhere for other key spots that make sense. Not sure what look people prefer, but just for a quickie thought I'd throw something together. I think this looks alright myself, but I don't know what others would dig lol

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0zrfcz78w7ucqi7/TripleA_4k_flags_with_circles.png?dl=0

@black_elk I'm personally not a fan of simple circles but for anything which has too little space for placements, but I'm not strongly against them.

Yes, the circle in Italy looks quite bad and, like Tokyo, here and in WAW, doesn't make much sense, because the city was very much next to only one of the seas (in case of Rome, the Tyrrhenian), so what does it mean naval bombarding Rome from the Adriatic or naval bombarding Tokyo from the Sea of Japan?

However, the circles for the capitals match the big roundels nicely, so that is a plus.

This said, I'm not sure what the Indian circle is representing, but New Delhi is not there (this beside the fact that Calcutta was more important).

As for the Sovietic Union, it may be good having a circle also for Leningrad (to have a big territory in a cleaner way than enormously distorting the territory) and for Kuybyshev (which was the back-up capital of the Soviet Union had Moscow fallen). I suppose Moscow, Leningrad and Kuybyshev can all be capitals of the Sovietic Union, in the sense that nothing capital-related would happen before all three are lost (that is the TWW way, not the WAW way).

However, in cases like the United States, Canada, Australia, India and Italy, there is the problem that the capitals are not the most important cities, so you have an economic capital and a politic capital, and usually the economic capital is more important. For example, it is certainly economically worse for Italy to lose Milan than to lose Rome. A similar observation can be made, mutatis mutandis, for, respectively, New York and Washington, and so on. This is particularly extreme in case of Australia, where the capital is economically next to irrelevant and there is not a single undisputed economic capital.

[Black_Elk]

@cernel Yeah, all that makes sense, and then there's the added downside that if someone wanted to go back in later and change something, and you have a bunch of circle stuff that needs to be erased, that's a total chore. I'm not a really a fan. They might be expedient, but also a crutch. I think the cons sorta outweigh the pros, when it comes to circles hehe. Better to do it up without them I think.

Oh also, just since we're on the subject, it might be nice to just nix the whole concept of capitals entirely. Almost all of the gamey distortions in the A&A endgame come from the capital capture dynamic and looting the purse there. If that aspect of the game didn't exist (or was changed sufficiently) perhaps a more interesting and historical endgame could materialize.

[TheDog]

@black_elk
My 2p, I prefer non circles, so just a TT shape for me.

Id prefer Tokyo to be only accessible from the southern coast.

Also Im planning for VCs for Capitals, Industrial Centres and Oil Reserves and the like, so lots of VCs, if that helps.

[Black_Elk]

@thedog Sounds good to me. So circles are out, by popular decree! hehe

On my next pass, I'd like to erase all the mountain ranges too I think, and just do some political contours there to see how it feels. We know where they'd need to end up for Global and the like, but I'm not sure we'd need that sort of stuff for more divided map like this one, for all those reasons mentioned on the previous pages. I find them sorta visually distracting too, the more I look at em, so I think they should probably just go. Like the circles, they could always be added back in later if someone wanted. I can save a separate draft with those features remaining, but I sorta feel like it's up to us to curate best practices for the design on that one. There's gotta be a better way to create choke points or block fighter transits, without having to move literal mountains, I mean right lol.

[TheDog]

@black_elk
You have probably seen the method used below, but just in case you have not. A thick black line represents an uncrossable mountain range. It's easy to add later and maximising unit spaces, but it does not look good.

The image was taken from one of my early attempts at a Samurai map.

[Schulz]

BTW I have drawn Paris connections like this way;

[Unternehmer]

Dear TripleA Community,

may it be a better idea to redraw the passable territories on the map in key areas (Western Front, Eastern Front, Mediterranean, North Africa, China and South-East Asia) in more equalized dimensions?

