There is an entire world out there |
Page 4 of 4 | Goto: previous 1, 2, 3, 4 |
| Author |
Topic |
airborne
Adjutant
 |
 Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:50 pm   |
Can Columbia claim a SC as a third Home Center?
Well if that's the case with Alaska...I still say that Alaska isn't worth a SC but, I'm sure you know what you are doing.
I tried to download the file and just got a list of errors.
Austria could just start with an army in Trieste at least
|
|
| posts: 16 | joined: 04 Oct 2009 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:20 am    |
No, as it is now Colombia can not do that. An idea that I think have been discussed here is having Panama as a Colombian home center that it does not control at the games start. Panama was Colombian until independence in 1903 or something like that; the map is of 1914. Though, if I don't need it I don't want to confuse people with special rules. Colombia will also be able to do colonial builds those times two home centers are not enough, in wichever shape that rule will end up.
To clearify which centers are home centers I have added a map in the first post with the home centers makred. I'm quite certain that China and Japan will be ripped of one of their home centers though (still controlling 4 centers at gamestart though). The Chinese Xinjiang center, previously Ürümqi, to be named Dihua, was in 1914 under the controll of a man who could be concidered a warlord. He didn't reject the Republic or its official suvereignty though, so in a case of world war Xinjiang would probably fight for the sake of the Chinese cause. Nevertheless, without direct controll form China propoer, having it as a home center isn't that snazzy. To compensate Japan ought not to have Korea as a home center. Korea was a new possetion anyhow, and could be concidered a close colony. (The GMs of the second play test removed Korea as a home center, but not Ürümqi)
Leaving Alaska out togeather is an intriguing idea; I have never thought much of changing Alaska. I don't think Alaska is such a worthless place it's not worth a center (They got some boost out of the Klondike Gold rush, even if that was in Yukon), but when you say it it might not be so prosperous that it demands a center either. The issue I've been struggeling with in the area is that Vancouver has a hard time to do anythign else than to fight the USA. In response, Alaska doesn't have much to do but to try to take Vancouver. For my next version I've made it easier for USA and UK to do something else with those units, but that is provided that they have talked about it and get along well right form the start. If Alaska is not a center anymore, it might be possible to turn the Vancouver unit into a fleet, which can of course turn on USA, but also have a reasonible chance to be a pain for Japan. It'd though nullify my "fix" for that army on the version I shall post here soon. That was in essence that Britain could move it's army to either the North West Territories, to be convoyed across the atlantic (the atlantic will only be one space between Canada and Britain on future maps), or, with US help, move it to Alaska, to be convoyed across the Pacific by the USA. Neither is a very likely action though, so this alternative should certainly be examined. Japan is a hard nut to crack, so another nation that can send a fleet on Japan is a plus. On the other hand, USA looses a fleet it can send on Japan.
P.S. In a big extend I know what I'm doing, it's soon been three years since I first begun drawing on the first draft. Chance is that much of what I brought up is stuff I've already thought of. That doens't mean I've thought of everything, or that I've made the right decitions everywhere, so I nevertheless appreciate all thoughts. Even if I know I will never do a certain thing, say adding African powers, you never know what suggestions might lead to; I might notice an issue in Africa I didn't know of, which I then can solve in another way if that's better. So never mind my expertice in my own map. 
_________________
Having an avatar with a vase as headware. |
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:40 pm |
(This post is text heavy. For those of you who doesn't bother so much details, never mind the part after the picture link and focus on the pleasant, historically correct, borders)
Ladies and gentlemen; allow me to introduce the new, improved western hemisphere! I have gone through the Americas, the Atlantic and the pacific in detail and can present to you this slightly snazzier drawn map. There has of course not been time to evaluate the Alaska suggestion, as only the area around Cuba was still to be changed by then. As you figure out the province names on the map is names that are new or have changed since the first version. It will help me when I shall go into the province list in the RP files and add the new ones. Edits I've done so far to other parts of the globe are also included, but I have yet to do a detailed go-through of those parts.
And now, the map
I'll talk a little about the changes.
