Proposed Map: Domination 1941

[TheDog]

@black_elk
Re: For the TTs, might this work in Inkscape, have a TT layer for Global and another layer with the additional lines/borders to make the 1941 Domination map.

One one layer = Global (plus other layers)
Two layers = 1941 Domination (plus other layers)

This way it is WYSIWG for both maps and it has no deletions.

Re: Factory Icons, yes stacks is the way to go, as that is quick and easy on the eye, 3 stacks = Heavy Industry. So it might be better as you allude to, to start with a new Industry-Lgt and so add building and stacks to that.

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good not sure if for inkscape you want just the line work by itself to start (only BW) or the sea zones colored in as well for the base layer?

These bitmaps should be identical, meaning if you overlay the latter on the former you'd basically have your two layers as described, at 16816px in BW.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4740bj0l87sbb57/World_War_II_Global_1940_baseline.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/khxkql58g73q1n3/Domination_1940_baseline.png?dl=0

It has Fiji sz adjusted and Samoa shifted. I updated the terrain files for the same. It looks like this now with the quickie paintjob...

I'll try to bang out those units this week, and finish clipping the roundels for the nations I didn't get around to yet lol

Catch ya next round

ps. lol I'm looking at it now and realizing I still need to get that weird ass OOB 4 point in there off the coast of Mexico. Agh heheh

Figures I'd be all on top of it half the night and still miss that. Must have happened when I changed the split in N. America to keep the Gulf and Hudson bay all on the left side of the board. Basically that last transit SZ south of Mexico, it has to hit the TT of Eastern Mexico at a 4 point, or that sz will appear to connect to stuff that it shouldn't. 4 points at the edge of the map are annoying. I'd try to avoid them if doing an original design, but that one is in there OOB, so gotta raise that line. I'll deal with it tomorrow I guess.

ps. Aha! I finally figured out what was making it so weird. Somehow I'd inserted an extra tile while trying to enlarge Hawaii and I had the W. US sz splitting at Mexico instead of including everything there. Whatever I'll have to rework that whole zone now, to get the connections to land right lol. A butterfly flapped it's wings in Fiji I swear and now there's a whole hurricane hehehe. The Domination map will have to just get blanked there until I can it worked out properly

[beelee]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

A butterfly flapped it's wings in Fiji I swear and now there's a whole hurricane hehehe.

:face_with_tears_of_joy:

[Schulz]

Does anybody know is it really accurate to portray Sinkiang as Chinese territory in WWII? AFAIK Sinkiang was ruled by a Soviet backed warlord until late 1942. Sinkiang wasn't part of Chinese United Front. for a very long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_Shicai

[Black_Elk]

OK so I think I got it figured now. Basically SZ 10 just needed to beef up, to encompass all of Mexico on that side of the board, which isn't a bad problem to have I guess. You stay classy San Diego lol

I was able to do Hawaii as a perfect 1000 px square, which seemed to make the other pieces fall into place like some kind of Vitruvian mystery hehe. Was able to get Wake and Midway a little larger in the process.

Hopefully I didn't miss to much else. I'll update all the DB links and the Previews when I get a chance. Haven't touched the domination draft yet.

If the Sea Zones are good, I'd like to return to the border contours like for Germany and such, to incorporate those ideas mentioned a few pages back. I'll make that the plan for the week, just keep chippin' away at it.

Good Q about the Warlord. Not sure, prob Cernel would know. It's funny every time I look at the OOB map with no free Tibet and China looking all extra massive I wonder if it was like maybe the printers in China going crazy or something lol.

[Cernel]

@schulz said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

Does anybody know is it really accurate to portray Sinkiang as Chinese territory in WWII? AFAIK Sinkiang was ruled by a Soviet backed warlord until late 1942. Sinkiang wasn't part of Chinese United Front. for a very long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_Shicai

If you do that, you should also allow Chinese and Sovietics to fight each other because the Chinese had fully retaken Sinkiang (and removed Sheng completely) by 1944 and thereafter the Sovietics launched a (proxied) invasion of Sinkiang at the end of 1944, temporarily conquering about half of it and eventualy freezing the conflict into a ceasefire in 1946, with the Sovietic-backed East Turkestan Republic holding the three northwesternmost districts of Sinkiang, the rest of Sinkiang being chinese. This means you have to make the game into at least a 3-sided game.