For example, 1 territory is roughly 175x175 km. If more detailed political ownership is desired, than 100x100 km. or 150x150 km. or 200x200 km. or 250x250 km. etc. But important is roughly equalized dimensions for all territories to avoid geographical distortion.

To my mind this kind of geographical realism is better than administrative or political borders as the game is mostly played through major nations and all minors are always within their correspondent majors.

For example, to redraw all the borders using territories sized 175x175 km.

Why?
From Rome (Mediterranean coast) to Pescara (Adriatic coast) is 175 km.
From Pisa (Tower of Pisa, Mediterranean coast) to Ravenna (Capital of the Western Roman Empire, Adriatic coast) is also 175 km.
So, Italy is roughly 175 km. wide.

Also, Japan is roughly 150-200 km. wide, and it seems that 175x175 km. territories are better to represent more equalized dimensions of territories in the game key areas (Western Front, Eastern Front, Mediterranean, North Africa, China and South-East Asia) than 150x150 km. or 200x200 km.

Therefore,
A-B (… km.) represents roughly … territories 175x175 km. including A + everything between + B:

• Taranto-Milan (860 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
• Dunkirk-Marseille (890 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
• Paris-Berlin (also 890 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
• Berlin-Vienna (525 km.) represents roughly 3 territories 175x175 km.;
• Vienna-Triest (345 km.) represents roughly 2 territories 175x175 km.;
• Berlin-Istanbul (1750 km.) represents roughly 10 territories 175x175 km.;
• Leningrad-Stalingrad (1550 km.) represents roughly 9 territories 175x175 km.;
• Stalingrad-Baku (1020 km.) represents roughly 6 territories 175x175 km.;
• Kiev/Kyiv-Stalingrad (1040 km.) represents roughly 6 territories 175x175 km.;
• Minsk-Odessa/Odesa (880 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
• Shanghai-Shenzhen (big city near Hong Kong) (1220 km.) represents roughly 7 territories 175x175 km.;
• Shenzhen-Hanoi (870 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
• Hanoi-Imphal (Burma campaign) (1280 km.) represents roughly 7 territories 175x175 km.;

Moreover, due to much worse weather conditions and a weaker transport network, the Eastern Front should obviously have more territories per 1000 km. than the Western Front.

But even if we take pure geographical dimensions, it seems that the Eastern Front should have much more territories, be much wider and deeper and therefore have different playstyle:

• more Blitzkrieg playstyle on the Western Front;
• strategic width and depth on the Eastern Front;

The same applies to Chinese and South-Pacific Front where some important engagements with Japan forces took place.

Currently most TripleA maps:

• overrepresent Western Front and underrepresent Eastern Front by trying to somehow make them equal. But they are not equal.

Mild weather, good infrastructure, and much smaller frontline suitable for perfect Blitzkrieg on the Western Front vs severe weather, weak infrastructure and 3-4 times wider and many times deeper frontline on the Eastern Front suitable for more strategic playstyle.

• overrepresent Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and Siberia. Maybe I am too old to understand the importance of these regions for any TripleA map especially if these maps leave little place for naval warfare.

• underrepresent naval areas (Battle for Atlantic, Pacific campaign, etc.) and make them too narrow for naval warfare with aircraft and carriers.

As far as I understand, aircraft from the carriers or land bases should have at least 2 squares advantage per move over any ships and submarines.

Therefore, carriers and aircraft would always keep at least 1 square distance from ships and submarines. Biggest naval guns fire on 40 km. distance (Jamato BB) whereas aircraft can attack from 400 km. distance (destruction of BB Jamato) and always keep carriers out of range.

[Cernel]

@unternehmer Not a bad idea, but I'm not seeing how you would do this nicely but by using an equal-area projection. You should be aware that, in doing so, Europe will be a very small part of the map. For example, you will have almost as many territories in Brazil or Australia as in the entire Europe.
The area of Europe (with European Russia) is 10.18 million square km, Brazil is 8.5 million square km and Australia is 7.6 million square km. Once you take out the irrelevant Komi and Nenets republics in the north of European Russia, Europe will be about as big as Brazil or Australia.
Still, this is not an actual board-game, so it is not bad having most of the map being virtually useless (because it is not actually taking space).
I understand you are not asking to apply this method everywhere, but, if you don't while using an equal-area projection, the alternative would be having bigger territories in non-key areas (like many maps already do, but even more extremely so than, say, WAW).