The first thing you will notice, except my new historically correct borders, is that there are quite a few sea zones that have vanished. The sea zones are now large and few. This is mainly to encourage trans-oceanic interaction, which I have deemed so necessary for the balance of several nations, like Mexico-Argentina. It is also more fun to have several choices in the mid-game; for example an invasion of Europe by a major American power. Besides that I do think it helps a little with the stalement lines that did run through the oceans, even if it wouldn't help as much as doing a major splitting of the provinces we had (which would discourage trans-oceanic interaction). The old layout for the Atlantic f.e. had a line running through the ocean. As the provinces on both sides were rather large only a few fleets could attack cross it from either side. When you don't have this dualism, the actual line will instead appear on either side of the central province, depending on who is the defender. As the province borders many provinces in both directions, both sides will be able to put in at least four units on the province, which requires much more defensive efforts for it to be held. The old dynamics are still there in some places, mainly the southern pacific I think. I don't expect many wars to have the main front in this risk zone however, so when the stalement arises there it has probably already done so at the main front, which should be more dynamic.
Secondly we talk province-wise.
Sonora has been extended to Texas. This eases the tension around the US-Mexican border. Of course it is still possible for the nations to get into conflict, as it should be; however, if I have succeeded here the action shall come to this section of the front quite late of the conflict
Mexico City has been extended to the Pacific Ocean. This is to give Mexico equal naval capabilities on both coasts, which will make it easier for Mexico to fight Argentina.
Cuba now borders Miami directly (it's a Denmark-Sweden kind-a border). This is to give USA a secure build on the home front in 1901 without Mexico bouncing USA to it with a fleet that is easily free (F Mér's other possible gain, Guatemala, is also the most likely gain for Mexico's army). This should also decrease the willingness of Mexico to challenge US interests in Cuba. On the downside it increases US interests in Hispaniola before Colombia is strong enough to risk a bounce anywhere. (Not that much of a gamble for USA to move to His in F 1901 when he is in Cuba from spring). On the other hand, in the long term Colombia's possibilities in Cuba is now larger (also a good point for the US-Mexican situation)
Yucatan Channel is replaced with Gulf of Honduras. GoH does not border Hispaniola. This keeps Mexico out of the islands in a greater extend, increases US-Colombian interaction, as mentioned that is good for the US-Mexican situation.
The South Pacific Ocean is extended to include much of the East Pacific Ocean, which is now terminated. While the border at Cape Horn is moved to the west, the distance between home centers is not any greater; the much increased strategic importance of SPO should spark conflict between the nations. The ease to attack it, from either side, also increases the potential chances of gain in a war.
Gulf of Tehuantepec is mainly there to cut borders between Guatemala and South Pacific Ocean, so that the SPO is a little less Mexican dominated than otherwise. It also gives more room to manoeuvre on when waging war in Mexico proper.
Nicaragua has a small dark blue dot on the west coast. We can't have that! According to my paper drawn maps, I meant for the Gulf of Tehuantepec to border Nicaragua. Wonder how come I didn’t implement that correctly; I can’t recall that I made the change intentionally. Where this matters to most part is weather or not Nicaragua should be in tighter control of Mexico (two close seas v. one), or if it should hang a little looser. Depends on exactly how the power balance of Mexico and Colombia should be. Nothing that can be said without a dozen of play tests or so.
Equatorial Atlantic Ocean is extended to border Mao and thus incorporate CVA. With EQT expanded and becoming much more of Brazilian territorial water, the buffer of CVA is no longer needed. France will have hard enough to bring in reinforcements from Europe with Brazil in the way.
Santa Catarina is added for the protection of Rio de Janerio.
Río De La Plata seemed like a neat thing. It should increase manoeuvrability in an Argentina-Brazilian war. Despiteful name though, having two "Rio" provinces next to each other.
North Pacific Ocean is extended to border Sapporo (right?). This improves the position of USA for an invasion of Japan, as well as the opposite, at a later stage, for a Japan that will have none of that.
P.S. The realpolitik file for Gobble-Earth 0.1 can be found here. I have added the link in the first post.
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:52 am |
I'll identify what I have to do on the eastern part of the map:
Europe:
Can't edit Europe, but Austria ought to be stronger and more influential...
