The Greater War: A Proper Map for A&A 1914

  • Customizer

    Why not post a map showing your proposed changes?

    Just copy one of Chacmool’s or my own maps and paste it into PAINT, then make your changes.

  • '14

    I think he might want to go rectangular with it.

  • '14

    I would agree with the above points on straits in the game. The Black Sea straits should be difficult to move through, and an additional sea zone would enhance the effect.

    The Denmark straits should be offset by allowing the Germans use of the Kiel Canal to move from the North Sea to the Baltic. German ships could make the transit in about a half-day. Control would obviouisly be contingent on control of the land territory.

    Maybe instead of rail lines on the map, place indicators of where rail CANNOT go. Africa oviously had railroads, but between territories, they were virtually nil. Egypt and Sudan maybe?

    Africa, in general can shrink in size.

    The Chacmool/Flashman maps added Mexico, which was a good addition. Adds an an element of would-if and makes Mexico a serious annoyance for the USA. The U.S. would probably have prevailed in the end, but not before being bogged down in a great deal of guerrilla fighting. Nothing unites a nation faster than an invader.

  • Customizer

    @Flashman:

    Why not post a map showing your proposed changes?

    Just copy one of Chacmool’s or my own maps and paste it into PAINT, then make your changes.

    I’m sort of going for a higher production value than Paint…see my posts in this thread (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30390.15) for sort of the effect I’m trying to achieve. I want it to look just like the OOB map, with corrections.

    As far as rail lines go, I would really like to avoid putting little lines all over the map, unless of course the consensus among the community is that they are necessary. I would much prefer a rule that simulates rail movement though, and I think the PTR are a good start.


  • Think Flash was talking to me (here is my crude attempt).

    I would like to see the coastline of the Turkish Capital (Constantinople) removed from the Aegean Sea. Create a new territory that I named Gallipoli that would include control of the Dardanelles Straight. This would force the allies to take Gallipoli before they can amphib through the Dardanelles Straight directly into Constantinople (like if/when the US comes that way). The Turks capital where they mobilize units is adjacent, so I think they might be able to defend Gallipoli w/o exposing their capital by sea.

    The new SZ30 would include the Sea of Marmara (like the picture) and have mines.

    Optional:
    I don’t see the Russians amphibing from the Black Sea side (they don’t start w/transport), but they do attack the Turkish fleet often. So you could also create a special rule giving Constantinople control of the Bosporus Straight and essentially split sz30 into 2 sz’s (sz30a, sz30b). Whomever controls Constantinople controls the straight. So while the Turks are in complete control of their capital (not contested) they can shield their navy from the Russians in the Black Sea by placing naval units in the Sea of Marmara (which is just an extension of sz30). I didn’t include this in the picture because I felt it might be overkill, and possibly an unessential rule complicating things (but would be pretty cool).

    Also note the extension of the Bulgarian border to the Aegean, and I also like the thought of a Caucasus territory. The sea zones in the Med still need some work, but several ppl have maps showing a re-alinement.

    Black_Sea_mapgall2.jpg

  • Customizer

    A little overkill here; why the need for separate SZs 20 & 30?

    Agree with all the other changes.


  • Yea, now that I look at it a 3rd sz in the Black sea is probably over kill (considering that the orig game only has 3-4 sz’s in the Med LOL). I was thinking along the lines that a new set-up might include a transport for the Russians/Turks in the Black Sea. Was looking to have the Bulgaria coast be protected by mines (isn’t in the orig). Also having a 3rd sz w/o mines for maneuvering would be a good (but probably should have had sz20 extend 1/2 way up Caucasus so that some of the Russian coast wouldn’t have mines as well.)

    So you agree about the proposed Gallopoli territory including the Dardanelles. For the Allies to gain accesses to the Turk capital by sea from the Aegean you have to first have a Gallipoli Campaign and hold the coast (control the straight).

    Do you think it is worth the effort to also include a rule for the Bosporus Straight basically giving the Turkish fleet safe harbor on either side of the Straight depending on the situation. (I think this too might be over kill because no one else gets this ability, and it could be a bit confusing). If your side holds Constantinople then sz30 would be considered 1 sz (it’s only looked at as 2 sz’s for the enemy). By having the territory of Constantinople include the Bosporus (essentially splitting sz30) the Turkish fleet could be positioned on either side of the straight for protection depending on the situation as long as the Turks control their capital.

    1. Placement of the Turkish fleet on the Sea of Marmara side and you are shielded from the Russians in the Black Sea.

    2. Placement of the Turkish fleet on the Black Sea side and you are shielded from the Western Allies if they hold Gallipoli (still have the Russians to worry about).

    You could also give a safe harbor to the Russians in the Sea of Azov as long as they control Sevastopol (and maybe Caucasus). I know that this might not be realistic because from what I have read the Sea of Azov was very shallow (not a deep sea naval port) so it would be strictly for game play allowing the Russians to have the same ability as the Turks. It would also be cool if their was more of a convoy system in this game. Both sides did some raiding in the Black Sea.


  • Are we talking full-fledged rule changes or are we just changing the map around?

  • Customizer

    @1Bean432:

    Are we talking full-fledged rule changes or are we just changing the map around?

    This particular thread is devoted to SIMPLE map changes (moving a border here or there) in order to make the OOB map more accurate to the actual borders at the time. No rules changes.


  • @ossel:

    @1Bean432:

    Are we talking full-fledged rule changes or are we just changing the map around?

    This particular thread is devoted to SIMPLE map changes (moving a border here or there) in order to make the OOB map more accurate to the actual borders at the time. No rules changes.

    Alrighty.

    The size of Tunsia, Morroco, Gold coast, and Togoland should be increased.

    Angola should connect to Kamerun. I know its historically accurate the way it is now, but it just feels so strange to have two territorys so close to each other, but have to spend an entire turn in Belgian Congo.

    Munich border with Switzerland should be a bit more obvious.

    Another SZ that splits up SZ 17. This new SZ is connected to Sicily, Naples, Rome, Tuscany, Piedmont, Sardinia, SZ 16, and the other SZ 17. This new SZ houses all of the Italian navy.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 34
  • 78
  • 7
  • 15
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

24

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts