Would it be considered a good drawn map?
-
-
@Schulz I see you have taken the Europe (non-1940 map) and redrawn it?
Some items, at first glance:
- Either Malta should be in a different position or the sea zone border that currently touches Tripoli should be removed (as currently Malta is as close to Spain as to Bengazi).
- At these dimensions, Crimea should be a territory.
- At these dimensions, Sevastopol may be good to be a circle.
- At these dimensions, missing Sardinia is unacceptable.
- At these dimensions, missing Crete is unacceptable.
- At these dimensions, missing Cyprus is unacceptable.
- At these dimensions, it may be good having Corsica.
- At these dimensions, it may be good having Rhodes.
- At these dimensions, it would make sense having Baleares.
- Assuming that circle without name is Stalingrad, such a relatively unimportant city doesn't deserve to have a circle.
- Leningrad should have the Ladoga lake drawn in a way that Leningrad is land connected only to Vyborg, Baltic and Novgorod.
- The sea zone border with the Baltic should be traced from Sweden to Denmark, especially if planning to have anything related to the Danish straits or the Kiel canal or both.
- The following names are not correct for the time: "Benelux", "Romania" ("Bengazi" is uncommon or wrong today, but I'm not sure historically).
- I think names should be specific, so "United States" and "United Kingdom" are too generic (if you just say "United States", that can mean the "Mexican United States" or the "United States of Brazil", amongst several countries officially called as "United States").
- I think names should not be subset of each other, so "France" is unacceptable if there is "Vichy", "Balkans" is unacceptable if there is "Greece", "Ukraine" is unacceptable if there is one or more of "Kiev" and "Donetsk" and "Karelia" is unacceptable if there is "Vyborg".
-
-
I can't remove the sea zone because I don't want to shorten the route between N.Italy and Egypt. But what about placing Malta middle when touch both sea zones?
-
Then giving Sevastopol 1 and Donetsk 1. Would Sevastopol and Rostov touch?
-
No Sardinia, Corsica, Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes because what purpose would they serve in the map when mostly likely all of them would be worthless except Sardinia?
-
Spain will be impassable so Baleares aren't needed.
-
Russia needs a factory in southern side to cover better. At least it's relative value is so low compared to other maps.
-
Yes I will have to create the lake.
I also consider some changes what would you think?
-Merging Morocco-Algeria
-1 more sea zones in Black and Baltic seas.
-Canals in Denmark-Norway and Morocco-Gibraltar -
-
@Schulz I cannot answer some of these points very well until I know what the map is for. The Second World War, the First World War or what else? I assumed the map was for the Second World War, since it is taken from Europe (set in 1941), but I don't think that a Second World War map can be very good if it is not global, while this is fine for the First World War (that was almost exclusively an European, Mediterranean and North-Atlantic War).
-
I feel Pacific front is just boring in all maps and not needed. And Europe is the only one looks decent even without relief.
-
@Schulz The main reason why a map like that is not really acceptable for ww2 is that most of the British forces that defended Egypt went there from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by circumnavigating Africa and, then, moving through the Suez canal. Most of the remaining forces went there from India through the Suez canal. Neither is possible to be shown with an "Europe" like map. So what is the point of having Egypt if most of the British troops that were sent there cannot be sent? Another reason is the substantial forces operating in the Indian Ocean against the Japanese (6 battleships and 3 carriers, plus the 2 battleships sunk in December 1941).
-
Map makers have to sacrifice realism in sake of balance first after that why would it be important how did the British reinforce Egypt when a turn based games cannot be sufficient to reflect all realistic aspects? It is also good thing, with 2 production capacity its constantly in danger to fall and retreating India is not option.
The Pacific front is boring because its railroaded, naval units doesn't provide strategic options much like land+air units do in land. And US would probably just commit only one front.
-
@Schulz said in Would it be considered a good drawn map?:
Assuming the game is about the Second World War, here are my answers.
- I can't remove the sea zone because I don't want to shorten the route between N.Italy and Egypt. But what about placing Malta middle when touch both sea zones?
Merging the two sea zones touching Tripoli into one would provide more space also for making both Malta and Sicily bigger (playability is more important than geography) without shortening the minimum distance between N.Italy and Egypt (coming from the Adriatic sea). If Malta touches two sea zones, Sicily should too. The concept of having zones (islands) fully within other zones (sea zones) is questionable.
- Then giving Sevastopol 1 and Donetsk 1. Would Sevastopol and Rostov touch?
I suppose you misunderstood me. The southern part of Donetsk would be called Crimea and, then, you may have a circle called Sevastopol, that is next to Crimea, as another zone (so, you would split the current Donetsk into 3 territories, of which one is a circle). I tend to think Crimea and Rostov shouldn't be land connected. Obviously, Sevastopol should land connect to Crimea only.