Africa:
I think Africa is quite good. In west Africa I don't think I need any changes, but I have too look upon the issue with Lake Chad. Lake Chad was big in those days and could effect borders.
South Africa needs changes though. Germany shall be the main power, but not sole power. Both France and Britain should be able to win the arena if they play well.
North Africa doesn't have any issue I can see.
Asia:
I believe Asia is quite poor. China appears to be too weak, and isn't involved in the Great Game arena. China has too few realistic choices of action, and must deal with the Russian tension, from the long border. Russia must have equal choices; China cannot be that much easier to take than any other equivalent area. Japan must be invadible, and preferably not impossible to attack for Russia. Turkey seems all right, while India seems to weak for the number of neighbours it has to deal with. Indonesia and the Indian ocean doesn't need any re-balancing, but perhaps a re-shape.
ME has suggested a Jerusalem province, bordering Syr, Nej, Mec, Red, Egypt and Eas.
Please tell if I missed anything I shall remember.
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:24 pm |
Lo and behold people, for I have edits concerning the Austrian issue!
The edits in question are seemingly small. My thought is to change place on the Italian units in east Africa. With the fleet in Asmara Italy will have the choice to direct it towards the Indian ocean, as before, the Arabian peninsula, or Egypt. The two latter should get Italy into conflict with Turkey, or a Brit who is too stubborn to accept a loss of Egypt. Unfortunately for Jerusalem, this creates a pleasant bargain position for Britain while he is still around, provided there's is an equal opportunity for adventures in the Red Sea between I and T. This bargain position could help chill IT relations further. With a Jerusalem only a distinctively offensive Italy would question Turkey in the Red Sea while Britain is still around, as Asmara is relatively unthreatened from the sea and Turkey would have two centers more threatened bordering the sea.
The army in Mogadishu is also pleasant. This army is set to take Abyssinia, and cannot do the harm the fleet have shown to do. The fleet did provide the crumble of India, and would it not do that it would interfere on the South African Scene (granted, probably to German disadvantage, which is a good thing). That directs Italy away from Turkey and creates a long narrow Italy which isn't good for Italy in the long run either. If Italy get more centred he is better protected, and also more likley to coordinate his colonial and home units (ie attack Turkey, or in rarer cases France if France has Congo)
The second edit, which is much less certain, is to put in a fleet in Tripoli instead of an army. I thought, what can Italy do with that army? I wanted to take Tunis and then convoy the army to the balkan. Austria would not approve. That is only the only thing an army can do that a fleet can not. A fleet could also move to Ionian on it's own account, or beyond S 1901 into Turkish or French general area, which an army has hard to threaten. On the other hand, a fleet can in some cases work upon the Adriatic. Though, the Adriatic is only vital in a smaller amount of IA wars, isn't it? In general, I believe that a naval Italy should be less inclined to wage war with a land based Austria (and if Austria goes naval when it is not beneficial to fight Italy I can't help him).
A possible third edit would come with the second. The French in Tunis is an easy grab, and a grab that France would complain about but quite probably only revenge in a limited number of games. A Tunis that is not only harder to take but would also create a conflict should bring benefits to Austria as Italy would run a greater risk of war with France. The question is if some France's wouldn't be even more inclined to give up Tunis, by letting the fleet take Spain in 1901, saving a home unit to do something else. Especially on this possible edit I would like comments, but on the other two as well if possible.
Now I hope to get around to India soon (but I've already improved India by removing the Italian threat. Now it's rather Italy that has to watch Mogadishu)
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:27 am |
|
|
| posts: 1920 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:31 am |
I am quite confident that what I have drawn is sufficient for next version. The problem is that this is drawn by hand and I have to transfer the borders to the computer file, and improve on historical correct borders as I have elsewhere. There's only Asia, except Russia, and the Indian ocean left, so I hope I'm done by the end of the month.
While you're here ME, give me a comment on historically correct borders. I have two choices in southern Africa, giving the same result for the game play. Either I can have the area as I do now, with Rhodesia, Bechuanaland and Pretoria (which will be renamed to Cape Town though, now that the Cape of Good Hope province is gone). The issue there is that Southern Rhodesia and North Rhodesia, while separate entities, was often seen as merely Rhodesia, and that people today think of Southern Rhodesia as Rhodesia. I thus have the alternative of an all Rhodesian province and instead using the Boer republics to have the remaining of Bechuanaland to reach Mozambique, a province that can be named Transvaal (much better than Bechuanaland). Though, it would split the South African Union (i.e. South Africa), a much stronger entity than Rhodesia (it was a dominion I think). What to do?
