Possible revision on Europe (1999) map
-
Still working...
- Victory is achieved when you capture your first enemy capital.
- V3 units and rules with a few exception. Cruiser cost will be 11 and carrier defense will be 1.
- I am not sure if 50 armour cost is so cheap when infantry is 30.
-
@schulz I think that, if the southernmost circle is representing the city of Baku (so not the whole Azerbaijan), Georgia should be named Transcaucasia (as it would represent both Georgia and Azerbaijan).
-
Here is the first draft;
-
@schulz I dislike the Domination-Shanghai-style cities, especially for a small city like Stalingrad, as it makes no sense having Stalingrad and not Kiev as a city, and, in my opinion, it was sensible in the original map only as long as you would consider that the circles were merely extensive territories just like any other territory.
I'm not seeing how it is a good idea to have a Romania (which, by the way, I believe was called Roumania or Rumania in English, back then, Romania being only the ancient Latin name) power, for a number of reasons.
1- Roumania was a minor ally of Germany, not anything on the same political level: it would make no sense for Roumanian units to be able independently to annex territories their armies conquer.
2- Roumania was integrated and subordinated within the German chain of command, so it should better be able to attack together with the Germans.
3- Having historical Roumania, Hungary and Bulgaria as a single player makes no sense because they were rather united only by their common subordination to Germany. In particular, Hungary and Roumania hated each other so much they couldn't possibly operate together and Bulgaria was hardly an Axis country at all: having been forcefully allied to Germany and never at war with Russia (It's about the same thing as Pakistan being an allied of the United States during the war in Afghanistan.).
4- Odessa and a large part of the Odessa territory was annexed to Roumania, not to Germany, making impossible properly to represent the ownership of the Odessa territory unless Roumania is part of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_Kingdom_of_Romania_(1941–44) -
@schulz About Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete being part of Italy: they should rather be part of Germany.
Yugoslavia was eventually fully split into an Italian and a German zone, but most of it was under German control, or would-be control, despite the hollow Italian protectorate over Croatia. Though, the Italians did have a big piece of Yugoslavia: something like one-third of it after the failed state of Croatia was split between Germans and Italians too. An alternative would be actually to split the Yugoslavia territory into two (or more) territories.
Greece was mostly under Italian occupation, yet I believe the Germans were getting most of its productive capacity. So, if the production value of Greece should go to a single power, it would make the most sense by far for this power to be Germany (not Italy). Moreover, Greece maintained a single collaborationist government, so the German and Italian zones were actually a single polity factually under mostly German control (I think the Italians made very little money out of Greece, while the Germans made quite a lot).
Crete was still part of Greece, so I think what said for Greece applies to it too and, moreover, most of Crete was actually under German occupation. -
-
Really not much way to represent Battle of Stalingrad which took several months without dividing the city. And it is already the least valauble Soviet circle-city. Kiev is not circle because of aesthetic purpose. Plus the game would be probably end if the Soviets going to fight to take Kiev.
-
If Romania was part of Germany then Germany could use all of Romanian incomes to fight for example in W.Europe or N.Africa which realistically couldn't.
-
Also if there would be no Romania, the game wouldn't be multi-friendly. With that One player can take Germany and the other one can take both Italy and Romania.
-
Yes, Romanian representation is unrealistic but I do believe there should be 3.rd Axis country. I was thinking to add Finland instead Romania-Hungary-Bulgaria but it would be even weaker than Romania and it wouldn't be interesting to play with them.
-
I was thinking giving Odessa to Romania too but Odessa in the game actually represent way bigger area than the Romanian annexed part.
-
Yes, Italian controlled territories are questionable. Just I think it is aesthetically more pleasing to see them as part of Italy and it is not very unrealistic either. Also giving these territories to Germany would make Italy even weaker which I would want to give Italy a good chance to success in North Africa.
-
-
@schulz said in Possible revision on Europe (1999) map:
Here is the first draft;
Sendspace is full of questionable stuff and my security software won't allow a download. Post it with Google files (free account).
-
@schulz I definitely think that what I dislike the most about the drawing (which is overall quite good) are the Shanghai-style cities. Moreover, the capital flag on Moscow makes the connections unclear. In particular, why are "M1" and "M4" connected but not "M2" and "M3"? It is also unclear that "M2" only is the capital.
I don't believe that the Soviet Union economically collapsing with the fall of Moscow is a sensible assumption. I would rather say it rates pretty high amongst the greatest absurdities of the basic TripleA games.
It would be nice to know what month of 1942 the game starts. Regardless, Smolensk has been German for the whole 1942. Hell, even Rzhev (which is 218 km north-east of Smolensk) and Vyazma (which is almost mid-way from Smolensk to Moscow) did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Büffel -
-
Dividing the cities is probably the easiest solution to represent urban warfare. It shouldn't be too easy and quick to take these cities.
-
I agree the Soviets probably wouldn't collapse if Moscow has fallen but relocating the Soviet capital to the east would just delay the the collapse of the Soviet Union in TripleA games because of huge production swings. It is also aesthetically more pleasing to see the Soviet flag on Moscow. I would prefer keeping the victory condition simple as much as possible.
-
M1 and M4 shouldn't have connected, I will fix that.
-
Yes Smolensk should be replaced with Mozhaisk. It would be nice to represent Rzhev salient too but unfortunately there is not much space left. The same as Murmansk.
