Also, one other thing. The large Japanese controlled Island to the north-east of Primorsky is called Sakhalin. During WWII the Japanese used it’s Japanese name, Karafuto, which might be a better name to use than Sakhalin. I realize there’s a few other unnamed islands still, but none as large as this one, plus some people might confuse Sakhalin as being part of the Japan capital terrioty and thus they might think that the sea zone around Sakhalin/Karafuto touches Japan. Giving it its own name will help to get rid of any confusion. According to Wikipedia, Japan only controlled a little less than half the island with the rest being in Russian hands, but I would still say to leave it all colored yellow, since the Russians did have to land troops there to get control of it in the closing days of the way. Since its not worth any money it will probably never come into play, but I still think its worth labeling.
IL’s idea of adding a dice roll to how attacking convoy zones work is interesting, but I’m not sure if the game needs any more randomness. Also, if we went with IL’s rules, would that mean that every convoy zone is the same?
No the value on each CB may be different so some convoy areas will represent a higher value of what can be destroyed. I suspect the values will have something to do with what colonies they connect. For example UK will have a small CB off of Canada because thats the only British territory, while Cape Horn CB and South Atlantic will have more action as it may represent india, persia,egypt and eastern africa british territories.
They have maps in the internet that illustrate the primary trading routes during these times. Or you can look at Uboat.net and check out where all the ship sinkings are located.
Remember the value of all the convoy boxes = only the total IPC value of un-connected territories that potentially could be destroyed. In this way some CB are naturally have more trade and a higher potential for interception and destruction.
It’s Friday!
The Fifth draft has arrived!
I have made the following changes from the fourth draft:
Added:
Revised Sea Zones
Corsica
Changed:
West Africa, French West Africa and Madagascar are now British.
Revised the Convoy Boxes.
Reminders:
When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.
The image has been reduced by 50% for faster downloads. (Makes it a little fuzzy)
Unfinished elements have been removed.
This is a work in progress.
Got a question: “When reviewing the map please consider both historical accuracy and game play.”
I haven’t been paying that close of attention when does the map take place? I’m asking b/c the UK has a great deal of influence over the South Pacific and Japan doesn’t.
Side note: I like how the US has the Philippines nice touch. I also like how Japan has all the convoy routes in that area.
I like the map; however, do you have a proposal for unit starting locations? I think thats where at least half of the accuracy will come from. Also I think you should take into consideration that for example in North Africa you may have both German and Italian troops in the same places. (I know that that came up just not sure where that led).
Question: was Africa spelled Afrika at the time I looked it up in Websters the only reference to the alternitave was with South Africa starting in 1908. I hate to be a pain but I’ll look into it, but if any of you know off the top of your head I would be grateful.
Thanks for listening to the ramblings of an outsider looking in.
-LT04
I think Japan has one too many CB. I would remove the one above wake island. Japan didnt have any trade routes there. Also you would need a CB between Hawaii and the west coast replacing the one above the marshall islands.
I would boost the one near cape horn as it was a major point of trade and id boost it up to 3 and the one west of west africa should also go to 3.
The sea zones look much better than those lines.
Also is their any way to reduce the waves to 3 rather than 7?
was Africa spelled Afrika
This was only to the Germans who spelled it that way.
Imperious Leader thanks for the clarification.
-LT04
Why don’t you make your first post a release point for drafts.
It’ll be easier for new people to get up to speed.
Thanks for the suggestion. Will do.
@Craig:
What are you trying to represent with the US convoy in the middle of the Atlantic?
It is just the original CB from the US Eastern Coast moved forward a bit.
Wow Deepblue, you went to town on the Seazones. The new dotted lines look great, and your SZ movement streamlines the zone movement.
Convoy Zone thoughts
Just about every CB appears to touch at least 3 SZs. That may not be a goal necesarily, but there are a couple that do not, and I think it could help if they did.
The Russian CB should be moved down just a bit so it rests on the line of SZ extending from Finland. That would make it accesible by 4 SZ.
The US CB north of Midway, could be moved SW to so that it touches the Midway SZ, as well as the ones East and North of it. It looks like the CB is big enough to still touch the Eastern SZ that it currently touches.
The UK CB East of the Solomons. It could be moved north to touch the Gilbert and Line SZs (which would make it a bit closer to Jap attack) or South to touch the Fiji SZ (which may be more realistic to shipping routes from the South Pacific around South America)
Map gets looking better and better…
I think you should remove the Japanese convoy at Wake… Don’t think Japan had any convoying in that region.
I like the British Convoy in the Western Mediterranean.
I saw some discusion on the US Convoy in the Middle of the Atlantic, well I think it could represent American support for it’s own troops in England and later Europe. Not necessarily Lend Lease.
Thought about my suggestion on splitting the seazone of the Philippines? And maybe also even the Islands?
Gentlemen,
I did not add the Wake Island CB; it is from the original map.
I also did not move the CB near Alaska.
The only CB changes I made are:
1. Moved the one British CB from the Atlantic Ocean to the Med. per Micoom’s request.
2. Moved the US East Coast CB forward.
3. Removed Madagascar CB.
4. Some of the CBs were adjusted due to the SZ changes.
5. Added CB near Palau Island
Micoom,
Splitting the Philippines would be hard to represent on the map.
Craig,
Having CBs adjacent to a nation’s home SZ does not add value to the map.
Last Week’s Goals Review. April 2nd
1. Finalize Vichy
Finalized Discussion closed.
