Does anyone happen to have any red xeno game pieces that they would like to sell?
Making my own WW1 game..
-
I like A&A1914 very much but for better balance Ive made my own map… (without most of Africa for example)
More infos will follow!!
-
Nice map. Great job! :-)
-
Great map. The first name I saw when I clicked on the picture to expand it was “Kanada”, which I thought was a typo until I scrolled eastward and saw that the whole map was in German. :-)
-
Thank you guys!
I will make an english version of the map when I have some time. :-)
Most of the tts are historical correct. I only enlarged Belgium and made India appear in South-East-Persia for the needed production centre of the Anzacs…
The maps needless space in the east has now an IPC chart on it…
Still thinking about an additional Seazone near West Africa for a German sub awaiting its victims…
-
Personally, i’d remove kuwait and sinai. or atleast make kuwait reach persia, so brits can’t land directly on mesopotamia.
Baltic states is a bit weird, but i’ll live with it.otherwise; bloody awesome map!
Sie haben es sehr gut gemacht
-
Great map; I think the borders on this one are just about perfect.
I wonder, though, about the costing for the territories’ IPC value. USA seems a bit high, because I’ll grant you that the A&A1914 value of 20 is far too low. Or do you plan to reduce this during the USA’s neutrality?
Austria-Hungary (Hungary territory, especially) seems 1 or 2 IPCs off. Maybe increase Hungary by 1… or perhaps consider turning the Croatia-Dalmatia-Bosnia territory into two separate ones: Trieste and Bosnia. I noticed that the Austrian official history makes it a point to say how poor the rail network was in this region for moving troops. I like your addition of Montenegro.
As for the Med and Mid-East… I think the Persian Gulf coastline for Mesopotamia is a nice touch. The British actually did land here via sea, attacking the fortress of Fao in the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fao_Landing Would Cyprus and Crete (Corfu, too?) work as non-value territories?
I notice that the neutral territories have no IPC value… do you have something in mind?
Otherwise, this is a pretty good map as-is.
-
Lack of Arctic convoy UK-Russia is a big difference; my games have often seen large UK forces in Karelia.
Poland border should be that of Congress Poland:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Karte_kongresspolen.png
Serbia seems to have a coastline (i.e. Monte); if you have Kuwait why not Monte as a separate tt?
Still don’t see a case for Albania being Italian aligned, but agree with 0 IPC.
Is Greece 2 tts on this map, or does the boder in effect change round 6?
I assume non-aligned neutrals are impassable.
Don’t like the mix of city and provincial tt names - I prefer capitals only for city names.
Wales is worth more than the north of England!!!
How about naval bases on Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria (for repair, but not for building new units).
Do you follow my principle that a country not at war (e.g. USA) does not collect income or move units; in fact has no turn?
-
Lack of Arctic convoy UK-Russia is a big difference; my games have often seen large UK forces in Karelia.
Poland border should be that of Congress Poland:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Karte_kongresspolen.png
Doesn´t seem that important to me. Yes the Arctic convoy is left out but if I remember it correctly there haven´´t been much british troops in Russia figthing against Germans between 1914-17.
Serbia seems to have a coastline (i.e. Monte); if you have Kuwait why not Monte as a separate tt?
Changed that!!
Still don’t see a case for Albania being Italian aligned, but agree with 0 IPC.
In this game neutral countries can not be attacked. There have been actions in Albania so I had to do something with that area. It does not generate Italian troops although… Same with Persia as you can see.
Is Greece 2 tts on this map, or does the boder in effect change round 6?
Greece is neutral until Round 6. It can be activated by the Allies in 1917.
I assume non-aligned neutrals are impassable.
Yes.
Don’t like the mix of city and provincial tt names - I prefer capitals only for city names.ok.
Wales is worth more than the north of England!!!Changed that. Ive read too much Ken Folletts “Fall of titans” …
How about naval bases on Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria (for repair, but not for building new units).
must think over it…
Do you follow my principle that a country not at war (e.g. USA) does not collect income or move units; in fact has no turn?yes. The US/Italians start to built new units when beeing at war.
Ive posted some pics of my original map at the axis and allies facebook site!!
-
Great map; I think the borders on this one are just about perfect.
Thank you !!
I wonder, though, about the costing for the territories’ IPC value. USA seems a bit high, because I’ll grant you that the A&A1914 value of 20 is far too low. Or do you plan to reduce this during the USA’s neutrality?
They do not collect income and do not buy units until entering the war
Austria-Hungary (Hungary territory, especially) seems 1 or 2 IPCs off. Maybe increase Hungary by 1… or perhaps consider turning the Croatia-Dalmatia-Bosnia territory into two separate ones: Trieste and Bosnia. I noticed that the Austrian official history makes it a point to say how poor the rail network was in this region for moving troops. I like your addition of Montenegro.
imo AH was just too strong oob. So I reduced their IPCs but gave them to GE. I wanted the AH-player to feel more challenged by a big Russian Army, the Serbs and the Italian traitors
As for the Med and Mid-East… I think the Persian Gulf coastline for Mesopotamia is a nice touch. The British actually did land here via sea, attacking the fortress of Fao in the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fao_Landing Would Cyprus and Crete (Corfu, too?) work as non-value territories?
Cyprus and Crete are tts where you can land but they generate no income…
I notice that the neutral territories have no IPC value… do you have something in mind?
**Neutrals are safe and cannot be invaded.
Historical exceptions were Albania, Greece and Persia.**
Otherwise, this is a pretty good map as-is.
Again, thank you very much!!
-
You wanted it and I have made it:
The map en anglais sil vous plait !!
-
-
Just out of curiosity what are the rational reason you made the distance Berlin-Paris equal with Berlin-Moscow ? In my map Moscow is twice as far away as Paris. On top of that, the Western Europe got a lot of railways and roads that make movement easy, while in Russia the lack of roads and difficult terrain make movement a pain. So if Berlin-Paris is 4 spaces, I would make Berlin-Moscow 8 spaces, at least on my map.
-
As you can see my variant has 12 Rounds, so 8 spaces from Berlin to Moscow should be impossible to reach for the CPs in that time especially since I kept the 1-tt movement for land units.,
The rational reason is that the size of the tts stands also for the strength of the armies (in this case the Russians) defending them.
The larger they are, the “easier” it is to make big advances into their homeland.
Thats what happened in ww1 when you compare the western and the eastern front.
In my opinion gameplay is just more historical if the Russian tts stay that large.
Smaller and more tts would only make sense if f.ex. German and Russian units would have different attacking/defending values.
-
Here is my Setup for France (in german) for this game
-
Germany
-
US
-
OE
-
AH
-
RU
-
IT
Suggested Topics