In a 2-sided game, I tend to think that the best compromise is having all Sinkiang simply either Chinese or a Neutral territory originally owned by Chinese (Tibet and western Sikang should be a Neutral territory originally owned by Chinese, by the way.). This would mean ahistorically rendering impossible to make the 1944 Sovietic invasion under the proxy of the East Turkestan Republic, but that was a very late and very unimportant thing.

As a matter of original ownership, all Sinkiang was Chinese, but I'm pretty sure the Sovietics would not respect such formalities.

Anyway, although the Sovietics were extracting some oil in Dushanzi before being expelled in 1942 or 1943 and likely were extracting some more after reconquering the region from 1944, I'm positive the entire Sinkiang can be valued having production 0 unless maybe you have a map with total production of several thousands, so it should be a moot point who actually owns it. I'm ignoring the matter of uranium-digging for the atomic bomb.

The Chinese and the Sovietics also had rather extensive border disputes abouth their actual formal borders, not resolved until very recently, by the way, so even parts of the Soviet Union by its pre-1939 borders were claimed by the Chinese, and I'm not sure what was recognized by others. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–Tajikistan_border

In 2011, Tajikistan ratified a 1999 deal (and a 2002 supplementary agreement) to cede 200 km2 (77 sq mi) and 1,122 km2 (433 sq mi) respectively[8] of land in the Pamir Mountains to the People's Republic of China, ending a 130-year dispute. In the treaty, China also relinquished claims to over 28,000 km2 (11,000 sq mi) of Tajikistani territory.[9][10][8] The Republic of China had historically made similar claims in the area.[11][12][better source needed] Tajik attitudes toward the boundary treaty varied significantly among different interest groups, ranging from overt opposition to overt support

[Cernel]

@cernel By the way, that was a good move by Tajikistan, if you ask me. I can see now (with Russia distracted) the Chinese going for retaking those 28,000 square km otherwise...

[TheDog]

@black_elk
The bit maps are looking good, but for the final version I will need them with no white background/paper and a light blue sea for the SZ.

Glad you found that butterfly and solved the Vitruvian mystery.

[Black_Elk]

Trying to find a shape I like. Any thoughts on how to split G for G40 so it looks cooler?

I kinda figured this would be about as far West as the E. Germany TT might reach while still allowing the proper connections for W. Germany.
Probably could just give Hamburg to W. Germany tile so it doesn't get too narrow at the top and so the labelling still feels right. But anyway I was trying to see how far I could push it.

Do you think it's better to assign all of all of the annexations/anschluss stuff to the Greater Southern Germany TT, or just Bohemia/Moravia/Austria and give the rest to E. Germany directly?

Not sure what feels best or looks best. I'd like to settle on something decent and then call it so I don't have to keep changing so much stuff around lol

Then a little stretch maybe...

So it hits the OOB marks?

[Schulz]

@black_elk Imho Germany in 1940 was almost 3.5 times bigger than the UK.

If the UK has 5 territories, then ideally 1940 Germany (including Western Poland, Austria and Czechia) could have 15-17 territories.

I think Nortwestern Germany could have only one territory to defend more easily.

[Cernel]

@schulz said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

@black_elk Imho Germany in 1940 was almost 3.5 times bigger than the UK.

If the UK has 5 territories, then ideally 1940 Germany (including Western Poland, Austria and Czechia) could have 15-17 territories.

I think Nortwestern Germany could have only one territory to defend more easily.

If you say "Germany in 1940 was almost 3.5 times bigger than the UK.", that is somewhat ambiguous and you are saying that "Germany in 1940 was almost 350% bigger than the UK.", which means "Germany in 1940 was almost 4.5 times as big as the UK."

You mean accounting or discounting the territories annexed from Poland?

In my 1940 original atlas, the "Grossdeutsches Reich" is given at 635,214 square km. This comprises Memel, Bohemia-Moravia and every territory annexed befor the war with Poland, so it does not comprise Danzic either.

Great Britain (without Northern Ireland) is given at 228,275.

Based on this data, Germany on the eve of the war with Poland would be only about 2.78 times as large as Great Britain (and less so with respect to the United Kingdom).

[Black_Elk]

I'm sure 15 TTs is fine for the Domination scale map. The split into 3 is more a question for Global. I'd think one would want an E. Germany tile that is at least slight larger than the W. Germany tile right? Greater Southern Germany is not as important mechanically, so it really doesn't need more space in my view, but I think it does probably make sense for the labelling that it extend beyond just Austria alone, and I think it makes the shape of the E. Germany tile somewhat more interesting when the Czech stuff is added to Austria. In G40 the connection between W. Germany and Northern Italy I think could be handled by just a a little strip instead of the whole of Tyrol, just so the Greater Central Germany tile looks a bit more like Austria +, or same deal with Hungary connecting to E. Germany and W. Poland for the standard G40. I think they can kinda contort to match the relative scale, cause things start to morph in that area. I think it's simpler to just bend it a bit, like inflating a balloon or something, instead of making the more important territories into less recognizable blobs like we see OOB hehe.

