Would it be considered a good drawn map?
-
2.nd attemp;
-
- The map should be expanded at least to all Africa, so that the British can send transports around Africa to offload units into Egypt, as they mostly did (in this case, the value of Egypt should be 1 or 0).
- If Malta connects to 2 sea zones, Sicily should too.
- I still believe it is not acceptable not having Sardinia at these dimensions.
- I still believe it is not acceptable not having Cyprus at these dimensions.
- Baleares should be present if Spain can be invaded.
- There are really a lot of other cities more important than Stalingrad, so I don't think that adding Kiev justifies the presence of Stalingrad (Sevastopol is because of the fortifications).
- Leningrad should not connect to the territory that was called Rzhev.
- If the Danish straits or the Kiel canal, or both, get anything special, the sea border touching Germany and Sweden should rather touch Denmark and Sweden, instead.
- I would split Norway in two.
- I would split Sweden in two.
- At this scope, it is better to keep Libya split into at least two territories (called Tripolitania and Cyrenaica) (Cyrenaica was conquered and liberated several times, back and forth, while Tripolitania was conquered only once and never liberated).
- Finland used to border the Arctic Ocean, but it may be better it doesn't.
- If you value Romania and Bulgaria at 6, that can be only because you value oil a lot, so (as I said) other oil rich territories should be boosted too (if Romania is 6, then at least 4 of that is because of oil (7 million in 1937), then the United States (173 million in 1937) would have an additional 100 production because of oil, while the basic production should be about 100 too, therefore the value of the "United States" territory should be about 200, if you want to be realistic and consistent).
About your questions:
Should Romania-Hungary, Finland and France be added as separate countries. Wİth Jun 1941 set-up to prevent Romanian canopener, tur order must be Germany-Romania-Russia-British-Italians-Americans or is it good to have canopener naion for more strategic options?
Realistically, only Finland should. Finland should be worth 1, be its own player, but having the limit that its units can only go into the two original Finnish territories and nearby sea zones, and maybe also in Soviet Karelia (I'm not sure about this last one). However, Finland is so weak that one may prefer not having a player for it.
Regarding Vichy France, the matter is more complex. France (as Vichy France can be simply called, as Vichy France was the true legal France) should be an Axis player that can only go in its original territories or nearby sea zones but never attacks in sea zones but that is impassable by the other Axis players, collects little or nothing of its income and gives part of its income to Germany and Germany has the option of turning France into an Allied player at any moment, with also some special rules for the scuttling of part or all of its fleet, when this happens.Basic unit costs?Inf 3 and art 4 as usual but should armour be 5 or 6? If armour remains 5 then adding conscript to Russia could make sense.
You don't have to stick to the common way units work. Now TripleA allows many more options. At these income levels, however the infantry fodder should be 4 or 6 at least, in cost. For realism, maybe try to have air units cheap enough that Germany will spend about half of its income in them (as it did, historically).
Scrambling-Intercept during factory bombings?
Absolutely yes. Fighters are more effective than AA Guns to defend against bombing raids, unless you are in a state of great inferiority.
Techs?
It's hard to make a very good tech system, and it is not too necessary for WW2 (the rockets and the nuclear bomb were the only two major inventions that are not merely innovations of already existent units). My suggestion is to finish the game without tech, then eventually consider adding it, keeping it optional.
Adding sochi to give Rus opportunity to place ships in Black sea?
The Russians were building one battleship and several other units in the Black Sea, until the Germans invaded. The Germans captured the incomplete battleship. So, the Russians were certainly able to produce whatever naval units in the Black Sea, though this is not important, as you most likely don't want to do that.
Making Rus neutral towards UK and USA?
The Russians allowed allied air units to land on their territories. Non-Soviet land units never operated in or from Soviet territory, but this doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have.
Are bunkers-trenches needed?
They were a major element at least in German expenditure, but a major problem with such things is that they only defend a front-line, while TripleA games completely miss this feature (for example, if you place a fort in N.France, it will defend both from sea borne invasions and from land invasions, while it should only do one or the other). This problem can be tempered by making such units non-capturable.
Dividing Norway?
It's certainly big enough to be split.
Merging Benghazi and Tripoli?
Bad idea.
-
UK can already reinforce Egypt with two ways with building factory on Iraq or sending fighters from sea of Gibraltar.
The different sea zone connections on Malta and Sicily represent import location of Malta in expense of being worthless while it is vice versa in Sicily its worth but with a less important location. Had Sicily connected both seas then what is the purpose having two islands with exactly the same purpose.
Should Sardinia be surrounded with only one sea zone and worth 1? Cyprus is not needed unless we can create a useful situation like Malta or Crete.
Spain will most likely me Impassable, so no Baleares.
Without Stalingrad could you tell me how could the Soviets defend their southern side when Germany will be able to produce 7 units on Ukraine if wanted unless we design Soviets doomed to fall.
Again without Rzhev connection there would be no way to reinforce or make Leningrad deadzone as Soviets. I already would want to make Russia weak enough but not doomed to fall.
Norway going to be splitted.
