Help with a map project

[Flashman]

This is a pretty good source:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/axis.htm

Loads of diplomacy maps:

http://www.diplom.org/Online/maps.html

Do your own thing, but here are a few golden rules from Flashy;

Decide FIRST if, and how much, map distortion you want.  Western Europe and Japan are hopelessly small on a world map, so most of us use projections that exaggerate their size.  It’s no good basing your outline on a real map, then discovering later that you don’t have room for enough territories in Europe.

THINGS TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS

1. Rio de Oro is in NORTH Africa. Mark that point.  It is VERY important.
2. Moscow is in EUROPE. That is, nowhere near where official A&A boards put it.  If you can live with such an outrageous falsehood as Moscow-in-the-Urals, go ahead.  But in that case abandon any pretence of creating a historical map.
3. The Sinai penninsular is in EGYPT. There is therefore no need to complicate the board with having two territories controlling access to the Suez canal.
4. Countries such as Pakistan only came into being AFTER the war. You should NEVER include them, it is prefferable to use geographical terms such as “Western India” or “Indus Valley”.
5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.
6. Regarding IPCS, an important factor is fuel. Using GDP figures gives you a starting reference, but remember that areas such as Romania, Caucasus and the Dutch East Indies were much more important than their GDP value owing to their crude oil production.

[Flashman]

This purports to be a realistic map, and is useful in that it lists IPC values AND oil production separately:

http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html

[tekkyy]

Talk of assigning IPC, the topic (in the other section of this forum) that I linked to had substantial discussion on that.
And yes GDP is hardly an indicator. Oil and metals. Democracy vs. dictatorship. Total war culture…

@Flashman:

5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.

But we can’t give it too much value neither considering the low recruitment. I am thinking “minor Allies” that you can use diplomacy dice to bring onside.

As for China, also populous but realistically you would have to include neutral territories for the warlords. The central government did not have good control of the country and to say they are onside with US only means maybe 3 of 6 territories onside.

[Flashman]

What do you mean by low recruitment?  India raised half as many troops as the UK itself, and they fought in many theatres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

[Imperious Leader]

But only 399,000 served outside of India… a little less than the Canadian effort. They had an army of 2.1 million but only .4 million actually fought the war outside of India ( Africa, and Europe).

And they served in the British army anyway ( under British command). They fought alone only when Japan pulled that spoiling attack to thwart the British own offensive in Burma in 44’

[Flashman]

I still think most people don’t divide up India through sheer ignorance.  It’s usual to see “French Indochina” divided into Burma/Indocine and Malaya because you can see this on any map, but with India people just get lazy and slap on “Pakistan” and that’s it.
How many troops were raised in “Indo-China”?

[Imperious Leader]

Indo-china is part of Japans concern… its the reason why the oil embargo was started by USA.

It also represents the garrison from Japanese empire

[tekkyy]

We thought about troops when we decided on the infantry raising power for each territory in AARHE.
I arrived at the idea that UK didn’t fully utilise India or South Africa due to political reasons.

Imagine a map with multiple resources. Oil, metals and population.

[Flashman]

@tekkyy:

We thought about troops when we decided on the infantry raising power for each territory in AARHE.
I arrived at the idea that UK didn’t fully utilise India or South Africa due to political reasons.

Imagine a map with multiple resources. Oil, metals and population.

Reasoned?  Churchill would have SOLD India 1n 1940 if he thought it would’ve won the war.  It certainly contributed more, in manpower alone, than a miserable 3 IPCs worth.  And again, why is it just left as one territory compared to Indo-China which is usually divided into 3 or 4 territories?

[tekkyy]

To measure massive manpower in India (and China) which at the same time can’t be utilised directly by UK/US you could give it some neutral troops which cannot leave the territory.

[Imperious Leader]

The Chinese army was much larger than the Indian army. Also Japan was fighting the war with China since 1931…of course China is more important. Also, India was not really in the war except for its 400K contribution. Otherwise until the last full year of the war  its just shucking a few men to the British, and secondly, helping them repel the Japanese who were really just preempting the coming British offensive in Burma et al.

