Proposed Map: Domination 1941
-
-
I would rename Easternmost Turkey as "Erzurum". And"Diyarbakir" would fit better between Adana and Erzurum.
-
Also Kursk's location is a bit wrong.
-
-
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
-
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.
-
@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:
Basically a vibe more in line with Oztea's scenario,
-
@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
-
@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?
-
Here's an example of what CDG did with the Neutrals in Global. I modified a couple TTys for less INF and more variety.
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=1If nothing else the map looks cooler lol
-
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!
-
@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
-
@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