[beelee]

@thedog said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

@black_elk
You have probably seen the method used below, but just in case you have not. A thick black line represents an uncrossable mountain range. It's easy to add later and maximising unit spaces, but it does not look good.

The image was taken from one of my early attempts at a Samurai map.

the moutains look cool

[Black_Elk]

Here it is with all the mountains removed

Some interesting points on the previous page. I can definitely see advantages to redrawing the entire globe with some kind of different scale for every TT in km, but then I'd also like to make use of this work I've put in over the years.

I mean basically I drew this thing out by hand. Hand and mouse, at any rate. There are easier ways to quickly produce a world or regional map by copy pasting satellite images or whatever, but to me it loses some charm doing that hehe. Everything that's a little off here, is at least a little off cause of my shaking hands or random cartooning anomalies or a hepps curve ball lol - but at least it's kinda original in that way, which I think counts for something. Clearly I'm partial, but if the choice is between scrapping it or noodling it across the finish line, I'd like to attempt the later lol.

Ps. Here, I just finally got around to reworking the French contours to match the new warp there. I put the basic regional divisions, so you guys could decide how best to subdivide or collapse them. I think whatever ends up happening there, the Germans should roughly balance (in terms of neighboring TT size) like where the fronts meet, just so both sides have enough room to operate.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yx2kasbwjb7tuxk/TripleA_4k_baseline_france.png?dl=0

[Black_Elk]

Oh also, here, I keep forgetting to do the draft examples it in white too, in case it's easier for people to see the border lines that way when it's smaller hehe. There ya go

Oh and one more thought regarding the relative power balance, or whether or not to allow Japan to attack Russia etc. On the one hand there is some interest in creating a game that follows a set historical sort of play pattern, on the other, it's fun to paint the map your colors through conquest, like in a SP type situation. It would be kinda sad if there wasn't the possibility of Globe trotting there, like Axis doing crazy stuff once their primary objectives are sorted. From what I recall the main reason Japanese couldn't execute a campaign into Siberia like the IJA were pushing is because they had so many dudes tied down fighting in China. So then they went with the Navy's plan right to sprawl across the Pacific vs the British and Dutch and US. But like I kinda dig the idea that Japan could choose to invade the USSR again, but it should have a domino type effect somewhere else. I think the main way to make it work is to give the Soviets production and money in the far east. Basically the opposite of the Classic board approach. By making the TTs more valuable and encouraging their defense, it makes it less of a simple prospect for Japan to just funnel unopposed there. Also with the USA more in the backfiend out of Alaska, I think you could set up a fighter transit that way to make it tougher for Japan to just blow out in all directions at once heheh. No soviet Co-location rules would be a bit of a double edged sword in that instance, but I think it could work for more realism. The alternative is that the game sorta defaults to a Risk form of play where factions aren't as tied down, but just immediately start growing in ahistorical ways. That can still be fun though. I just feel like it should happen more endgame.

Really what you need is a way to get the first few rounds to feel like they nailed the timeline, 1941, all the big plays and lead out from there. If you can get it so that stuff like Torch or Guadalcanal can happen in round 3 I think that's a good way to quickly get from a 1941-ish frame, to 1942 turning point time frame. Like anything that happens there could tilt one way or the other, so maybe you end up with multiple high castle alt realities by the end, but it still feels cool. I think the idea to frame out the technology as a core component is a fun approach, cause then you can get a vague timeline going from that too. But basically I think it should open with a couple set piece campaigns that make sense. So the idea of Japan just instantly flipping the script to burn the treaties and attack the USSR seems kinda weaksauce. I don't know if we need a hard rule for it though. I mean provided we have other ways through map production/starting unit design, to address the usual dynamic (the one that has Japan just gunning towards Moscow inevitably hehe) we should probably explore those if we can, and save an impassible zone or a non-aggression restriction as the last resort. Like if it still can't be made to work right and feel fun using those other methods.

[beelee]

@black_elk yea i think theres plenty of ways to discourage an early JPN soviet war without hardcoding it. Making China a bit stronger and PU penalties for early DOW seem to work well imo.

Other ways one could approach it as well. Extra dudes activate like the Mongols in global, making soviet asia TTys 1 move only for land units, china too for that matter, etc ...

Just depends on what the mapmaker wants

[Black_Elk]

For sure!

OK so here is an example with Roundels.

It looks somewhat nicer when you go larger than 30% on the view. So here is the big map...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/erkn0bt72fad9pa/TripleA_4k_baseline_roundel_key.png?dl=0

And then at the preview scale. The forums would allow me to attach it at 30% but not 33, so I guess that's the max for the boards heheh.

I started with Frostion's set. It's pretty solid, but not exhaustive. I had to create a new flag for the USA, cause it was showing 50 stars rather than 48. I'll change the Soviet flag as well, cause the sickle is wrong there, though less noticeable because of the perspective. Italy also needs a crown. I'll have to double check, some of the others are alright I think, but some may need work.

Overall I really like his elliptical design concept. It makes it possible to display a more accurate banner, particularly for the British. In my mind these roundels would be purely decorative, not suggested as playable factions, but I do feel like they give the map/game a sense of being a more Global conflict. I think something like this could work in place of a VC star for example. It'd could have the same function, but look cooler. Or no function, but just look cool lol.

I'd like to cook up a few more - say for Singapore or Hong Kong, to round out Asia, or maybe Nigeria in West Africa and Free France in Equatorial Africa. Vichy could also be like that I suppose. In China we could do a more CCP flag long march for flare in that more northern tile, or Manchukuo last Emperor style lol. Or Mongolia or for any puppet power that has a key spot occupied at the start, if it makes sense, just for historical shine. Basically they could go anywhere that makes sense for stuff like that, but they don't have to be actually in the game unless one wants to view the key, if that makes sense. More of a decor type thing.

In Frostion's roundels the Allies all have a black elipse border. I think Platinum Silver might look better maybe, to pair off the Axis who are sporting gold, but not sure. These are pretty nice honestly. Right now it's basically just the belligerents and their puppets showing, but one could conceivably do it for Spain or Portugal or Turkey etc. if one wanted an alt War type scenario that allows the conflict to bleed over there. This technique could also be used to do that Soviet fallback Capital too. I'd maybe add Mexico too, just to have one on that side of North America etc.

I tried to avoid doing any duplicates, but we could also show an alt banner or seal that follows the same theme. So like one for Manila could work that way, or at Hawaii or San Francisco you could use the Territory flags as roundels for those secondary spots, the ones that aren't national capitals, but still important. Like New York could have their great seal, but DC gets the Stars and Stripes. Stuff of that sort. It's an embellishment, so it should be on a separate layer, but just to give an idea. I don't know that the ellipses necessarily need to be in perspective like that, but Frostion's were already finished that way at like 72 pixels, which just about works at this scale, so I included them for an example of what I'd like. I can either do them in that perspective style, or just a flat ellipse, either way. But if you're cool with it, I'd like to build on that work, since it's half finished already and it looks pretty clean, I think anyway.

Ps. @Unternehmer

if you like, it's possible to extend either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean almost indefinitely, to suit your taste. The way the breaks are set up, you can stretch horizontally pretty wide. The Med/Baltic is obviously more challenging, because that distorts the warp so much, but if you can tolerate separation at Gibraltar or Egypt or Denmark you could stretch vertically a fair bit there too. Just depends how picky you are with the shapes.