The divisions I showed in the initial are more like guides, because you need to round things out a slight bit, or the tiles stand out as too jagged and obviously a bit too tiny there. I showed Berlin just to show where it was. But still gives something to work from. You know like combining Baden with what's next door, or putting the Bavaria's together. Probably wouldn't want to go too much smaller than the E. Prussia tile. Like Pomerania or Silesia feel about right for housing enough units, but not sure which breaks people like best for adding some smaller divisions together there. It's easier to make it look good, once we know how many spots there will be.

I think for G the money is the more expedient way to abstract how 'big' they are in relative terms. Like clearly you'd need values higher than 3.5 so they stand a chance right? but we're not really at that point yet I don't think. Basically I'd ballpark based on whatever values the British Empire or the Soviet Union have with everything at 1 pu, then start juicing at their cores. Then see what Axis need to maintain a rough parity after their initial wave of expansion in the opener.

Britain is probably large enough that one could probably have more tiles, but in gameplay terms having too many TTs is always an issue for them. I think it'd be hard to justify giving them much more than an extra break for Wales and Northern England like I did, just as Sea Lion spoiler wild card or something lol.

@thedog said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

@black_elk
If you want to be creative missing icons are;
Industry-Med
Industry-Lgt
Im using Frostions Factory for Industry-Hvy (Yes there are 3 Factories in game)

missing Command icons are;
HQ-Air
HQ-Army
HQ-Fleet
HQ-Submarine
Im currently using

For Air

For Army

But Im sure you can do better

I've been thinking about these, and I think ideally you want something fairly generic that would indicate basically the following...

Air Icon
Naval Icon, with an advanced/sub version
Army/Gound Icon
Special Icon
Factory Icon, with major, minor, heavy/advanced version

Just so that we'd have generic graphics as alts for the sort of stuff available in the standard roster spread, for use in different games. Frostion's Air bases look cool, but they are rather large. I don't think it has a damaged version cause in Iron War it's just a way to spawn air transports. But one could use that with some flames and smoke added. He doesn't have a naval base graphic beyond the anchor, though it might be cool to have something that looks more like a shipyard to match the airbase look. Still they're pretty large. Something simpler/smaller for any units that don't actually move around I think would be better maybe.

Here's where I'm at with the G40 German breaks, after playing around with Hungary a bit so it'd fit the morph again hehe. Basically like giving Sudetenland and such to E. Germany for the beefier shape, and with a somewhat skinnier Greater Southern.

The reason I want to get the G40 stuff in place first, is because we want the subdivisions to just add new lines, rather than moving existing lines. So when I block it in for G40, the subdivided stuff can harmonize with that, with those lines, rather than changing it. Greater Southern Germany in G40 is basically a transit, like it'd be empty for most of the game, unless you're in the final rounds and Germany has already collapsed, so sorta like better to have that zone somewhat smaller and the more important spots above it a bit larger right? Once the spot is sized it's easier to draw the contours so it look alright relative to what's around it.

[TheDog]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

Air Icon
Naval Icon, with an advanced/sub version
Army/Ground Icon
Special Icon

Yes the above need to be generic for all nations, but they also need to be abstract for they represent moving HQ commands as they add +1 Atk & +1 Def to 5 units they are stacked with, see graphic below.

Currently in game for the Germans is;

.

---

.
There are no sub-pens, docks, airfields, this is all subject to change and is represented by simplified multi-function industry (Production, have AA, allow scramble, rail links aid ground units), see below.

As an aside, each industry did have research/techToken production but I removed it for now, to keep it simpler.

Currently in game is;

[Schulz]

@cernel I mean including the territories annexed from Poland.

https://archive.org/details/Tornisterschrift-des-Oberkommandos-der-Wehrmacht-Soldaten-Atlas/page/n27/mode/2up

This source says Germany was 823,505 km2 , United Kingdom is 243,980 km2.

[Black_Elk]

OK sounds good, so basically like the Navy gets an anchor motif, Sub some kindof periscope maybe? hehe wings for the Air for sure. I'll see what I can come up with.

