Realistic WWII Scenario
-
@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
-
Here is the first completed draft.
I would appreciate any kind of help to reflect the true situation of 1 April 1942 especially territory values and army compositions.
-
@schulz how far will infantry move?
-
I am thinking to have 2 differend kind of infantry, one of them will move by 1 the other will move by 2.
-
@schulz makes sense to me
-
@schulz said in Realistic WWII Scenario:
Here is the first completed draft.
I would appreciate any kind of help to reflect the true situation of 1 April 1942 especially territory values and army compositions.
This map looks like a New World Order 2.0: the scope of the map is almost exactly the same as New World Order (the main exception being that the northern half of Norway and all the Kola peninsula are cut out) but better in shape historically (New World Order has a very bad territory drawing (and naming) on historicity.).
If the rules are not too different from Revised, this can be seen as a historically improved alternative to New World Order, which used to be a popular game and still has a decent number of followers.
Of course, since the game starts at a much later date, the game is not going to be similar (thankfully, since seeing Germany attacking France and the Soviet Union at the same time is horrifying).
Here are some numbers to compare distances between this map and NWO:
Couples of territories: minimum number of territories in between for this map/NWO
Berlin - Moscow: 7/8
Berlin - Stalingrad: 10/8
Moscow - Leningrad: 3/3
Moscow - Stalingrad: 3/2
Definitely much better than New World Order for these numbers: Berlin is farther away from Stalingrad than from Moscow, and Moscow is at least not closer to Stalingrad than to Leningrad.I don't like much the shape of your Moscow territory (which I see groups the cities of Moscow, Tula and Kolomna into one single territory). I don't think that you need to represent the german salient east of Tula: that (as well as the maximum German advance in 1941) is more like something which can be seen as a temporary penetration into a territory. Also, at this scope, I think it would make sense to have Moscow and Tula as separate territories, especially since I see that you have the nearer Mozhaisk and Moscow as separate territories.
You'll need to have something (like the ability to retreat in place) if you want to have a reason to represent Crimea as a contested territory (starting the game with both German and Soviet units inside itself). Also deciding whether Crimea is German or Soviet owned at start game.
-
I think the maximum German advance in 1941 is better captured by the situation on 31 October 1941, when the Germans alted all offensive operations (until about mid November).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_-_Kesselschlachte_bei_Vjazma_und_Brjansk_1941.pngAs I said, I tend to think that the further advances made by the Germans from mid November to early December are too temporary and limited to be used to define territorial borders. It would be nice, however, to visualize a map of the territorial changes between 31 October and 5 December 1941, to see if that can be of any use.
After having seen your current drawing, I'll definitely say that, if you have unlimited combat rounds, one round must be representing about half-a-month (about 15 days). Thus, 24 rounds would by 1 year. Thus, a battleship, for example, should take more than 48 rounds to be formed.
-
@schulz said in Realistic WWII Scenario:
- Really I have never seen any TripleA map that UK can reinforce Egypt via Britain.
That is because no TripleA map is a realistic WWII scenario (which is the name of this topic).
-
Berlin - Leningrad 6
Berlin - Moscow 7
Berlin - Stalingrad 10Moscow - Leningrad 3
Moscow - Stalingrad 4The only issue for me is it feels like Moscow is in too much north. But it is not much easy to move it to the south while keeping the same distances and keeping all territory sizes relatively similar. I've tried to reflect both of the situations (30 October-5 December) but didn't really work.
-
@schulz said in Realistic WWII Scenario:
Berlin - Leningrad 6
Berlin - Moscow 7
Berlin - Stalingrad 10Moscow - Leningrad 3
Moscow - Stalingrad 4The only issue for me is it feels like Moscow is in too much north. But it is not much easy to move it to the south while keeping the same distances and keeping all territory sizes relatively similar. I've tried to reflect both of the situations (30 October-5 December) but didn't really work.
Moscow can be there, albeit barely, but you should rather redraw the Rzhev salient. You are showing Moscow north of Rzhev, while Moscow is south of Rzhev: extend that salient northwards.
Are you using the Mercator? The problem with Mercator is that it massively increases areas going north. That is why I gave you an equal-area projection. Any map made using Mercator as reference will have either Moscow closer to Stalingrad than to Leningrad or, if you try to keep real distances, northern territories hugely bigger than the southern ones (which will look bad and it is substantially a waste of space in the north or too little space in the south or both).
-
Here is the original map which is probably a mix of Mercator and Smyth Equal Surface
I think both Smyth Equal Surface and Mercator has its downsides. Mercator just look really ugly when going too north thats one of the reason why I didn't include the extreme north.
Smyth Equal surface OTOH is more realistic but the problem is it feels like a squeezed earth which isn't really pleasing to see.
-
@schulz That is some pseudocylindrical projection, like the Ecker IV, actually, which is not a problem since you don't need it to wrap horizontally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections#/media/File:Ecker_IV_projection_SW.jpg
However, I don't understand why you went for a pseudocylindrical since, with your cut, that is going to be barely noticeable, so you miss having straight meridians (making it harder for you to position everything vertically) to hardly any benefit in exchange. -
@cernel You are right, its better to work over a map with straight meridians (like Mercator), I didn't care much about it really since it is not a world map. But If I would turn it into World map then I would use Mercator but cutting the extreme north.
-
@schulz said in Realistic WWII Scenario:
Smyth Equal surface OTOH is more realistic but the problem is it feels like a squeezed earth which isn't really pleasing to see.
Really, since you are using so little of the globe, that should be next to no issue for you as long as you pick a standard parallel that is about in the centre of your map. For example, a version you may like is the Balthasart projection. But, as I said, you can really have whatever standard parallel you want by simply shriking the image of any cylindrical equal-area with any graphic program.
https://map-projections.net/single-view/balthasart
The Mercator is a very bad choice for a map depicting most of the globe unless you want to have increasingly bigger areas as you go north so to split them into more and more zones representing smaller and smaller portions of the real world. Otherwise, you'll end up with something like having a very small "Italy" and a very big "Finland" like in "Big World", in which you have too little space in "Italy" and "Greece" and way too much space in "Finland" and "Norway" - also ridiculously enourmous Greenland and Baffin Island.
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