Proposed Map: Domination 1941

[Black_Elk]

Right on! I found one already lol. I updated just now. I'm sure there's bound to be a few

Hopefully won't take too long to transcribe, just kinda tedious hehe. I'll do the sea zones first, cause I'm sure I'll notice something when laying those down.

I'm already thinking about making a WW1 themed 54px unit set, just to have it, cause I think the map could work for both periods. A Cold War game could probably build off the WW2 unit set for something more 1950s or 60s, just with more early jets and such probably, but for WW1 it'd be cool to see a Frostion style set for that.

Sadly the 1914 file I have is incomplete, as it lacks almost all of the units. I'm not sure if they were ever created? I seem to remember some posts that showed some Americans and Brits at one point, but Hepps only sent me the stuff for Germany. That might be enough to get started for a Central Powers upscale at least though. There's certainly a bunch of flags ready to go lol. Perhaps we can get some aces high action going with the biplanes and such if people are interested? But that's for another night. We'll get this WW2 one up off the ground first, and then do some rewind to blood and mud in the trenches somewhere down the line. It'd be a shame for the killer Cav unit not to trot it out eventually lol.

This is what I have left over at 48px... Though there's probably a fair bit in some of the other WW1 mods too that might be worth revisiting, like to do a tinted set similar to the one we got going for WW2. When I finish the current map I'll do a 1914 style paintjob just to see how the baseline holds up for that sort of vibe.

[TheDog]

@black_elk
Yes, 1914 units, when you have finished the maps.

They are a good starting point.

[Black_Elk]

For sure!

I did a quickie 1914-18 style paintjob. I thought something along these lines would make for a pretty nice presentation...

Since Russia needed a color change anyway, I made some other tweaks as well just to set it apart from the WW2 vibe. Something kept feeling off with the balance of the hues around the globe, like it was just too drab, until I decided to make the British red. Then everything sort of clicked for me again heheh.

After making the Brits red, I did the Italians in Green, Turks in Auburn, Russians in Blueish-White, and the Austro-Hungarians in Gold, which together seemed to give it a pretty nice sweep, or at least to my eye haha. I might go a little darker in value for the Russians if doing it up legit, but it seemed to have some charm. I'm sure I missed some stuff, and the colors are just for an impression, but this is what landed on...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/140ry8dw1epxb7j/Domination_1914-18_painted.png?dl=0

Anyway, project for another time, but I was pleased to see that it held up pretty well in terms of the tiles. We can still pretty much get the job done with what's already there, and would only need to change a few labels to fit the period and make it work. So I'm definitely going to have to make some painted soldiers for that one lol

ps. I still like the idea of a scenario set in 1900 as a jumping off point too, just for something that's more of a grab bag, or more open ended. Like I'm pretty sure the concept Hepps and Redrum were aiming for was one where the balance could tilt by sides, just by politicking in early rounds. Like trying to bring various Neutral powers into the fray, or again during the endgame with the Russian revolution stuff, to reset the balance. But I also think a cool idea would be a sort of what if set a little earlier, where smaller factions breaking for one team or the other might seem more plausible. The declaration of war phase in Global WW2 kinda throttles the gameplay a bit with delays, but with a lead-up to the Great War theme, I can see some interest for that if it was done in an entertaining way. Particularly with technology advances or other randomizers of that sort to mix it up. In a more PvP oriented scenario, I guess you'd want the action right away, but I think the slow build might work for a more AI Solo type game, since rounds just go a lot quicker that way. Like maybe it could start 1900 or 1901, Queen Victoria kicks the can and everyone starts raising eyebrows, but where you spend a dozen or so turns building to a powder keg that unfolds more towards the end of the game than at the start, so it becomes more like a climax crescendo than a scripted opener, if that makes sense. I just think that's a fun concept, building to 1914 over a decade, say like 10 rounds, with a couple "incidents" to keep people guessing when it's really going to crack off! That seems like it could be fun. But yeah, later on for that I guess, I still gotta do the Sea Zones lol

My thought for that was to just do the numbers/letter in the case of a split off the G40 Sea Zones. We can add descriptive labels later, but doing the key land tiles gave GIMP a near aneurism. I think it must move down the layers one at a time, and just eats ram like nothing hehe. I went with merge visible and crossed me fingers, managed to pull a transparent layer from that which loads a lot faster. So my plan was to add the SZ on top in a separate layer, just so it doesn't tax the laptop too hard. That's the plan at least

See ya on the next one

[Black_Elk]

Ok finished adding in the Sea Zone stuff to the label key.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vurkzr07u2lqx2o/Domination_1940_painted_labels_with_sz_key.png?dl=0

I used the one I had painted with the 1940 colors, but we can make a more impressive key for 1941 later on I figure, or in case I goofed anything, but least it should help for the follow along visual.