China bled and lost millions of citizens and soldiers…they were acutely effected in a way that India could never be compared too… thats why India is only 3 IPC ( which is commensurate with their contribution. Of course if they were assaulted by Japan for 10 years prior to the war… i suppose they would have fully mobilized and committed their entire army for this effort… but thats only potential. The game must serve what actually happened…Otherwise , the income basis that was assigned at the starting territories would have been higher…but they only represent what the world was in spring of 42 and THAT potential.

[Ddraiglais]

@Imperious:

dude just buy www.thewargame.com its a 6x3 foot map ( thick cardboard i may add) and it comes with pieces all for $100.00 you could never ever make a map for so cheap. Its accurate. If you don’t like the territories i guess you can bust out a marker and and add a few.

I’ve already decided against that. I was set on getting it, but I’ve had a change of heart.

@Flashman:

This is a pretty good source:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/axis.htm

Loads of diplomacy maps:

http://www.diplom.org/Online/maps.html

Do your own thing, but here are a few golden rules from Flashy;

Decide FIRST if, and how much, map distortion you want.  Western Europe and Japan are hopelessly small on a world map, so most of us use projections that exaggerate their size.  It’s no good basing your outline on a real map, then discovering later that you don’t have room for enough territories in Europe.

THINGS TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS

1. Rio de Oro is in NORTH Africa. Mark that point.  It is VERY important.
2. Moscow is in EUROPE. That is, nowhere near where official A&A boards put it.  If you can live with such an outrageous falsehood as Moscow-in-the-Urals, go ahead.  But in that case abandon any pretence of creating a historical map.
3. The Sinai penninsular is in EGYPT. There is therefore no need to complicate the board with having two territories controlling access to the Suez canal.
4. Countries such as Pakistan only came into being AFTER the war. You should NEVER include them, it is prefferable to use geographical terms such as “Western India” or “Indus Valley”.
5. India is a BIG country, in fact a sub-continent.  It is the SECOND most populous country on earth after China.  DO NOT follow the example of the uneducated and just lump it together as one territory worth a scandalously low 3 dollar value.
6. Regarding IPCS, an important factor is fuel. Using GDP figures gives you a starting reference, but remember that areas such as Romania, Caucasus and the Dutch East Indies were much more important than their GDP value owing to their crude oil production.

Thanks for those links.

I hadn’t thought about distorting the map to help with more territories in Europe. That does make sense.

Since I would rather have a 1939 start, keeping Moscow where it should be shouldn’t be much of a problem.

I like the idea of one territory controlling the ditch. I’m not sure if Egypt will be 1 territory or more.

I was going to include Baluchistan, Sind, Punjab, etc. Neither Pakistan nor India will exist. I want more territories, and the subcontinent is a great place to add some.

I’m not sure about IPCs. You can argue for fuel. What about iron and coal deposits? What about better scientists? Weapons developement is a part of the game, and the US and Germany excelled there. Where do you draw the line, and where do you add to the game as far as IPCs go? Others have already mentioned people power. How does that apply? Some of the game has to be abstract. I think a lot of things need to be considered when assigning IPCs, but I don’t think there is a way to nail it. If you could come up with realistic numbers, then the already disadvantaged Axis would never win. Showing the US’s industrial might might be more realistic, but it wouldn’t be much fun. There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.

[Imperious Leader]

There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.

If you want playability then make India impassible and a non-factor in the game

If you want fun make the map without India, assuming a tidal wave took it out just before Dec 41…so you don’t have to deal with it.

Make Sinai into two parts

And Rio De Oro now has nukes.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

thats why India is only 3 IPC ( which is commensurate with their contribution. Of course if they were assaulted by Japan for 10 years prior to the war… i suppose they would have fully mobilized and committed their entire army for this effort… but thats only potential.

If India is 3 territories on the map I would make their IPC low but some sort of increase per turn while partially under enemy occupation.
(To model war mobilisation.)

