Flames and Steel (official thread)

Cernel

@TheDog Interesting, but I'm a big hater of Hawaii having a factory (especially one spamming carriers and/or battleships). It's by far my number 1 issue which makes Big World unplayable for me.

TheDog

@Cernel
In 1941 GCD, there are 4 types of factory.

Industry-Hvy: Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers, in home TT
Industry-Med: Convoy/Transport, Destroyer, in Hawaii & Truk
Industry-Lgt: Infantry, Artillery, no ships
Base-Camp: Infantry, no ships

Cernel

@TheDog said:

@Cernel
In 1941 GCD, there are 4 types of factory.

Industry-Hvy: Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers, in home TT

Industry-Med: Convoy/Transport, Destroyer, in Hawaii & Truk

Industry-Lgt: Infantry, Artillery, no ships

Base-Camp: Infantry, no ships

Eh, I'm not an expert, but I doubt that a single transport or destroyer was ever built in Hawaii during the war. I would be surprised if there was any artillery production either. Without knowing the facts, I feel almost sure Hawaii should be either a Base-Camp or nothing at all just based on my superficial knowledge of what was Hawaii at the time.

TheDog

@Cernel
You are correct, no ships were produced, but a lot were repaired and resupplied, same for Truk.

Not my choice but there for game play.

Even so, the map can be edited to your taste.

KurtGodel7

The way I see things is this.

I am unwilling to accept an outcome in which the U.S. goes all-in on either KJF or KGF. I don't want either to be the dominant American strategy.
I am unwilling to add significantly more complexity to this map than I have already created. Once someone gets used to the map, I don't want it to feel any more complex than Global. Ideally a little less complex due to being less technical.
A solution which might make sense for some other map, such as choking off unit placement, might not be a good fit for this map. In WWII, German and Japanese military aircraft production roughly tripled between 1942 and 1944, while American military aircraft production doubled. My map doesn't simulate the entirety of that, but it does simulate a good portion.
I feel that my biggest contribution to the community is the new rules set.
I don't want people to think of this particular map as the end-all, be-all, with respect to this rules set. If someone else wants to create a different map using the same rules as Flames and Steel, I'd highly encourage them to do so!
This map does need to be fun, and a good representation of the rules set.
You don't get much benefit from technology in the early game. That's not the way the map is designed. You have a strategy for your technology, but that strategy needs time to unfold. As the game progresses your technological strategy becomes more relevant.
This map will not work as intended if the U.S. goes either KGF or KJF. Japan just got an exciting new technology which improves its Yamato battleships? Great! Wonderful. Too bad Japan lost its entire navy two rounds ago. Now it's just hoping to hold Tokyo for as long as it can.
This map is the first to use this rules set. (Or anything remotely like this rules set.) That means I need to be very careful about the risks I accept. The map could fail because the rules set wasn't what people wanted. Or because the GUI fell short. I can minimize those risks but I can't avoid them. But there are other risks which are completely avoidable. The risk the map becomes another KGF or KJF map. If I create more complexity to avoid KJF/KGF, the map could get rejected due to the added complexity. There is the risk that the added complexity might not actually prevent KGF/KJF. There is no reason for me to accept risks like these when I have the option of avoiding them.
There is a time and a place for accepting the risks I'd described in 9. If Flames and Steel proves itself, if it develops a loyal group of players, then someone could come along with a map based on the Flames and Steel rules. Maybe this new map has one United States instead of two, and maybe it has subtle but effective ways of preventing KGF or KJF.
KGF/KJF make the world smaller. They make the game simpler, less interesting, with fewer fronts. In late game WAW, Germany has a fleet in the North Atlantic and an army in Asia. European Axis supports that army and that navy. The Allies have their own opposing army, and their own opposing navy. A simplified game like that is far less interesting than the early game had been. Everything wrong with late game WAW could have been fixed by one simple expedient: splitting the United States in half!

Cernel

Well, it's not that splitting the United States in half is on its own certainly avoids focusing on one ocean only, especially not on the Atlantic. If you go with historical productions at the time (As I said, the western part was a lot more backward, underpopulated and poorer than it is now not only absolutely but also relatively to the eastern part.), on the account that in 1940 Pacific (meaning California + Oregon + Washington) had 9,682,781 inhabitants and Mountain (meaning Montana + Idaho + Wyoming + Colorado + New Mexico + Arizona + Utah + Nevada) had 4,128,042 inhabitants, for a total of Pacific + Mountain equal to 13,810,823 against a total for the entire United States (back then not comprising Hawaii and Alaska) of 131,669,275, your "West USA" will only have about 10% of the production of your "East USA" (and arguably less since Pacific and even more so Mountain was backward), meaning that "East USA" can still do KGF using directly the 90% of the total production power of the United States which it has and use the 10% of West USA just to produce bombers to go make bombing raids on Germany or some other things like that. Moreover, of course, whatever fleet is already present one side or the other can be sent through the Panama canal in either case, and doing so in a split USA scenario might even be worthwhile for can-openers.

All this means that, in order to go both oceans by splitting USA in two, you will not only have to take the historically wrong decision of having two USAs but also likely distributing production between these two made-up polities in a very unhistorical way.

All this said, I see your point, and I agree that seeing usually the United States playing only one ocean is lame, and I'm not able really to point at a game that fixed that at least amongst the ones I know. (I have not yet taken a deep enough look at @thedog's game, did you? Maybe he did.)

Cernel

Also a "West USA" playing Pacific mostly or only on its own is largely unhistorical. Most of what was used in Pacific was produced in the East, especially if we assume that the East comprises anything east of Panama like Texas, but even only the East Coast was really commissioning most of the ships by far. If you seemingly partially fix it by having Texas and Missouri and such as part of the east, that may bring the west up to 25% of total (have not calculated it), but then I wonder if that does not have the risk that a player may decide to place ships in Texas and New Orleans and go full Atlantic with both West and East together.

Schulz

A divided USA would make the game more disjointed.

Like with a single US, Japan could punch above its weight and force the US to commit more in the Pacific, thus indirectly (and historically) helping Germany by diverting American attention away from the Atlantic. But with a divided US, you can't do such a thing because the US's Atlantic commitments will be fixed, and Japan will be able to do nothing against it.