Matrix Games Forums

NotTooBad wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:25 am [*]Two new Mines added in the Urals, while the US Mines at 17,52 and 20,50 have been removed (MoongazerSlitherineSSL).

That's a lot of mines in a row up there in the Urals, many of them are unnamed. Looks a bit unnatural to me. I would suggest possibly choosing a different location for a couple of them:

Hex (133, 28) could be GAZ (Tank and auto plant in hex southwest of Gorky; Germans strat bombed this plant multiple times due to its significance)

Hex (135, 41) north of Stalingrad could be STZ (Stalingrad Tractor Factory)

Barnaul Ammunition Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnaul_Cartridge_Plant
Was moved to Barnaul in 1941 from Moscow. Some sources claim it produced 50% of Soviet ammo.


In the USA, there are also some opportunities to improve the map:
Philadelphia should probably exist.

Remove the hex (3, 65) oilwell in Mexico "Cantarell Oilfield". According to wikipedia this is an offshore oilfield and oil was not discovered until 1976 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantarell_Field

Remove the hex (2, 68) oilwell in Mexico (strength 10) and change Veracruz to an oilwell (strength 5).

Possible USA mines:

Hex (7, 44) could be Minnesota Iron Range
"About 70% of the iron ore that America devoted to the war came from Minnesota, amounting to more than 333 million tons"

Hex (15, 48) could be a mine representing Willow Run Assembly Plant and/or Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant (over 8000 B-24 bombers and 22000 tanks produced between those two factories)

There are some other minor issues for example why is New Orleans a Major City while Kansas City is just a town (6500 B-25's vs 20k Higgins Boats, I'll take the bombers over the wood boxes).

Interesting ideas. I always felt the mines in the Urals lined up as they were looked 'unnatural' too.

I agree that the Minnesota Iron Range should represented on the map. Quite essential in the ship and tank building effort and convenient to Detroit by Great Lakes traffic, they almost tunneled it all out to fight WW2. Mining after all is what gives the Minnesota corporate powerhouse 3M one of its Ms.

I could be wrong but I was always under the impression that the north-south line of mines east of the Urals was partly a game mechanic to represent relocated industry as well as resource extraction. Which is why most of them produce zilch at the start of the 1939 game.

Platoonist wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2024 5:17 pm game mechanic to represent relocated industry

Yeah I didn't include all the details to avoid a gigantic post. But yeah some of those resources ideally would be activated due to either Soviet relocation of industry events, or from the USA entering the war or building up to it. Soviet relocation of industry was not limited to the Urals. Kuybyshev, Novosibirsk, Gorky and a zillion other lesser known cities.

Obviously I don't want to suggest anything to upset the balance of the game. Resources located deep past the Urals are "worth" more to the Allies than the same resource located further West. Mexico resources aren't "worth" quite the same to the Allies as USA resources as Mexico isn't Allied the entire game, but on the other hand for the 1942 scenario Mexico starts as an Allied nation. So technically taking MPP production away from Mexico and adding it to the USA is "different" balance-wise for both scenarios. There's any number of considerations

But that being said, I think having these historical production and mining centers on the map enhances the flavor of the game. There's already plenty of flavor built in to the map, which I appreciate.

I don't really understand why the two mines in the US were removed. Of the major powers, only Russia came closer to self-sufficiency in raw materials and strategic resources. Tin and rubber were about the only US resources in short supply after the Japanese conquest of Southeast Asia, but the US compensated by purchasing virtually tbe entire South American market.

Chernobyl wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2024 10:31 pm Soviet relocation of industry was not limited to the Urals. Kuybyshev, Novosibirsk, Gorky and a zillion other lesser known cities.

In the past I thought it would be cool if the Allied player could pick the locations where Soviet industry evacuates to after saying yes to DE 402 but that would likely be a coding torment for the developers. Plus, without some constraints I could see players relocating them in really gamey locations like Kamchatka, Siberian islands north of the Arctic Circle, etc.

Bo Rearguard wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 12:58 am I don't really understand why the two mines in the US were removed. Of the major powers, only Russia came closer to self-sufficiency in raw materials and strategic resources. Tin and rubber were about the only US resources in short supply after the Japanese conquest of Southeast Asia, but the US compensated by purchasing virtually tbe entire South American market.

Simply for the sake of balance, as if we increase the USSR's power alone, without reducing that of the USA's - then there may be little hope of Axis victories. Hopefully this keeps things challenging for both sides, while also making things harder for the Axis in the USSR.

We will of course see how things go once many more games have been played and we have all your feedback.

BillRunacre wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:25 am

Bo Rearguard wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 12:58 am I don't really understand why the two mines in the US were removed. Of the major powers, only Russia came closer to self-sufficiency in raw materials and strategic resources. Tin and rubber were about the only US resources in short supply after the Japanese conquest of Southeast Asia, but the US compensated by purchasing virtually tbe entire South American market.

Simply for the sake of balance, as if we increase the USSR's power alone, without reducing that of the USA's - then there may be little hope of Axis victories. Hopefully this keeps things challenging for both sides, while also making things harder for the Axis in the USSR.

We will of course see how things go once many more games have been played and we have all your feedback.

but it removes an active mine from the start, at 20 mpp per turn, that is 240 mpp per year for like 2 years (the time frame on average for the Russian mine to come online with a similar mpp output). So it's a nerf of 480 mpp for USA specifically and allies in general, while it doesn't help Russia during the time that it needs it (before 1942 starts basically).

Perhaps it can be considered to activate one of the mines as well for the USSR, that way it's a direct transfer of MPP from USA to USSR, which would be good, but now it's a net nerf (resources earlier being better than resources later). Especially considering since most of the changes are (minor) nerfs for the allies (specifically the AA, fighter & strat bomber changes mostly hurt allies)

BillRunacre wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:25 am Simply for the sake of balance, as if we increase the USSR's power alone, without reducing that of the USA's - then there may be little hope of Axis victories. Hopefully this keeps things challenging for both sides, while also making things harder for the Axis in the USSR.

I see. Sometimes I feel like we need two versions of the 1939 game. A tournament scenario balanced for match play where the 'Red' team and the 'Blue' team have a equal chance of winning. And a historic scenario for those who wish to play the war closer to the long-term economic and resource mismatch that it was. Happily there is an editor.