2. Start Sea Zones discussion
Still Open for discussion.
3. Convoy Boxes
Still Open for discussion.
but wait i missed this post:
Vichy France
The arguments that Vichy should not be financing the Germans are valid but…
I have major concerns about the following:
If we just make Vichy France and its territories neutral we are forcing the German/Axis player to attack Vichy on the first turn to A) get the income, B) to reinforce the territory to keep the Allies from invading.
This is not acceptable, I do not want to force any player’s move, the map should allow for various styles of play and tactics.
So… if we can come up with a solution to this problem I will gladly change the color.
The problem: How to discourage both the Axis and the Allies from attacking Vichy early.
The best ideas that I have at the moment are these:
The Axis & Allies can’t enter/attack Vichy territory until the Allies have declared war on Vichy or When turn X has passed. Allies can only declare war during the “Check for Victory†stage of the turn.
OR
Can we treat Vichy in a similar manner as China? Let another player (Axis) control its forces and maybe give them very limited production similar to China or none at all. This way they are not financially supporting Germany but the Axis have some control over what happens to them.
Just some thoughts.
Any other ideas?
Vichy Territories:
Vichy France, Algeria, Northern Algeria, Tunisia, French West Africa, West Africa, Morocco, and Madagascar.Vichy Color Samples
http://www.mediafire.com/?dnrz1jxmahhPlease let me know which color you like.
I prefer the second one with the diagonal stripes because it looks like an old history map that was in the old william Shirers’ Rise and Fall of the third Reich
And it also shows that Vichy is neutral, but really a vassel of what was a German conquest, because it shares part of the German color and has the white stripes of neutrality.
If you made a 1939 map … then the first (french blue) would be much more appropriate.
The pale colors found under the bottom two are not pleasant at all.
Another project sugguestion, deepblue.
I didn’t realise your first post isn’t the first post of the thread.
You might want to put a link to our first post in your signature then.
Makes it easier.
The Vichy Topic has been discussed at length. The compromise that is reflected on the fifth draft is the final resolution to this topic.
This Week’s Goals (April 9th)
1. Finalize Sea Zones
2. Finalize Convoy Box locations
3. Hopefully finalize the map itself (I am not referring to things that go “on†the map such as IPCs, Ports, etc.)
Craig,
First off I didn’t move the Alaskan CB or for that madder any of the US CBs in the pacific. If you have a problem with their location, that’s fine. Where did you want them to go? What is your solution/suggestion?
I think the Alaskan CB is in a good spot myself.
The one out in the middle (near Marshall) I guess is for the supplies to the Philippines. Again I did not put it there.
I never like the one near the Line Islands but I got such a response when I suggested removing some CBs that I left it. After I gave it more thought, can it really hurt?
The only argument I can see for having the US CBs where they are in the Pacific is that it pulls the US quicker into the pacific. The Japanese can strike them without hitting the mainland, I kind of like that idea. It keeps the “turtle†US players from just sitting back. This will force him to protect his assets.
The other argument for CBs near these islands (Line, Gilbert, Marshall) is that it adds value to the islands. Without the CBs this area is void of value. I like this idea too, adding value to the region.
On the same note some people have suggested that the CB near Wake Island be removed. I will use the same argument here, without the CB these islands (Wake, Iwo, etc.) have no value. This gives the area some value. (By the way this is another CB I did not add.)
The current set up in my option will force more navel battles to take place in the pacific.
Second,
I don’t think the map needs to represent convoys that moved up and down the coast of the same nation that is pointless.
So… the US convoy in the Atlantic, can’t it represent goods going to Britain and later troop/supply movements when they land in Europe?
CBs should be a bit of an abstract concept.
Do CBs need some work? Sure, I’m open to suggestions.
Positronica:
Can you address the issue about the lines surrounding the land masses? I find that particularly in the Mediterranean that the lines (e.g.waves) detract from the sea zone. I propose that you take a look at using only 3 lines rather than 7. Is it possible to make a test to see the difference?
I am not the creator of the “waves†nor am I going to put in the tremendous amount of time it would take to remove individual lines (waves) from the map. I defer you to Positronica (wave maker) on this request.
Unless I get an overwhelming response from this group to the contrary, the Vichy topic is final.
You have a good number of CBs, they will help action in the seas.Â
I like the SZs, more streamlined around the North Atlantic and North Pacific.
For the size of the Philippine SZ, it could be split in two (north/south). If New Guinea is 3 SZ, why not 2 for Philippines.
for the sake of mention but discussion down the road…
@deepblue:
The only argument I can see for having the US CBs where they are in the Pacific is that it pulls the US quicker into the pacific. The Japanese can strike them without hitting the mainland, I kind of like that idea. It keeps the “turtle†US players from just sitting back. This will force him to protect his assets.Â
The other argument for CBs near these islands (Line, Gilbert, Marshall) is that it adds value to the islands. Without the CBs this area is void of value. I like this idea too, adding value to the region.
On the same note some people have suggested that the CB near Wake Island be removed. I will use the same argument here, without the CB these islands (Wake, Iwo, etc.) have no value. This gives the area some value. (By the way this is another CB I did not add.)
I would suggest that we keep the CBs and also add some small value to the islands themselves (even if it is just 1 IPC). Too often I see games where the US/UK forces bypass the islands without value for the ones with some value, even if it means by-passing a few INF or not being able to use their fighters for another round on the way through Island hopping. just log it away for another week…
