Works now perfecty. First impressions;

-Its better to make combat phrase before than purchasing phrase.

-Considering 1942 borders; Its really good to see Germany becoming almost two times stronger than Russia. I really liked German-Russian-Italian-Chinese income distirbutions. Japan could be slighly more weaker. USA is underpowered and Britain is incredibly overpowered. I t would be not a good idea having significantly stronger Britain than USA.

-I’d call Lorraine instead Maginot.

-You can make Gobi desert Russian territory instead making impassable it would led more strategic options.

-Western Russia’s power lies on blocking everything rather than its income or set-up because its touches everything from Leningrad to Caucasus it means Germany simply cannot bypass it and execute different things like making case Blue or direct approach to Moscow.

-I’d suggest making fewest territory as much as possible in non-combat zones. For example there would be absolutely nothing wrong with making Canada or South America just single territory.

-Middle East is just looks too squeezed.

Hello. Thank you for the great efforts I’m really hyped to play the mod via lobby.

• You can safely remove tech phrase to speed up game, the techs are so ramdom to fit for this map. Also I would suggest making combat phrase before purchasing phrase.

• I really like two ocean going USA idea but this is one of the hardest thing to acheive thats why its almost never seen. Simply put its not possible to make two ocean-going USA with altering incomes only because map itself not suitable for that because Japan’s momentum can easily blocks all US routes. But still it would be better idea reducing Japan’s power as much as possible and increasing the German ones. I really hate to see most times Japan trying to rescue Germany with marching towards Inner Asia. Because Germany is too weak and Japan is too strong and its just plain design flaw. Japan should not be came ever close to German or American production capacity.

I would like to share my thughts how could two ocean going USA be created separately if would you want to redraw somethings. The requirements;

1. Both USA and Germany should be roughly 75% or two times stronger than Japan in 1942 borders and Germany-Italy should be stronger than UK-Russia.

2. Solomon-New Guinea should be divided and not be surrounded with only one sea zone and they need to be closer to USA to simulate these battles better.

3. A safe spot in the south of Guinea-Solomon is needed that Victoria is one and USA is two step and seas around Dutch east Indies 3 step away.

4. Japan should be unable to take Victoria from Philippines Sea or seas around Dutch East Indies.

5. Australia should be minimum two pieces.

6. Blockade zones

With that USA would be likely better off prioritizing Europe, pushing Solomon-New Guinea and using inert British units in Australia if Japan ignores them even if Germany plays too defensively, USA prioritize Pacific too.

If a stand alone nation historically had strong ties with the another one then its better to assign it similar colour but making it distinguishable enough.

It’s Britain’s dark brown

https://www.paintscratch.com/content/images/swatches/Medium-Brown-Metallic-1988-Chevrolet-Silverado-83644B.jpg

Its Canada’s potential dark mustard

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0063/1776/8802/products/2161-30-darkmustard_d02ed9cd-5c35-4b6f-bf5e-6bf58bdcd1a0_2000x.png?v=1572318572

Seems like its very hard making Britain weaker than USA with that size without having worthless territories or merging some of them even in WaW USA is almost just as powerful as Britain+Anzac in middle rounds. Its eventually just preference if game works and decently balanced with this income distirbutions its just my personal belive that setting up USA stronger than Britih Empire provides more strategic options for both sides.

Also I think there is nothing wrong with setting up some territories wortless if there are good reasons to fight for them. For example Western Russia and Henan are already very valuable territories due to their locations even if they were wworthless, players would still fight there.

My suggestion about Western Russia would be like this;

With that Germany would gain bypassing Western Russia option by moving South Caucasus-Armenia.

Just I would want to see more realistically proportioned Middle East Especially Persia’s borders.

fig 2/3/4 5Pu 2 air at 3 air def
bom 2/1/6 6Pu 2 air at 1 air def, strategic bomber
sub 2/1/2 4Pu
tra 0/0/0 5Pu
des 2/2/2 6u
cru 3/3/2 9Pu AA bombard 3
car 1/2/2 12Pu AA
b.s 4/4/2 16Pu AA bombard 4 2HP, repair

Sure I would like to add it to Triplea and we can test each other’s maps I’am currently waiting for someones help for making relief tiles. I don’t know about painting relief.

You are absolutely correct having countless territories doesn’t magically make maps good. Its art of giving players maximum options with the least amount of territories. Ok I am trying to be more specific based on my map to explain.

The things that I tried to achive on the Eastern front that most other maps lack that I could see;

-Germany doesn’t have to rush Leningrad first like most of mid sized WWII map. Its possible to simulate Leningrad siege just keeping novgorod with infantries+trenched to avoid high casualties. Russia and Western Allies can reinforce Leningrad too via Ladoga Lake. Russia has special combatant transport for this task.

-With 1942 Borders Germany-Italy outporduces Russia-Britain which means Germany doesn’t automatically lost if they fail rapidly taking Moscow and they have an option to play defensively too.

-Taking Moscow doesn’t mean absoluteAxis victory either. Nations continue to collect incomes and produce units.

-Due to low value of Stalingrad, Germany have option of bypassing Stalingrad and rushing Baku too or trying to take both as historically.

-With Baku factory, Russia gains helping British option in the Middle East.

-The rivers show which sea zone connect what this mean its possible to build ships in Caspian Sea and moving to Black Sea (a bit far fetched but not absurdly unrealistic)thus we get also a Black Sea campaign.

-Even the Chinese have opportunity to participate the Case Blue campaign with their mobile units. (Very unrealistic but I had to, nations with only one front is boring)

-Lastly Germany also starts with a factory in Finland considering also blockade zones we have a full front from Arctic to Black Sea to Caspian sea which not a just German-Russian battle front as seen.

