Proposed Map: Domination 1941
-
@black_elk yea that Finn has a "You don't wanna Fuck with me " look lol
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@black_elk yea the way the Expansion guys do it, is the first two turns are oob, then starting turn 3, it cost 8 PUs to attack and that 8 PUs is given to the Defender and they can either bank it or place units anywhere they want after CM as long as it's not directly in a battle.
The Mongolians are deactivated and are just another Neutral. Turn 4 it cost 7 bucks and keeps dropping a buck every turn.
When Germany or Italy attack Russia, Russia gets an immediate 10 bucks to place the same way. Doesn't cost the Axis 10 bucks to attack though. Doesn't matter what turn either.
A little different anyway
-
@kurtgodel7 said
You make good points. Let's do some math.
Strategic bomber (dedicated to strategic bombing raids). Expected damage per raid: 3.5 PUs. Expected number of successful raids before being destroyed: 5. (Presumably it gets destroyed on the 6th raid before getting a chance to bomb.) Total expected value of bomber: 17.5 PUs. Cost of bomber: 16 PUs.
I thought about this some more and comparing the total expected bombing damage vs cost of bomber doesn't take the likelihood of each outcome into account. A more precise calculation is:
expected value of each raid = (5/6)*3.5 - (1/6)*16 = .25PU. As in, after completing 4 bombing runs, you will have made 1PU, net.
Hypothetical example, you have 10 inf/tanks attacking 10 inf/tanks, and 23 bombers you can do an SBR with, or add to the battle. What increases your expected value more, doing an SBR, or sending a bomber into battle? Battlecalc says send all 23 into the battle.
Even at a bomber cost of 12PU, you make less than 1PU per SBR. Even then, it's a poor use of resources 95% of the time.
*Edit-I originally had 17 cost, corrected to 16 cost. -
To my way of thinking, if the strat bomber is a regular combat unit it's just always better to be using it in combat over SBR. Like whatever the cost or attack/defense value. A single hitpoint that can fly the distance could be the difference in any big stack contest. You know where the TUV at stake is probably a lot more than the cost of any individual unit purchase and where just being in the fight with that extra pip could tip the scales in the opening salvo. Pretty much any time you're given an instant edge over a delayed one (like influencing the opponent's repair/purchase phase in this case), it's better to go for the immediate gratification play hehe.
In a simple game like A&A 1942, bombing can be more useful, because it can tilt the balance in the capital trade and force an earlier resolution like on Berlin or Moscow, but that just feels a lot more situational. Like the time to bomb is when you can break their back reliably, and don't have any alternative attack to run that turn.
It's kind of curious that they gave transports and subs and aaguns and facilities such an overhaul in G40, but didn't really give the strat bomber much attention, even though they included a new tactical bomber too. Just seems like some of the issues could have been resolved if that unit was reimagined.
I'm still working on the labels txt. I took a day off for that cause it's not the most thrilling for me lol. I tried to include a double designation where I thought it'd fit for midsize tiles or to highlight a spot where battles or bases where located, like for the many Pacific islands. Feel free to change whatever if it makes sense, when I get it wrapped up. I didn't use any diacritical marks cause I wasn't how well tripleA handles those. I think periods and spaces are fine though right? If not we can substitute underscores or whatever. Anyway, I'm only like a third of the way through the list, in the middle of the med right now, just floating hehe. Catch you in a few
-
@black_elk
Yeah we think the same. Also, if you lose a bomber to AA, now you are unexpectedly down a bomber for all big/small battles in that theatre, for at least 2 turns, the opportunity cost of which is probably 2-3PU/turn. And not all "PU" are equal, it is MUCH more beneficial to destroy 1PU of units on a battlefront (that had to be purchased, and then marched to the front) than to destroy a PU from a piggy bank, that has no immediate effect on the field. I think maybe that's what you were talking about with 'immediate gratification'.If you gave each SBR roll +2 dmg, with 15PU bombers, so it became (5/6)*5.5 - (1/6)*15= 2.08PU per run, I would start considering doing an SBR, when I had nothing better to do with the bomber AND no prospect of effectively using the bomber in the next turn, which would still be an uncommon occurrence.
More interesting maps allow destruction of units (factories, etc) after a set amount of damage. This is the only way SBR becomes an interesting tactical decision
-
I think periods and spaces are fine though right?
Yes and underscores and hyphens are OK.
I'm only like a third of the way through the list
Its a third less to do, and only 2/3 to go
Then its my turn to pick up the repetitive baton and to fit your work into the code.
-
@thedog said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:
Its a third less to do, and only 2/3 to go
Then its my turn to pick up the repetitive baton and to fit your work into the code.
-
Right on! Coming down the home stretch now. I just gotta finish Africa and the islands on the Pacific side, so basically the last third. I'll try to knock it out this weekend.
I posted the key over at A&A org to see if anyone has suggestions or whatever, but I'll just keep charging ahead. See ya next round!
-
@black_elk Way Cool Brother This map gonna be a Huge Resource for many Very Impressed
-
Ah, the light at the end of the tunnel is in sight.
I posted the key over at A&A org to see if anyone has suggestions
Good idea!