-
-
-
@schulz said in Possible revision on Europe (1999) map:
- Yes Smolensk should be replaced with Mozhaisk. It would be nice to represent Rzhev salient too but unfortunately there is not much space left. The same as Murmansk.
I agree Smolensk as a name doesn't make much sense with the drawing, but I'm not seeing how calling the current Smolensk territory as Mozhaisk would make any good sense with the drawing or would even be any better than Smolensk. The territory as drawn is in between of Leningrad and Moscow, and it is one of the two shortest ways from Leningrad to Moscow. Mozhaisk (which, by the way, is a very small city) is almost a suburd of Moscow, located 103 km west-south-west of Moscow and most certainly not in between of Moscow and Leningrad: the distance from Moscow to Leningrad is 630 km, the distance from Mozhaisk to Leningrad is 594 km and going from Moscow to Leningrad through Mozhaisk is 698 km!
This is what it looks like going from Moscow to Leningrad through Mozhaisk:
-
@cernel What about Rzhev or Kalinin?
-
@schulz said in Possible revision on Europe (1999) map:
@cernel What about Rzhev or Kalinin?
Kalinin was the name of Tver at the time (so it should be Kalinin in my proposed mapping too) and, as I said, Rzhev has been German from October 1941 to March 1943. Rzhev itself is maybe a decent name and would represent the western (German occupied) half of the Kalinin oblast, but it would be likely better just to have only one territory (Kalinin) in between of Leningrad and Moscow, for example by moving the border between Novgorod and Smolensk eastward enough.
It always strucks me how unconstrained the Soviet Communists were in changing names to cities. Tver is a city with a very old and important history (certainly more important of someone like Kalinin): it seems unthinkable to change its name.
-
@cernel I just named Smolensk as Rzhev and Tver as Kalinin. Do you really want Novgorod bordering with Kalinin (Tver) in expense of severely shrinking Rzhev?
What about the unhistorical Finnish front or lack of Sevastopol which was on the Soviet control? I was thinking to make January or February 1942 as starting date.
-
@schulz said in Possible revision on Europe (1999) map:
@cernel I just named Smolensk as Rzhev and Tver as Kalinin.
I believe that I've already said it twice: it does not make sense to have a territory called Rzhev owned by a power called Soviet Union in any game set in 1942.
Moreover, Kursk was conquered after Rzhev was conquered and Rzhev was abandoned after Kursk was reconquered, so the situation you are depicting (Rzhev Sovietic and Kursk German) never existed at any point in time.Do you really want Novgorod bordering with Kalinin (Tver) in expense of severely shrinking Rzhev?
You tell me.
Here it is going from Novgorod to Kalinin directly:
Here it is going from Novgorod through Rzhev to Kalinin:
Here it is going from Novgorod through Leningrad to Kalinin:
What about the unhistorical Finnish front or lack of Sevastopol which was on the Soviet control? I was thinking to make January or February 1942 as starting date.
Sebastopol is not necessarily a problem as long as the game starts after it was taken or when fighting was drawing to a close (and I don't remember you gave a month until now).
I've avoided pointing out things that are obviously intended, like an Italian Corsica. The factory in Lapland obviously doesn't make real sense (so it is clearly a game-play concession which I guess may be supposed represent German aid), yet I would be more bothered by the fact that German units can be formed in Kiev (which may be a particularly huge share in a game with upkeep costs).
Anyway, I think having Domination Shanghai cities is a deal breaker for me, already, so I guess it's all a moot point after all. Regardless, the map is fairly good, so I wish you it will raise some interest. -
-
Its name is currently Rzhev since we couldn't haven't found a better alternative yet. And Germany could start with Rzhev and Soviets could be unable to retake it along with Kursk in r1 with different set up.
-
If Novgorod is going to touch with Kalinin then Germany could easily take L4 via Novgorod. I'd rather divide Rzhev but that would make Rzhev and the new territory way too small. But Lake ladoga could be streched from Novgorod to Karelia like this;
-
Game will be start on the winter of 41-42. Just not sure about the month.
-
How could Axis reinforce the front without using Soviet factories or building new ones?
-
There is a Lapland factory instead o the Finnish one because I would prefer having two territories between a German and Soviet factory rather than only one for gameplay reasons. Plus Lapland factory can easily help Germany to retake Norway unlike Finnish factory which would be harder to keep. I actually meant to the Finnish Front;
-
Murmans and Kola peninsula are unhistorically doomed to fall but problem is there is not much space to divide these area.
-
As I said I could only remove the Shanghai style cities and even isolate Leningrad if there will be easy ways to prevent these cities (especially Leningead) fall very easily. Otherwise why wouldn't all German players just rush to Leningrad? A good game should make so many options tempting instead railroading players to do only one thing. Alternatives;
- Making nations unable to use occupied factories.
- Introducing naval mines and placing too many of them on the Gulf of Finland.
- Lowering Leningrad's value to make it not a big deal to capture or lose.
- Introducing bunkers which can be placed only factory territories.
-
-
A suggestion, perhaps the cities could be a square, not a circle, then the overflow would be used less?
-
I think circles are aesthetically better. Here is new Leningrad.
-
@schulz said in Possible revision on Europe (1999) map:
- Making nations unable to use occupied factories.
Destroying factories when captured is more realistic.