Meantime I think something like this could be interesting for Germany in a super subdivision scenario. Like if you wanted the main Brandenburg tile to cover a lot of surrounding spots to project that way. Here they could attack out of the capital to cover 7 tiles. I think you could bounce between somewhat larger spots for the main stacks, and then some smaller intermediate spots for trading. Here I included Mecklenburg into the main Belin tile. Part of me worries that having the German capital inland might create unintended consequences so I wasn't sure. If one wants Berlin interior, then it could just get added to Pomerania instead, but this seemed like it might meet more traditional expectations from A&A. Basically you'd have the forward coastal spot corresponding roughly to Hanover, and then the fallback spot behind the strait. For the Eastern front we try to get a little bit more dynamism with relatively smaller zones, but still at around that 9x9 threshold. Some spots are just a little tight might have to lose a couple tiles, but sorta like this. I don't know, could be fun hehe

Here it is overlayed with a quickie 1940 paintjob just for the vibe.

[TheDog]

@black_elk said in Proposed Map: Domination 1941:

anchor motif, Sub some kind of periscope

Great ideas I'm off to find placeholder icons

[Unternehmer]

Dear @Black_Elk,

what impassable territory on the map is located in the north of Ukraine?

If it is Pinsk Marshes, then maybe it is more reasonable to make this territory passable by infantry or vice versa by mechanized units on tracks and half-tracks?

If I understand geography correctly, Pinsk Marshes are an obstacle for any army. But they are not more an obstacle than any other major rivers and mountains in Europe like Rhine, Alps, Danube, Carpathians, Dnieper, Don, Volga etc.

For example,
Dnieper is the very wide major river in Ukraine and crossing Dnieper is a nightmare for any army in any month of the year whereas Pinsk Marshes are quite a normal passable territory in winter and summer.

[Black_Elk]

@unternehmer Yeah that's correct. It is meant to correspond to the Marshes tile in G40.

I'm not sure how I feel about impassible territories in general though, or for a custom game. "Impassibles" are map features introduced in Revised A&A, which didn't exist in Classic A&A, and they're a bit weird. In AA50 and 1942.2 there are quite a few, since every neutral is impassible there.

In Global the concept of neutrality becomes more of a tangle with pro-side and true neutrals, but even that game still has 3 completely impassible spots: The Sahara, the Himalayas, and for some reason Pripet which exists solely to separate Western Ukraine from Belarus.

For my part I don't like True Neutrals and Pro Side neutrals. I like attackable neutrals handled in the sort of standard TripleA/Pact of Steel way. Basically using PU value and static defenses rather than a hard rules type thing for that stuff. Though I suppose movement into/out of/through a tile can definitely be handled in different ways than either OOB or the more simplistic Attackable Neutral type rendition.

One of the admirable things Heppster attempted on his map was the inclusion of 'Seasons' into the gameplay, which would make movement in particular tiles 'slower' during a set time of year. Which might be another approach to such a spot.

The idea of seasons feels novel in A&A, but also somewhat difficult to track, requiring more visual information to be displayed on the map in order to clue the player in to what's happening. Also, in the case of the Hepps maps, with many more tiles than just those 3 mentioned in G40. Like he did the same for monsoons in the jungle tiles and such. A somewhat simpler method would be to abstract everything into a situation where Odd rounds=Movement Open, Even rounds=Movement Closed/Restricted, for any territory that one marks off as having seasonal movement restrictions. Basically keeping the cycles there as simplistic and abstract as possible. But then I worry that stuff like this may be biting off more than one want's to chew for a game like A&A.

Sometimes I think tripleA WW2 maps try to do too much at once. Like the seasons things alone would be sufficient for newness, but combine that with half a dozen other new things and it might be a bit much. I'm sort of an odd duck, in that I don't think G40 is the best A&A game ever. Like not at all, honestly lol. I think it tries to do way too many things, and moves too far away from the familiar A&A. The manual is a brick, and it's just not a very accessible game. I also don't think G40 is too complicated because the map is larger with more TTs/SZs, or because it has a few more unit types. That's not really the issue there. Rather G40 is too complicated because the ruleset involves too much tracking and bean counting, too many factions, too many one off situations/mechanics, and critically because the game is set in 1940 rather than 1941/42, with all that entails for an opener lol. Like pretty much my main preoccupations with G40 are more in finding ways to somehow streamline it and make it just simpler to get into or just to parse. But then people do love it, and I do too in my way. It's probably still our most popular game in tripleA, so even if it's not exactly my favorite favorite thing ever, I still wanted to make sure we had a revamp for that hehe.

