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.
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