Re: Making my own WW1 game…
Hey, y’all. I was wondering how y’all made games, like this one. Please reply if you have an answer!
Oztea tries to make a map
-
What’s going on with Belgian Congo?
Not sure I like East Prussia bordering Warsaw, Polish borders look off.
-
The congo will be divided into 3 spaces, otherwise it will be the largest space on the board.
Prussia touches warsaw only so Germany can knock Poland out of the war in one turn
-
Good map, a few bad things:
Rio de Oro is French? Put a base at Dakar (FWA)
Where is Belgium?
Rome is too far north, Anzio is a tt?
That same fake Russian roundel instead of the Red Star.
Brazil falsely allied to the USA.
Calcutta capital of India instead of Delhi.
Gibraltar and Hong Kong as tts; I much prefer them as UK ports in Spanish/Chinese tt.
-
Yes, but why is it British?
The congo will be divided into 3 spaces, otherwise it will be the largest space on the board.
-
The current colors are just a rough outline. After I put down sea zones I’ll pull out a microscope and make sure all the territories belong to their rightful owner.
-
I don’t need no stinkin’ microscopes.
-
Here is a preview of where the project is headed.
I am toying with the idea of hexagonal sea zones.
-
Interesting with the smaller sea zones. It looks like 5 spaces from E USA to England and Europe. So, if the US wants to move troops over, they will have to spend at least one turn at sea with the troops on the transports and vulnerable to U-boat attacks.
-
Thats the whole point of this project, so US forces can’t just get shucked to France every turn and bombard every turn like clockwork.
In this game, you would need to build up a big force in England.
The IPC values will probably be 2x their 1940 levels so the US will probably be making 150 when at war and 75 when at peace
My ruleset will probably have CONTESTED territory also, but combats will last D6 rounds, not just one. Naval combat will also last D6 rounds (each battle rolls individually)
Ports won’t have mines, but will extend AA coverage into the sea zone if you also have AA guns
-
Here is some more progress, still a long way to go. Some sea zones need touched up so they merge with territories
-
Not a real fan of the hexagons, they make things harder to assume what is adjacent to what. The shade of the land masses makes it harder/more painful to see the borders between territories.
-
A buddy of mine convinced me on the hexagons to limit destroyer blocking and because the oceans are a featureless void.
Im looking for solutions to the color issue but remember the map will be blown up to 8 ft and have names and rounels when done.
-
I also don’t like the hexagons, especially with normal territories it doesn’t look right in my opinion. But I do get the “non” blocking of DD’s however. But I wouldn’t do it…
Further I would still suggest to change the Belgium, France and German borders.
-
Love the hex idea for the sea zones, I had the same idea a few years back when i was making a WW1 map for my own personal use. You need to make the territory outlines larger/bolder, or change the colour to distinguish better between the roads in the background.
-
The territory borders will be more defined.
-
Ive got the territory borders more defined, but ive got a lot of pixelation around the coasts when I blow it up to 8 ft by 4 ft.
I may have to start from the ground up with my original trace…which would be quite annoying, but perhaps necessary.
-
I noticed Okinawa is right on the border between two sea hexes. Since Okinawa is a small island, you might consider moving it just a bit so it is fully in one sea hex.
-
Yea, thats the next step in this never ending process.
-
Hey Oztea,
hows the map coming along?
I have a suggestion for the sea zones if you are staying with the hexes. I believe you should keep ocean zones as hexes, but sea zones and coastal waters should have drawn out zones like in the official games. This creates a clear image of which zones naval and air bases control over.
An example would be making the sea of japan one sea zone. Split up the Mediterranean, Baltic, Black, Red, etc. seas into non hex zones. Islands are fine in hexes because they are small and able to fit into small zones. But i think continental territories should not have to defend multiple sea zones.
If you create large sea zones around coastal waters this shows the zone of control naval and air bases will have. This will also prevent you from having to split up your navy to prevent an amphibious assault.
Another way to do it without adjusting the map is to create a rule where if your navy is sitting in a naval base. They have control over all adjacent sea zone hexes. OR Battle of the Bulge style. Your ships have a zone of control over adjacent hexes no matter where they are on the map. So if an enemy navy enters an adjacent hex to your navy. The defender can decide to intercept or the attacker can decide to do battle.
To be honest I prefer my first suggestion with the coastal territories being larger. There is no complex rules and less confusing to which sea zone connects to which land territory.
Also these are just suggestions. It is your map you don’t have to listen to me lol :wink:
-
I disagree. I like the smaller sea zones, including around Japan, Great Britain, etc. I think it makes more sense. For example, on the 1940 map, they have 1 sea zone for the US Atlantic coast. It stretches from Maine all the way to Texas. That’s too far. Even if you want to cover the entire east coast, I still think there should be another sea zone for the Gulf of Mexico, with a line going from southern Florida to Cuba, or something similar.
With oztea’s map, the east coast of the US is broken up by several sea zone hexes which I think is much more realistic. After all, you could possibly invade Florida without being affected by stuff up in New York or over in Texas.
Suggested Topics
