Realistic WWII Scenario
-
@schulz As I said, that is just the world out of which you can crop what you want. For example, here it is the 2nd and 3rd sixthies of the map from the 30 parallel upwards but cutting most Arctic:
-
@schulz said in Realistic WWII Scenario:
- We could simply assume when maps get bigger the individual units represent smaller military components. Game will probably just cover between Jun42/Sep43 15 months of period (1 round=2 weeks) which also manpower wasn't a scarce resource yet. The problem can also be solved by making units really expensive compared to territory values.
I completely disagree: as long as you have enough resources, forming 100,000 infantrymen doesn't take any longer than forming 1,000 infantrymen, in a strategic game (in which a unit of 1,000 is just a parcel of army-sized units).
-
@cernel Probably there is nothing much can be done. If the frontlines going to be accurate, it is not possible to have fewer territories. My main criterion was based on Rzhev salient for example. Here is the current draft which was originally a WW1 map.
-
@schulz Maybe a partial solution is having territories remaning contested across rounds. So salients like Rzhev may be represented as parts of contested territories.
-
@cernel Amount of territories on the Eastrn front can actually be decreased 50% by merging them with an adjacent territory in expense of sacificing historical borders and relatively small Leningrad and Crimea. Here is example how would it look like.
-
@schulz If you are doing map at this scale, you probably should not have the US on the map at all. Instead, have an off-board area that connects to the Irish Sea and give the US a gradually increasing income.
-
@schulz I love what you are trying to do. No need to go back to larger territories, just increase movement. Unit densities in TripleA are too high anyway, it's ok if if falls. I think if for example infantry movement is 2 and tank movement is 4, and you have ways for players to have can openers or otherwise break through thinly-held areas, you can plausibly say that a turn is 3 months. Then it would not be unrealistic to have production.
-
@rogercooper I am still uncertain about these Atlantic sea zones too.
-
@andrewthree I was thinking increasing movement of all units too but I am afraid it could make calculations too hard. But definitely somethings should be different. What about limiting stacks per territory or limited battle rounds? Terrrains?
-
@schulz I am working on a ww2 Europe map with lots of areas and have both a stacking limit for ground units and greater movement, and limited rounds of combat per battle
-
Still progressing;
-
@schulz Are you not giving ships the ability to reach Murmansk or Archangel from the Norwegian Sea?
Beside this, a major issue with such a drawing is that the shipping from the United Kingdom circumventing Africa to fuel the armies fighting in Libya and Egypt (against Rommel) cannot be represented. That is by far the main way that those British armies were formed and supplied (next being India, which supplied mostly manpower). Of course, there were no factories in Egypt producing armaments and virtually no soldier fighting from Egypt was Egyptian.
-
-
Probably not because there would be almost no reason to use this route.
-
Really I have never seen any TripleA map that UK can reinforce Egypt via Britain. Even extenting the map towards India won't solve the issue totally. Preventing UK to reinforce Egypt would be unrealistic too. Another alternative might be just not representing the Western desert campaign but including Morocco-Algeria and Tunisia only.
-
-
@cernel I don't view a factory as necessarily being a center of industrial production. I view as a logistics center. So in that sense, Britain having a factory in Egypt makes sense. It also makes sense for the US to have a factory in Britain.
-
@schulz what about a connection between atlantic and the gulf of suez or eastern med?
-
@rogercooper Great point
-
@andrewthree I think extending Africa towards Cape Town wouldn't have much effect due to massive distances. Seems like the only reasonable choice is extending the map toward India but that would mean extending Asian Russia as well. There would be just too many territories without much importance.
-
@schulz Is it possible to warp the territorys to be smaller like in GW 1936
-
Some critic areas should definitely be enlarged while the others which see little action should be shrinked. But I just really don't like extreme distortions.
Since the point of making it realistic as much as possible there is really not much way to have overall less territories either. Siege of Leningrad, Rzhev, Stalingrad, Uranus, Normandy, Bulge etc... all really require relatively small areas to represent properly in a very realistic map.
-
@schulz ok it was just an idea
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