- No Sardinia, Corsica, Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes because what purpose would they serve in the map when mostly likely all of them would be worthless except Sardinia?
On a map of this scope, at least Sardinia and Crete are a must. Sardinia was a possible major target, that could have been chosen instead or before of Sicily, and Crete was an important part of the war, that had to be specifically conquered, after taking mainland Greece. Moreover, aircraft from Crete can have a reach that aircraft from mainland Greece don't have (the Axis also feared that the British could use Crete to bombard Romania). Since Cyprus is bigger than Crete and it is about as strategically valuable, it would make little sense to have one and not the other. Similarly, having Malta but not all major islands would feel strange. If the map starts in mid 1941 or later, Rhodes and Corsica can be skipped, mostly by considering them part of, respectively, Crete and Sardinia.
- Spain will be impassable so Baleares aren't needed.
I don't believe it was impossible for the Axis nor the Allies to invade Spain. It may be strategically valuable for both, also depending on the value of Spain itself (Spain should be worth about 3/4 of Italy).
- Russia needs a factory in southern side to cover better. At least it's relative value is so low compared to other maps.
Stalingrad shouldn't be a circle unless you want to have a lot of circles. There were many cities bigger than Stalingrad and Stalingrad didn't have any particular defences. It would be particularly absurd to have a Stalingrad circle but not a Kiev circle (both major cities next to major rivers, but Kiev way more important).
- Yes I will have to create the lake.
It doesn't have to be a zone and it may be good not to be (since it is more like a land zone when it freezes). I mentioned adding the lake only as a way to
avoid Leningrad connecting to Karelia and to Rzhev.I also consider some changes what would you think?
-Merging Morocco-Algeria
Not a good idea, even though the matter is less relevant if you are sure that Spain is unconquerable.
-1 more sea zones in Black and Baltic seas.
Tendentially agree, though that would be a huge relative distortion with the fact that the Atlantic Ocean is 3 zones wide only.
-Canals in Denmark-Norway and Morocco-Gibraltar
The Danish straits were between Denmark and Sweden, not Norway. Representing them as a canal is probably too much, but I'm not sure if not representing them is better. In any case, don't forget about the Kiel canal.
Beside ships (already represented by sea units), I believe there was nothing in Morocco or Gibraltar that could have avoided enemy ships to move through, except maybe transports. I think the Gibraltar naval guns were only for defending the territory itself, not for sinking all surface ships attempting moving through the straits (especially during a moonless night). Side note, especially if Spain is impassable, I advise making Gibraltar much bigger (it can be a circle).
-
I haven't touched Adriatic yet because I was still undecided about how to deal with it but definitely I want to keep N.Italy-Egypt distance 3. Probably I will add one more SZ and I consider either giving German factory in vichy or Istria to allow Germany place ships in Mediterranean.
Adding Crimea and Sevastopol (with city) makes sense. I will most likely do that.
Crete adn Sardinia may have some usages and can be added again if Parachute tech enabled. I can't see any usage of Corsica or Cyprus.
Iberia's unit's won't increase over time then end up being very easy target for USA after certain rounds, but if their defense increase over time (like Feudal Japan) then nobody would attack Spain. No idea which approach would be better.
As far as I research Stalingrad was biger cith then Sevastopol. And of course Kiev will be city too.
I added the Lake now Karelia and Leningrad don't touch.
-
You have given Germany too much income. With a starting advantage of 40-28, Russia won't last long.
-
@RogerCooper Are you actually suggesting to sacrifice historicity for gameplay? The relative values of Germany (23 with Czechoslovakia and Austria) and all of Russia (28 with East Poland and Baltic States, and no matter Siberia) seem fairly realistic to me, since the per-capita productivity of Russia cannot be greater than Germany. Surely Russia can, and maybe should, receive a few points more, if wanted, but it should not go above +50% of Germany plus Austria, that would be 35.
I would rather say that the United States (not the USSR) are terribly undervalued, compared to Germany or Russia! The fact that the United States here are only the eastern part is not enough to rebalance, as, if that is 25, the total cannot be much more than 30 (aside from a what-if scenario in which we assume that America goes for Japan first, which would be weird for a map without Japan).
Germany and Russia relative worth are one of the things that are quite right. There are several other things that are strange, like Italy worth more than the United Kingdom (!) (I realize there is the convoy money) and Romania worth as much as the United Kingdom (if it is because of giving a huge value to oil, then Caucasus and Iran should be worth many times their current values).
Malta and Tripoli should be worth nothing.
@Schulz Be careful that the connections are all clear. For example, it is not clear if S.Italy connects to 4 sea zones.
-
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?
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.
Scrambling-Intercept during factory bombings?
Techs?
Adding sochi to give Rus opportunity to place ships in Black sea?
Making Rus neutral towards UK and USA?
Are bunkers-trenches needed?
Dividing Norway?
Merging Benghazi and Tripoli?
-
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.