Baseline
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0

I'll knock out the alphabetized txt file for all the tiles tomorrow.

See ya next round!

[Cernel]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

Ok finished adding in the Sea Zone stuff to the label key.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vurkzr07u2lqx2o/Domination_1940_painted_labels_with_sz_key.png?dl=0

I used the one I had painted with the 1940 colors, but we can make a more impressive key for 1941 later on I figure, or in case I goofed anything, but least it should help for the follow along visual.

Baseline
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0

I'll knock out the alphabetized txt file for all the tiles tomorrow.

See ya next round!

After WW2, the Togoland was split between the British and the French, most of it (and all the coastline) going to the French, so the "Togoland" you have should either be french or (better) merged with the "Porto Novo" territory into a single french territory of "Porto-Novo - Togoland" or just "Porto-Novo".

By the way, I would rather call the "Porto Novo" territory as "Dahomey" or "French Dahomey".

Moreover, I really don't like that you have things like "Tripoli" and "Tripolitania" or "Lagos" and "Nigeria" (among others). In the moment neither "Tripolitania" nor "Nigeria" are comprising their capital, I think they cannot be regarded as been the main part of the territory: it would be better to rename them "East Tripolitania" and "North Nigeria".

Are you sure you don't want to have a territory in between of Smolensk and Moscow?

[Schulz]

• There wasn't any province in Turkey called "Armenia" in 1940.

• Samara was called "Kuybysev" in 1940s.

• Astana was "Akmolinsk".

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good! Thanks for the eyes! I'll go down the list there and make those adjustments. There were more than a few spots where I was ballparking what Hepster had written down and not feeling totally confident about it, cause he had so many metro designations in tiles that had obviously been expanded relative to their neighboring regions, usually to a pretty wild degree hehe. It'd be cool if I could find a solution in the labelling rather than having to redraw a ton if it can be handled with the NWSE method, or I can definitely collpase Togoland into a larger Dahomey, insert a tile between Smolensk and Moscow and such for anything that feels weird.

This is actually exactly what I was hoping for in making a key, cause it's just hard to guess sometimes, whereas with labels laid down it's easier to see like 'wait a sec, that's weird!' or doesn't quite fit the timeline haha. Hopefully we can clean it up so it doesn't raise too many eyebrows. Keep em coming if you notice anything else that stands out, I'll get it fixed up when I dive back in.

Thanks again for the assists! Catch you in a few!

ps. @cernel @Schulz Ok back at the house I'm looking at the map right now. Just made the Dahomey change and N. Nigeria etc.

For the Moscow tile, how about something like "Mozhaysk-Kaluga" inserted between Smolensk and Moscow? So sort of a nod to the rail links in that area, and also to serve as one of the "oh shit! enemy at the gates" type TTs if the Axis press in on the Soviet Capital.

[Black_Elk]

Ok here it is with those suggested adjustments. Just let me know if you see anything else, and I'll start typing it up.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vurkzr07u2lqx2o/Domination_1940_painted_labels_with_sz_key.png?dl=0

Indexed preview at 25%

[Schulz]

@black_elk

• I would rename Easternmost Turkey as "Erzurum". And"Diyarbakir" would fit better between Adana and Erzurum.

• Also Kursk's location is a bit wrong.

[Black_Elk]

OK made those adjustments. Bit more room for tanks

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vurkzr07u2lqx2o/Domination_1940_painted_labels_with_sz_key.png?dl=0

[Black_Elk]

Here it is with a paintjob more for 1941 vibes...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4883h0aed6c5q7/Domination_1941_painted_labels_with_sz_key.png?dl=0

To me a fun start date/balance of power/position, would be one that has Germany with starting control of basically all the pro-Axis aligned territories on the Atlantic side of the board with the exception of Italy. So basically all the territory that declared for Vichy after the fall of France. The territories nominally under Vichy/German control could be more lightly defended, with the Free French more of a concentrated force that can start liberating TTs from Germany in that area early on. France and Anzac seem like token factions, but I left them in for the nice color spread and since we already have all those units. Brazil I have handled more old school, like the rest of the pro Allies in the Western Hemisphere they're under the US aegis. I figure Italy for the European Axis could play more as the Achilles heel, kinda designed to receive pressure, and be a weak link there for Germany to manage and fret over. Basically trying to find a more Classic approach there that has G clearly in the driver's seat. Basically a vibe more in line with Oztea's scenario, kinda stripped down to basics and total war start.

I think you could still get an opener that has the Axis making their big push towards 1942 boundaries, but from a somewhat stronger spring boarding position than they usually get. I like a J1 opener that has them basically executing a Pearl Attack and catching up on income by taking Philippines. Like that's what the Japanese player is looking for, so might as well give it to em heheh. I think it works for round 1 timeline, where you can just sort of advance the clock as you get towards the end of the round and Japan's turn.