For another gain of salt to toss on my salty pile here lol, I'll admit, I'm not a huge fan of basic timelines or timescales in A&A generally. The sort of thing that says "a single game round = 3 months" or whatever. This almost always breaks down immediately, with time moving either too fast or too slow for the gameplay to sync with the impressionistic vibe that the player's got going on in their head. I much prefer a scheme where this is left unstated, so that the player can determine what "Year/Month" it is, based more on the position of forces on the gameboard and what's actually happening with the gameplay, rather than on the game round. In my view this provides more flexibility for the players to suspend disbelief and abstract their playpattern to harmonize with certain timeline expectations in a more freeform way. In other words if the Normandy landings happen in round 7, then round 7 is June 1944. If instead the Normandy landings happen in round 11, then round 11 is June 1944.

You don't need to tie it to a hard timetable where 1 round = 1 year or .5 or .33 or .25 years, because the player can create this sense of a timeline in their heads and it's a lot less disruptive. To put it another way, players shouldn't feel like they're running slow and way behind schedule, or playing into the 1960s simply because the endgame goes on longer than expected. The way I see it there is only one time that really matters, and that's the start date of the opening round. If the playpattern for that date feels right in the opener, meaning the playpattern and opening moves fit that sense of a "starting point" that's all you really need. The player will supply everything else in their imagination, and it's better when this isn't hindered by an hourglass that could only ever be a distortion anyway, since the game is turn based hehe.

I don't know if my take on that stuff is a majority view though. Many tripleA map designers seem to like the idea of attaching a game round to a set length of fixed time, but I just think it inevitably comes unhinged. As soon as you state the timeframe in terms of game rounds, something on the gameboard will happen to shatter that impression. So I like something that's more binary on/off, if one wanted to include such a feature for restrictions on army movement in spots like the Marshes, or the Desert, or for some of those Sea Zones in the Arctic or whatever.

As Cernel mentioned somewhere, I think earlier in this thread, virtually no territory on the gameboard would have been truly impassible for a modern army, and there are mountain passes and such going back to ancient times. Just like it's hard to imagine Spain or Turkey being totally impassible based simply on a political situation. It might be more costly and logistically challenging sure, but not really an invisible wall like the game tends to treat this stuff hehe.

The whole purpose of the Sahara seems to be just making Egypt a more critical tile, and to make it somewhat harder for either side to just sweep the African continent with a couple blitz moves like in Classic. The Himalayas seems to do something similar with China/India vs Japan's movement. Pripet seems to exist to force the Germans to split into 2 main stacks rather than just a single big ball of fury on the Eastern Front, but it's kinda slim even for that, and just sort of makes the importance of Bryansk and Belarus more pronounced relative to their neighbors. Not sure that people would even want to see stuff like that in a more subdivided map, but they exist here purely for the G40 adaptation.

Here is a quickie paintjob, showing White border lines and standard color fill for G40

Here's the same but with Black border lines, and punched up/colored borders. Basically you can change the opacity/gradient depending on how much of the terrain one wants to show through or how much color one wants to see on the borders vs interior of the tiles. Black lines tend to make the boundaries feel a bit more subdued, whereas white makes them pop a bit more. Some of it comes down to the value of the colors chosen (how light or dark they are, especially relative to the SZ color choice.) I'm not sure which presentation I like better, so I keep bouncing back and forth on that one. Also because it helps me to locate floating pixels while working hehe.

Looking at the way that one previews when downscaled I almost think something wider than 5 px might be better. It's basically that odd/even split thing again, when depending on the scale the machine will struggle to fill in a 1px gap. Since for the preview I had to go under 20%, some of those lines display slightly thicker than others in the preview. Or could just be the hard and fast way I did the baseline layer there, cause I didn't isolate the Ocean tiles like I should have they show some opacity changes which could be creating that visual effect. Not totally sure. I think as long as they don't completely disappear we're probably ok and I can clean up the final for either approach lol.

I also tried a version with White lines at Sea and Black lines on land, then another version that just showed colored borders with no interior fills for either color, just the terrain at 100% opacity, but I quite didn't like the way those carried as visuals. Just felt too frenetic and too patchy somehow.

