Gentlemen,
I apologize for my absence from the thread.
Life just gets busy sometimes.
Now back to the map. I have not had a lot of time to work on the map.
So to get back on track.
Seems that everyone is happy with the map itself and it is time to move on to the things that go “on†the map such as Ports, Airfields, etc.
This week I would like to discuss Ports and if we get finished with them then Airfields.
First,
The Port Icons themselves.
I think that the icons themselves are too big and that they distract from the map and don’t need to be so large.
I propose reducing the icon down to maybe the size of the IPC icons. In my opinion this would look better.
Second,
Ports are a game mechanic. So keep that in mind when discussing this topic. Yes, some historical accuracy should be involved but we can’t put a port on every territory, or represent every port that participated in the war. Also ports only function when they are within three sea zones of one another.
I look at ports as something that adds value to a territory.
Example: Morocco does not have that many IPCs nor is it really critical to any master invasion plans. But if you give it a port then that changes every thing. With a Port at Morocco the US can (once captured) transport troops across the Atlantic in one turn, making Morocco very valuable.
Third,
Instead of associating a port with a sea zone why not associate it with the territory?
This would save us from putting two ports on territories like Japan. Instead just put the port icon on Japan and that would represent that any sea zone touching Japan is considered to have a port.
Just my thoughts on the subject.