For TTs values overall I'd start low at 1 PU for everything, then raise in value to 2 for more strategically or historically noteworthy spots, then 3-10 at the main TTs or capital type pockets. See where that lands then push the values, and add in the sz stuff to get a rough parity. The difference you can always make up in starting cash for playbalance too, and accomplish a lot that way I think. Anyhow, just for the quick color wanted to do one like that real quick, since I think 41 is just more compelling as a start date. It's easier to make team Axis on a more even playing field that way I think, and more straightforward in the total war politics than 1940 hehe. I also prefer a scheme where the remaining "neutrals" are all attackable basically, and just use low production value and abstract standing armies to make them less desirable as warfronts. To me that just feels simpler all around.

[beelee]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

Basically a vibe more in line with Oztea's scenario,

[beelee]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

also prefer a scheme where the remaining "neutrals" are all attackable basically, and just use low production value and abstract standing armies to make them less desirable as warfronts.

I Dig It
Big Time
:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:

[TheDog]

@black_elk
In broad terms we are in agreement and thats what Im aiming for as well.

Also;
USSR and Japan are neutral to each other, until Russia takes Poland, then it automatically declare war on Japan, like history. (There is no politics phase)

China is intended to played USSR/Russia.

ANZAC & Dutch are combined in the Pacific into a separate minor player, that is intended to played by USA, but what to call them? Their current name is Euro-Oversea.

Should Finland be a seperate country/player, but be controlled by Germany or Finlands land just part of Germany?

[beelee]

Here's an example of what CDG did with the Neutrals in Global. I modified a couple TTys for less INF and more variety.

:https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28180/should-we-make-better-rules-for-invadable-neutrals-1940/4?page=1

The new neutral setup is:
Venezuela: 6 infantry
Colombia: 1 infantry
Ecuador: 1 infantry
Peru: 1 infantry
Bolivia: 1 infantry
Paraguay: 1 infantry
Uraguay: 1 infantry
Argentina: 6 infantry
SZ 66 (aligned with Argentina): 1 cruiser Chile: 4 infantry
Mozambique: 1 infantry
Angola: 1 infantry
Portugal: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun
SZ 104 (aligned with Portugal): 1 cruiser, 1 transport
Spain: 10 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, 1 fighter
SZ 92 (aligned with Spain): 1 destroyer
SZ 91 (aligned with Spain): 1 destroyer
Switzerland: 6 infantry
Sweden: 6 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun
SZ 114 (aligned with Sweden): 1 destroyer
Turkey: 8 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter
SZ 99 (aligned with Turkey): 1 destroyer
Arabia: 6 infantry
Afghanistan: 4 infantry

"Charles de Gaulle Neutrals Modified".
Changes the unit setup for:
Poland: -2 infantry adds 1 fighter
Switzerland: -2 infantry adds 1 artillery, 1 AA gun
Venezuela: -1 infantry adds 1 artillery
Argentina: -1 infantry adds 1 artillery
Chile: -1 infantry adds 1 artillery Discussed in detail here:https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28180/should-we-make-better-rules-for-invadable-neutrals-1940/4?page=1

If nothing else the map looks cooler lol

[Black_Elk]

Sweet! Glad you're into it! haha

Yeah, I mean, initially I was thinking about including a smaller faction for the European Axis, for Finland or Romania etc as a player-nation with their own turn, but then I'd think it would just kinda weaken the Axis position overall, since Germany is the big dog over there. I thought Finland was handled pretty well in Iron War, like they basically just exist to tie down Russian armies and can't really advance until G cracks the Leningrad pocket, but it's not a very exciting turn and feels sort of like a time sink. On the other hand if you give control of all those spots to Germany directly, you can really open up the starting distribution of forces and the production fronts, potentially allowing for more interesting gameplay across a wider theater. It puts Germany into more of a position of parity vs the British and Soviets for starting production, and has them more forward across a broader front at the outset. Like for first turn income and such. Even if they're absorbing pressure from Allies in all those French TTs outside of Metro France and N. Africa, they'd still have a wider reach than the usual, which seemed kinda cool.

I think for most areas that aren't like capitals, original owner neutral would be fun, which allows more TTs opened up to production. So like USA or Britain liberating Algeria or Normandy but retaining ownership control, whereas maybe Paris you can have revert to France when taken. Stuff like that.