I'd agree that in general A&A totally subordinates the naval warfare aspect to transports and land. That's just a feature inherited from A&A and also why the map display is narrower at the oceans cause the middle of the sea just wasn't really as relevant for say AA50, which was the purpose of the initial projection draft.

The Fortress map just posted could probably get closer to what you want cause it shows many more tiles in the Oceans. Compared to this which currently has none heheh. But yeah, if you wanted it at say 21,000 wide to make a ton of blue for fleet carriers and such that's probably doable (maybe not on my laptop, but somebody's) otherwise you could just shrink the scale from 16000 down to something more manageable and then stretch the seas. Then carve up the east more to do that aspect.

I'm almost at the limit of the amount of work I'll likely put in lol. I'd like to dial the contours for all the regions, once the TT divisions are in place. Almost any tile could be morphed to look more accurate once we know what all the connections will be. But yeah, when it comes to SZ design, that's very specific to how the units will work. I'm sure Kurt can mull over that one. I just want to get a map done, so we can call it, and I can make a version of Global or HBG36 from it using the same base, but I'm happy to lend a hand for the Dom! Long as its still rolling in haha

Take care, and thanks for the ideas! catch ya next round!

Elk

[TheDog]

@black_elk
Just fell over this map, its huge, 29755x11442=340million px with 6px border, it comes from Terra Firma 1939 a TripleA map, its so slow on my PC, also it has too many TT for the UK blitz and the bomber raids on Germany.
Terra Firma 1939 FULL.zip

Yours is 13000x7850=102million px
Frostions Warcraft War Heroes is 9500x8500=81million px

I posted it for your reference, as you and this map maker obviously had similar choices and dilemma's.

[Cernel]

@thedog said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

@black_elk
Just fell over this map, its huge, 29755x11442=340million px with 6px border, it comes from Terra Firma 1939 a TripleA map, its so slow on my PC, also it has too many TT for the UK blitz and the bomber raids on Germany.
Terra Firma 1939 FULL.zip

Yours is 13000x7850=102million px
Frostions Warcraft War Heroes is 9500x8500=81million px

I posted it for your reference, as you and this map maker obviously had similar choices and dilemma's.

Actually, you can download Terra Firma from the repository.

Unless I'm missing anything, with 29755 pixels wideness and 11442 pixels highness, this is the biggest map ever in TripleA. Total pixels are actually 340,456,710.

The total number of zones in the game is 1515, making it the only game in TripleA having over 1,000 zones, unless I'm missing something (Are there other TripleA games having 1,000 zones or more?)

Unfortunately, it is not as historically based as one may expect it to be. It is bad that Jugoslavia and Greece are the same polity (as Italy was fighting against Greece for almost a year while Jugoslavia was still neutral), but I think the biggest absurdity goes to Poland, Lithuania and Czechoslovakia being the same polity in a game which is presented as being 1939 based (but actually must be starting somewhere between 1935 and 1937 (Then why it is called Terra Firma 1939?)), whereas historically Czechoslovakia was liquidated without any substantial war in March 1939 (and Poland itself, that at the time had a non-aggression agreement with Germany, participated in the invasion and partitioning of Czechoslovakia) and Lithuania was certainly not a friend of Poland.

It always upsets me when I see a map which is highly detailed and, at the same time, highly a-historical. I wonder what's the point to go into such details if at the end you are not actually improving historical consistency but rather making it worse.

It also does not present itself well by having numbers (instead of proper names) for the land zones, but I guess it is better than those maps (like NWO) which have very bad territory naming.

I doubt I'll ever play this map. Haven't ever seen anyone playing it, either. I wonder if @RogerCooper ever played it.

[Schulz]

@black_elk As far as I researched, Japan consider to invade the Soviet Union in 1942 if;

• Kwantung Army in Manchuria triples the size of the Soviet Far Eastern army.

• Germany captures the Caucasus and Moscow.

Basically Japan would never attack the Soviets unless the Soviets would on the verge of collapse. The Soviets wouldn't attack Japan either.