I think most players would have clear preference for one or the other, either White boundaries or Black, sorta the same way they might like light blue or dark blue for the Oceans, depending on whether they vibe more on a Classic or Revised style palette overall. I think digital players will almost certainly prefer a color fill/gradient, since this is the main advantage of the digital game over the physical one where people have to use roundels to indicate ownership. Also for the whole "paint the map your colors" appeal.

I'll probably do at least 2 versions, one black lines and one white lines - and then probably 2 versions of the paintjob, one that has a more Digital play color fill, and another more Analog (Terrain) like the OOB look, just to keep everyone happy hehe.

The colors chosen for each nation here would depend somewhat on the desired opacity of the painted layer atop the terrain relief layer. The more opaque that painted layer is, the closer it will display to the nation's HEX color. Also the darker the color-value of that nation's HEX, the more the terrain layer underneath will read through it. For example if I make Germany 100% black, rather than 50% Gray for their HEX color, then the terrain in TT's they control will show through completely, and the German TTs will just look like whatever the terrain color is underneath, mostly dark green where they're starting. So it's a bit of a balance there. The closer the HEX color is to a midrange value, the better it tends reads in that sort of display, showing the difference in Hue more than Value/Sat. People have wildly different color preferences though, so I'd anticipate players may just change the HEX codes in mapProperties to suit their tastes there. So really we're just giving a default suggestion there, for something that the player should be able to change. The limiting factor there is mainly the unit tints, since I don't think tripleA has a built in colorize feature for that yet, and it's been a few years since the idea was first floated. Doing it manually can be annoying, just because of the sheer number of tiny images involved. Like you might take the time to open 30+ units in GIMP and colorize each one individually for one Nation, but doing that for each nation is a definite chore. I'd maybe try for 2 tint sets for each basic nation/color, and then just put those somewhere that players could quickly download them. So for example, if you want Japan to be Orange instead of Ochre, or Germany to be Blue/Gray rather than Black, you could just download that set and be good to go in a few quick clicks.

Also thanks for the feedback! That was big old ramble on my part lol, but just kinda sketching out my thoughts for some of that stuff, to see what resonates with others or if I'm way off base heheh.

Catch ya in a few!

ps. Also talking about the marshes made me realize that somehow the Bryansk connection is off lol. I thought I fixed it but maybe got lost in the shuffle. Basically just need a line to split that connection W. Ukraine to Bryansk cause right now the Ukraine TT is separating them. I'll fix it in the baseline and on the next pass.

Here is the corrected baseline with the Oceans painted back in. I caught a couple openings in a few spots so closed those up. I folded E. Prussia into W. Poland tile, and the stuff along the Gulf coast, just so it could match the OOB presentation. For Tibet I'd just make it part of the mountain tile there. Some extra islands are depicted that aren't really necessary, but they can just be folded into an adjacent tile I'd think. Just give a few more places to put some centers. I beefed up Smolensk and Volgograd a little bit as well.

Global
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4740bj0l87sbb57/World_War_II_Global_1940_baseline.png?dl=0

Here's the Domination one to match
https://www.dropbox.com/s/khxkql58g73q1n3/Domination_1940_baseline.png?dl=0

[TheDog]

@black_elk
I notice that the Domination map has lots of extra SZ, this means ships will have to move 3, maybe 4.
I thought for SZ we were going for the same SZ as Global 40 ? So ship movement was 2.

I am not a A&A WW2 player, but my gut tells me that ship move 2 would overall be better.

[Unternehmer]

Dear @Black_Elk,

thank you very much for your feedback!

I am sorry, but I still don’t understand why Pinsk marshes are impassable when they are “much more passable” than Rhine, Carpatians, Danube, Dnieper, Don, Volga etc.

To my mind, “impassable territory” should only stand for real impassable territory (like the Sahara Desert) impossible to cross by any army. Impossible means “really absolutely impossible at any time of the year”.

Pinsk Marshes are passable difficult terrain only in spring/autumn and are passable normal terrain in winter/summer.

So, Pinsk Marshes are passable at any time of the year and are more passable than any major rivers or mountains in Europe. And of course, Pinsk Marshes are much more passable than any jungles in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

To the idea, that “Pinsk Marshes divide front in two separate parts”:

If Pinsk Marshes divide front in two separate parts, then this statement even much more corresponds to Rhine, Carpatians, Danube, Dnieper, Don, Volga etc.

For example, Carpatians really divide front in separate parts much more than Pinsk Marshes because Carpatians are always a passable difficult terrain whereas Pinsk Marshes are passable difficult terrain only in spring/autumn and are passable normal terrain in winter/summer.