-
No replies over there yet, guess it's just a bit quieter lately than the halcyon days that I recall lol. Probably just cause nothing has come out since Zombies and the Larry boards moved on to War Room stuff. Random aside, but Renegade said "A brand new site for Axis & Allies" was coming in 2023, so it'll be curious to see what kind of activity that drums up. They also said 'Fan involvement in selecting new themes to add to the line. New printings of staples for the line. The return of some long out of print editions' in their comic con press release. So that's kinda cool, if it pans out and doesn't get upended by recession-y woes. A 'return of some long out of print editions' makes me think they might just reissue the older map boards like for Classic or Revised. That'd be a cool one to do reversible, with front facing Classic reverse Revised for the mapboard or something similar. Maybe they will do the smaller tactical boards reissued as well. 1942, AA50, and G40 all seem like the staples to me. I'm guessing they also got 1914 as part of the deal, although that one didn't ever seem to catch on.
It's too bad cause WW1 is a cool theme. I thought 1914 had a cool box cover and cool sculpts, but the branding felt off. They should have just used the acronym "A&A" alone instead of writing out "Axis and Allies 1914-18 The War to End All Wars" cause it doesn't really fit to call the Central Powers the "Axis." But really I think it was the diamond shaped board that kinda tanked that game lol. Banging a knee or catching a hip to the corner of the table, I mean it just seems bad for business lol. Honestly if they just reissued that game with a more regular shaped board I bet it would do a lot better hehe. Anyhow, just a ramble cause I'm into the former Ottoman territories now. It'll be done by tomorrow I'd imagine.
I'm curious which blues you guys prefer for the oceans? I'm partial to a simple solid color myself. For me, if the oceans are too busy, it gets kind of distracting. Map blends allows for a more pastel look, so I prefer to have the base blue be somewhat darker/higher saturation, otherwise it tints pretty bright. Most of the visual effects I've seen for oceans end up looking more like clouds or wet paper, or else too busy with tiny waves that don't really do it for me. I think they look better as a solid shade of blue, but maybe just that's me. It'd be cool if the player could change the Sz color in the map properties by a HEX designation though, like they can with TT ownership colors. Just cause so much of the map is ocean blue, it really sets the vibe for the rest of the visual.
I generally use #6cccfe or #76cafd in the baselines I've made. For me Logan's Classic blue felt way too teal, and Bung's dark blue is a bit too midrange for me. Like with the map details/blends off I mean, cause when those are on the ocean just looks like clouds. As a player I'd like to be able to change that color on the fly, so it doesn't have to be such a one-size-fits-all situation. Right now the only way to adjust that stuff is to rework the baseline and re-chop the tiles, which is a lot of work just to change a shade of blue heheh. It'd be cooler if tripleA just painted the high seas color from the map properties the same way it paints the land tiles.
-
Ok here's the txt
Feel free to add or make whatever adjustments to the labels.
Base
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0Relief with White Borders (25% opacity)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0g0vwg2vf14vxb/Domination 1941 relief 25 opacity.png?dl=0HEX Colors used in the earlier key
Americans: 026400
ANZAC: 5ba399
British: 9e7035
Chinese: 533c69
Dutch: e77600
French: 0063a5
Germans: 656565
Italians: 6c4513
Japanese: e19521
Mongolians: a13030
Russians: 940000Let me know if I get em all hehe
Catch ya in a few! -
@black_elk
Ooh out of the tunnel, and now Im blinded by the shiny light of the goodies!
Thanks for all your hard work!Oh dear, now its my turn.
Hopefully I will have something to test late January.
-
Right on! Sounds good
Also here is the World War II Global 1940
Base
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4740bj0l87sbb57/World_War_II_Global_1940_baseline.png?dl=0Units
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqkn53r1vzjj467/units.7z?dl=0I never got around to doing the Dutch and whatnot, but I think most everything we'd need to get a basic WWII game going is in there. We can come back later to fill in the gaps or fix anything I missed or whatever hehe. Just let me know if there's anything else we need.
Catch ya in a few! And Happy Holidays!
-
@black_elk
Just realised Shetland is in SZ 112.Geographically Im thinking it should be in SZ 111 B, what do you think?
Game wise I'm unsure, but Im thinking best in SZ 111 B ?
-
Sounds good. Makes sense to me for the gameplay too.
I updated the files in the links above for that adjustment just now.
-
@black_elk
I have been a busy zombie these past 2 days, well it is cold outside
, centers.txt is populated, thanks again for your text file, it was invaluable and labour saving.On to the polygons.txt
Bermuda is causing grief there is a split in the SZ line between 101 A and 101 C.Guatemala and Honduras both have something wrong in them, it could be
- a stray pixel
- not black pixels, so remove antialiasing
- or a border that the Polygon Grabber does not like and needs smoothing out/straightening
Its probably something on the border between the two?
As above for these;
St.Louis-Arkansas (probably not a border problem)
Brittany, Normandy, Poitou
Toulouse, Provence-Marseille
Most of northern Spain
3 areas of Portugal
Savo-Ostrobothnia & Helsinki
Netherlands & Belgium-Luxembourg
Natal, Praetoria
Aleppo-Deir ez Zor, Al Hasakah
Kurdistan, GilanThere are more, hopefully there is a pattern?
I will send the other half, when you post the updated baseline. -
I'm curious which blues you guys prefer for the oceans?
I like both #6cccfe or #76cafd, but if I have to pick one its #6cccfe. I too like simple backgrounds, the main event/eye candy are the units.
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