I have mixed feelings at splitting Libya because in this case it would render one specific tactic which reinforcing Egypt from sea of Gibraltar. And having two adjacent worthless territory is kinda lame. I would rather merging Algeria-Tunis (1), Tripolitania (1) and Cyrenaica (0).
Romania is 6 because I am thinking adding Romania as separate country which also control Hungary. And USA can't be 200 either because the US didn't use all of its oil and having oils beyond demand can hardly be cound while entire Romanian oils were very important for Germany plus Hungary-Romania-Bulgary had decent Industry and army unlike some other oil rich regions.
Switching Alliances its not easy and confusing but France can be 3.rd Axis country too instead Romania with controlling all of France. It is interesting concept and having France as Axis would definitely separate it from other WWII maps. But major downside it it would prevent Germany to use French coasts for naval bases.
4 is too high for fodder. V3 unit costings are great only maybe armour should be 6.
Couldn't the land and sea defensive structures be separated like adjusting sea forts more effective against amphibious invasions?
What about merging Germany-Denmark, France-Benelux or Germany-Benelux to represent better "fortress Europe" as Allies perspective?
-
@Schulz said in Would it be considered a good drawn map?:
UK can already reinforce Egypt with two ways with building factory on Iraq or sending fighters from sea of Gibraltar.
That is forcing alternate history. The United Kingdom didn't produce any armaments outside of itself, Canada and Australia, with the exception of a small production of basic munitions and equipment (mostly only shells and rifles) in India and some military output from South Africa.
I believe producing any British military units in Iraq, Iran or Egypt would make virtually no sense.
Instead of having Africa, you could have a bunch of sea zones on the lower part of the map, through which you can move transports between the sea zone next to Morocco and the sea zone next to Egypt, similarly to how you would do it by sending the transports around Africa. At start game, you could have one or more transports with military cargo, each of which is in one of these sea zone (that you can move to offload their cargo into Egypt, Transjordan, Iran or Iraq).
Sending aircraft to Egypt (beside shipping them disassembled in transports, that is not supported by TripleA in a direct way) was, as far as I know, not done via Malta (that had already enough problems) (I don't know if maybe it sometimes happened, though), but via the Gold Coast and Nigeria (mostly reaching the Gold Coast in transport ships).
-
In a World map how could Britain protect Egypt realistically? both UK, South Africa, Australia all very far away and having Indian fac only to reinforce here wouldn't be realictic much either.
Nobody would want to use the hypotetical sea zones because of huge distance.
3.rd attemp to represent better Case Blue
-
@Schulz Given that the map is mostly land, cost 6 armor makes sense. It makes blitzing across Europe a bit more difficult.
I don't have a problem with factories in the Middle East. To me, a factory means making a major logistical commitment to the area, such as occurred historically when the British created the round the Cape supply route.
You might want to include the Pripyet Marshes as an impassable area. It creates some interesting tactical effects and hinders the Germans a bit.
You should give the Russians some lend-lease so they don't get too behind the Germans in production.
-
@RogerCooper said in Would it be considered a good drawn map?:
You should give the Russians some lend-lease so they don't get too behind the Germans in production.
Good idea! Especially since here the map is missing the routes through Siberia or Iran, that all together accounted for the vast majority of the lend lease, the matter can be simplified with a system by which the United States can give some resources and Russia receives most of them (the difference being shipping costs) with a delay of several rounds.
I'll, however, point out that the United Kingdom received much more aid from the United States than anyone else, comprising the Soviet Union, did.
-
I don't like really having impassable region in the middle of war zone when Siberia-Sahara passable in here.
-
@Cernel You use a convoy box and/or national objective.
-
Alternate Pacific and Indian Oceans drawings.
-
@Schulz Nice map. I like the relative lack of distortion compared to many other maps.
-
Thank you. I would just want to give every territories and sea zones a purpose even if they have no value likethe Southeastern Pacific Zone. It is single territory because additional sea zone in here almost would never been used and it would reduce already relatively unimportant Southeastern Pacific Area. Currently its main purpose is preventing USA landing ANZAC within 1 round with ground units logically.
-
After intensively thinking I decided to make world map because it will be already possible to turn it into European map if somebody intend.
Different aspects which will separated it from most other WWII maps but mostly it will be with v3 units and rules.
More realistic incomes: Germany and USA will be relatively more stonger
Double Sea zones in English Channel: Giving Germany opportunity threataning Allies shippings with submarines and air units considering Germany will start with French factory and most sea territores will be blockade zones.
German Mediterranean: Germany will touch Adriatic.
Russian's "life of road": Lake Ladoga is connected to lake of Onega which connects to Barents sea. Russia will need naval presence on the lake to reinfore easily Leningrad. Russia will have a specific cheap naval unit for this task which transports and defends.
Siberians: Russian special unit with 2/3 stats and 3 Pus cost but can be placed on only south siberian factories and Russia starts with Mongolia.
The issue is I'am undecided about the starting date. First option is Germany-Italy starts on prior of Barbarossa and Japan prior of the attack on Pearl harbour timelines the other one is either December 1941 or May 1942.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login