Pacific Allies would probably be an apt/generic sort of name I guess. Though if the Dutch just get kinda swooped, they could probably be assigned to Britain like the older boards. ANZAC feels kinda lackluster in G40 to me, like too tough to get anything going, but not really valuable enough strategically or in production to draw Japan's focus. Soviet NAP would I'm sure change the calculus on that, but then I always kinda worry about hard restrictions or tying it to something that could maybe be gamed in weird ways. I said before that I never found a Soviet Japan NAP that I liked, but of the ones I tried the stuff I enjoyed gave Japan and the USSR money to maintain the peace. Like enough to make it more advantageous not to go to war, but without taking the option completely off the table. I think especially in a game with a Solo AI type focus, it might take away too much from the endgame possibilities. Like if one team is ascendant and they want to torch the treaties and just go for it, even if it's kinda not the best plan lol. You know like for the showboat hehe. Anyhow, I'm sure anything we could up will have some charm to it.

I do like that approach to neutrals, where they have standing armies to help prevent a neutral crush blowout, and just an easy scheme where everyone is sorta either on one team or the other, or they're just attackable the same way like that. I think having multiple categories of neutral is just kinda weird. Activating armies just by showing up, or being able to move through certain TTs that you wouldn't otherwise if on the opposing team. I think it's easier to just assign control and keep it kinda simple where it makes sense, and also to just accelerate the playpace. Unlike 1940 where you gotta spend a round moving into those spots to claim the units, I figure in 41 they'd just kinda already be under the purview so players can get to the action a bit sooner.

I almost nixed China, Anzac, France and the Dutch to just get a more AA50 vibe, but I found myself kinda missing the colors heheh. So that's why I did the paintmove the way I did, but whatever works, I'm sure it could be made entertaining haha.

I didn't get any transcription done yet, lazy blazy today after tinkering with the map. I set out a tree instead lol. Will get around to this weekend. It's supposed to rain and be mostly indoors for the hounds, so I'll crack at it then. Catch ya next round!

ps. Frostion's Finnish infantry unit is pretty cool looking though hehe. That snowtrooper trencher is a winner!

[beelee]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

of the ones I tried the stuff I enjoyed gave Japan and the USSR money to maintain the peace. Like enough to make it more advantageous not to go to war, but without taking the option completely off the table

[beelee]

@black_elk yea that Finn has a "You don't wanna Fuck with me " look lol

[Black_Elk]

For me a good Soviet Japan NAP would be something like this...

If the treaty is maintained both sides get an income bonus. The scale of the bonus would depend on the overall scale of the economy, but basically enough to give both sides some skin in the game. If the treaty is broken, the aggressor should lose this bonus while the defender retains it. Or perhaps the nation that breaks the NAP awards a larger lump sum instantly to the opponent, which could serve as the main malus/disincentive to break the treaty. This is a bit gamey, but it could be seen as like an abstract casus belli type bonus ,as the nation rallies in response to the unprovoked and dastardly aggression! lol That could work maybe right?

The reason why the Mongolia thing isn't great in G40, is because the Mongolian troops just aren't valuable enough units and they're pretty out of position. Like it's not a terribly useful place to have a few inf hitpoints spawning for team Allies. If that same 18 ipcs in units was just awarded directly to the Russian purse, such that they could spend it on whatever units they wanted, wherever they chose to mobilize them, that'd be a somewhat more potent malus. At least done that way, Japan attacking Russia would be less attractive, since it would mean potentially screwing Germany in the fight to control the Eastern Front, at least in the short term. Something like that I think is what's needed, so that the incentive for Japan to attack and overrun Soviet land has something to counterbalance it on the other side of the board. Otherwise it's just too good to pass up chipping away at the center.

In G40 OOB the consequence of attacking Japan as the USSR is even lighter. Sure you lose the chance at those 6 inf in Mongolia, but they don't go to the other side unless attacked directly, so overall it's just too weak of a NAP to hold much water. To me it would be more interesting if some option for Japan and Russia to go to war was retained, but to have it be more of a question mark in terms of the outcome I guess. If the right sort of dynamic can be achieved with stuff like bonuses, then the same could be applied for other factions in other start dates, though the Japan situation seems the most straightforward. Basically what you need is a way for the consequence to be more worldwide instead of all super localized to just the one spot the way it was handled out the box hehe. Mongolia to me would just be pro-Soviet Allies anyway right? So I don't know that it needs to hinge on any particular territory or region the way it does in G40, instead it could just be an automatic type thing. Japan attacks Russia, Russia rallies like 25 PUs or whatever, that would probably be enough to give players pause and opt for a more historically thematic playpattern, while still allowing the possibility for alt directions if the player really wants to go down that road.

Another option that might be even more consequential might be something like...

If the NAP is broken, then the No Soviet-Western Allies co-location rule is abrogated.

That would be a pretty major deal and lot to consider for Japan. You could do the same thing the other way, with Japan-Germany co-location if the NAP is broken by the Soviets. Just so it plays to both sides that way. Just a thought. In general I don't much like objective type cash awards, but in the case of a one time make or break treaty situation, I think it could maybe be useful.

[TheDog]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

In general I don't much like objective type cash awards

Nods in agreement.

The Soviet Japan NAP is on my TODO list.