@Ddraiglais:

If you could come up with realistic numbers, then the already disadvantaged Axis would never win. Showing the US’s industrial might might be more realistic, but it wouldn’t be much fun. There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.

I think thats more of an issue with victory condition. Obviously the game is not much fun if it requires US being conquered to win.
Allies has quite a substantial economic advantage over Axis.

Alternatively you factor in oil or metals or manpower…
So Germany takes middle east and UK crumples. A naval blockade to prevent US from getting resources.

[Flashman]

But you can’t just devalue a territory because “it was never in the war much”.  You might as well wipe the USA off the map altogether on the grounds that it was never invaded.  The Japanese might have decided to launch an all-out invasion of India if things had gone differently elsewhere, and to limit this battle to just one area is absurd; this would have been a long campaign fought over a wide front.

@Imperious:

The Chinese army was much larger than the Indian army. Also Japan was fighting the war with China since 1931…of course China is more important. Also, India was not really in the war except for its 400K contribution. Otherwise until the last full year of the war  its just shucking a few men to the British, and secondly, helping them repel the Japanese who were really just preempting the coming British offensive in Burma et al.

China bled and lost millions of citizens and soldiers…they were acutely effected in a way that India could never be compared too… thats why India is only 3 IPC ( which is commensurate with their contribution. Of course if they were assaulted by Japan for 10 years prior to the war… i suppose they would have fully mobilized and committed their entire army for this effort… but thats only potential. The game must serve what actually happened…Otherwise , the income basis that was assigned at the starting territories would have been higher…but they only represent what the world was in spring of 42 and THAT potential.

[Imperious Leader]

But you can’t just devalue a territory because “it was never in the war much”.  You might as well wipe the USA off the map altogether on the grounds that it was never invaded.  The Japanese might have decided to launch an all-out invasion of India if things had gone differently elsewhere, and to limit this battle to just one area is absurd; this would have been a long campaign fought over a wide front.

faulty reasoning… Both American and India represents their actual contribution to the war. If we wanted to deal with potential and hypothetical conquest and a 10 years of invading India… then the game would have to account for this fantasy too. But its just sticking to the fact pattern. Thats why axis and allies is called introductory level.

This is not Avalon Hills Third Reich … its an easier game… its a light wargame.

[tekkyy]

The simplest rule would to be give them netural army. Something like one inf per turn?

[Ddraiglais]

@Imperious:

There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.

If you want playability then make India impassible and a non-factor in the game

If you want fun make the map without India, assuming a tidal wave took it out just before Dec 41…so you don’t have to deal with it.

Make Sinai into two parts

And Rio De Oro now has nukes.

I don’t even know why I’m adressing this post.

Of course I want the game to be as realistic as possible, but you can’t be 100% accurate. I saw somewhere else on these boards where somebody listed the GDP of all the major countries. Using those numbers the US would be able to fight the Axis, UK, and USSR combined. The game has to be a balance between realism and playability. Every version of rules has it’s compromises. There’s no way around it.

[Imperious Leader]

That was my post. You cant make the game accurate based on current information or the game will be too scripted or have playability problems. These games are meant to be light wargames and not uber exact according to every statistic. A game like that would fail.

[cyan]

@Ddraiglais:

@Imperious:

There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.

If you want playability then make India impassible and a non-factor in the game

If you want fun make the map without India, assuming a tidal wave took it out just before Dec 41…so you don’t have to deal with it.

Make Sinai into two parts

And Rio De Oro now has nukes.

I don’t even know why I’m adressing this post.

Of course I want the game to be as realistic as possible, but you can’t be 100% accurate. I saw somewhere else on these boards where somebody listed the GDP of all the major countries. Using those numbers the US would be able to fight the Axis, UK, and USSR combined. The game has to be a balance between realism and playability. Every version of rules has it’s compromises. There’s no way around it.

that was me but i did it for a modern variant. and i was vary liberal in my rounding to some countries. like a .3 of a piont might get rounded up just to not have a worthless territory. but i found a way to make it work though.