Possible revision on Europe (1999) map
-
@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.
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