@Argothair

Lets summarize the reasons why USA always goes Atlantic only.

1. Easier to defeat Germany first and ignore Japan
2. Easier to mass bombing Germany
3. Germany initially possesses bigger threat than Japan
4. Germany has no enogh money for air coverage unlike Japan.
5. More and easily reachable money via Atlantic rather than Pacific.
6. USA is almost alone in the Pacific while heavily accompanied by UK in Atlantic
7. Japan starts with bigger fleet than USA
8. Ships are expensive, less flexible and don’t bring money. Totally opposite of ground units.
9. Cheaper option of keeping California with mass infantries.
10. Japan’s ability to outproduce USA even if USA goes fully Pacific.
11. Combine power’s superiority over the dispersed ones.

The tons of solid reasons really cannot be reversed inside of classic A&A rules and costings because they will always outweight and discourage USA to split its forces.

Assigning 1ipc each of Pacific islands would have no effect to change the course of war. We would still stuck forever to the boring Japanese armour blitz in Central Asia, Germany turns into survival mod to wait Japan rescue by taking Moscow,. USA establishing a pipeline through North Africa.

-Australia factory isn’t needed, it just turns Japan into “take now or never be able to take” mod. Instead I would suggest making USA closer to Australia. Also its no fun because UK would buy nothing other than infantry and they will be unable to effectively participate Pacific campaigns.

I had to enlarge Ladoga to give significant space for ship placement. Its even possible to connect Ladoga to Baltic and this route was established in 1933. I just didn’t do it for balance purpose.

With this size, it would be really better giving Germany case blue option.

For example I tried to simulate it in my map like this;

For the Middle East I can share this example;

I would like to use the sounds of this game for my wwii non-commercial game.

Is this game considered abandonware?

I mean roughly in which rounds it appear that one side is going to absolutely victory and other side will prefer surrendering at that point rather than to continue. Assuming both sides have similar skills and please specify whic A&A game are you talking about.

I think there should be a reason for loser side to continue rather than surrendering in the middle of game anti-climaticly. Without another war aim other than total victory I can’t see any way preventing anti-climatic ends since games are cumulative and not much room for tidind the turn of the wars I would want having a draw outcome as addition do total victory which would be pursued as loser side.

Would you have any idea what could be draw’s conditions? How could it be occur?

Also I have to point that achieving “draw” should be harder than chasing total victory from the beginning of games. Assuming both sides have roughly 50% total victory chance in the beginning of war and one side is significantly losing its momentum and it appears that he/she will never achieve total victory. At this point draw should have roughly %25 chance to be occur by the loser side.

It is porposely left ambigious to let players to answer it with their imaginations.

I’d prefer no air combat rule.

Yes, I suggest not retaining A&A capital rules.

Also I suggest you to thinking about different war goals other than total victory. It is something I have been thinking but hasn’t came up with a good idea.

For example. I’m playing with USA and lost all Europe to Warsaw pact. I’d probably just surrender at that point instead of to continue because all total victory war aims are now gone and almost impossible to turn the tide of war.

There should be an extra war aim about not losing. Kinda like draw option that might prevent this kind of anti climatic endings hence players will be more willing to continue no matter how desparate the situation.

For example A&A Anniversary edition has techs/national objectives and allows players to play with them, without them or just with one of them. It is for to appease more players since some players like them and some don’t like.

The capital rule of A&A is simly bad. Capitals are already the most valuable territories even temporarily capturing them gives massive advantage, stealing all of remaining enemy income is just too much punishment. Later they introduced victory city concept like national objectives (I dislike both because they bring unnecessary complexity) to give more option.

The simplest way is treating capitals like other territories and making them victory cities. Very smooth, rememberable victory condition.

Which part you didn’t understand?

If you think the air combat rules worth more than its downside of slowing down games, then you could keep it as it is. They are just my personal opinions that I would prefer over other turn based startegy games.;

1. Giving the maximum strategic options to players with the least amount of units, territories, nations and rules. All additional rules are welcome as long as their bring is more important than their possible downsides. Kinda like chess. In the world its no coinsidece that the most popular games and sports are actually the simplest ones yet deep enough to spend whole life to be master. More complex ones will have probably less but more passionate players.

2. Balance is more important than historical accuracy but it doesn’t mean that for example in a WWII game, having Italy stronger than Germany is acceptable just sake of Balance.

3. Upkeep: Always needed in any kind of turn based game. I would strongly suggest it over anything.

4. Playing options. I tend to like scenarios if they are playable for example with techs or no tech. Or with National objectives or not.

5. Nations should not loss all of their remained incomes, neither mobilizing unit abilities after losing their capital(s). I would also suggest it for any scenario.

@Eric-Poppleton @GEN-MANSTEIN

Benefits of making all units AA.

1. No need separate AA gun, more space.
2. Cheaper air and naval costs allow more different combination of purchases. It encourage German naval build up and two ocean going USA.
3. Losing air unit isn’t a big deal anymore.

Though I have been still working on balancing units with each other after giving AA ability. I think I’m getting closer.

Further stacks do not increase AA possibilities. Only matter is amount of attacker planes. 1/6 shot down chance per attacker air unit.

I had to give ground forces +1 defense otherwise especially infantry would become so ineffective considering fighter has 2 defense and just 3ipc cost.

This is of course unplayable on board because of fractionel numbers and upkeep ( Yes there is also upkeep and method to buy 1 destroyer despite 3.5 ipc cost but its out of topic otherwise calculating massive stacks would be huge trouble). Its totally for TripleA I just wanted to learn with these unit set up, would air units be underpowered/overpowered or balanced?

The current unit set up like this (still progressing);