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:43 am |
Transvaal (Green), Orange Free State (Orange), Cape Colony (Blue), Natal (Red)
Since Natal was annexed by the British in 1834 perhaps it can be considered part of Cape Colony. Then perhaps Transvaal and the Orange Free State could be merged into one province.
Alternately, you could merge the Rhodesian territories (North and South), making Bechuanaland a landlocked province. (This would not be historically accurate since Southern Rhodesia was a Colony and Northern Rhodesia was a protectorate, only coming together to form the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1953)
You could also keep RHO (Northern Rhodesia) as it is, and add the province of South Rhodesia by carving it out of the existing Bechuanaland province.
|
|
| posts: 1920 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:12 am |
Mexico City
I think that extending Mexico City to the Pacific Ocean gives Mexico some much needed flexibility in terms of opening policy. Opening the option for Mexico to fight someone otherthan the US is beneficial for both parties.
Cuba
Interesting decision to have Cuba border Miami. It does make the Gulf of Mexico pretty much a lake but the early secure build for the USA would be quite helpful in fending off an early British-Japanese alliance.
Gulf of Honduras
I think that the Yucatan Channel should remain. Through making Cuba a sure US centre and by limiting Mexican hopes of claiming HIS, Mexico is forced to deploy south for early gains, setting up the stage for a war with Colombia. Then again, it deserves a test run
Jerusalem
I don’t see it on the map. That’s a problem. :p
|
|
| posts: 1920 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:55 am |
Natal is a part of the Cape Town province no matter what; it does not only make historical sense, but Britain must also be able to move to Mozambique. I prefer to have the "gameplay borders" the same, as the old provinces of PRE and RHO or their successors must not touch (Germany cannot have an all Rhodesian province bordering the cape from where Southern Africa is easily dominated), while any increase in province numbers would result in wasteland. I'll show you the alternatives I have in mind, but not right now as I don't have the time to upload any picture this evening.
Glad to see that you think the same as me on Mexico City, I was quite satisfied with that idea.
Cuba-Miami isn't as neat as Mexico City, but alas, it might work. The concept of a British-Japanese alliance is something I'd like to hear more about, because it's not anything that strikes you as obvious. If it's a common constellation, one might want to keep in mind what it does to Indonesia.
Gulf of Honduras. Just to be sure here, do you talk about the GoH version that do border Cuba or the one that do not? If you do neither, and talk in favour of Mexican influences on Hispanola I can nothing but disagree; the de-Mexification and de-Britification of Hispanola makes the province an entierly Colombian-US matter, which I see as a necessary relation. Then there's the question of Nicaragua, which is hard to rule on, but Yucatan never bordered Nicaragua either.
As for Jerusalem, I hadn't even gotten to that part of the world yet! A second Turkish province bordering the Red Sea is though not very consistent with my new unit moving policy on Austria, and a Jerusalem that does not border the Red Sea is too fortressing. The case is doubtful, but it is still a possibility, in difference to a certain island group. (I have a new rule, no province smaller than Albania outside Europe :p)
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:09 pm |
| Quote: |
| Germany cannot have an all Rhodesian province bordering the cape from where Southern Africa is easily dominated |
The situation in South Africa—specifically because it is a weak point in the British Empire—made for some very active diplomacy in the first run of the game. In the second run of the game France made it absolutely clear to Germany that there was an Anglo-French Alliance so there wasn’t too much negotiation after that with regards to South Africa. I don’t see the need to strengthen the British position in South Africa. In the first run you'll recall the misorder of French support for PER rather than PRE, making for some interesting politics.
| Quote: |
| The concept of a British-Japanese alliance is something I'd like to hear more about |
Both test runs of the game have had Anglo-Japanese alliances from early on. In Where the Sun Never Rises and in Canes Pugnaces Britain and Japan were allies almost from the start of the game and thereon in. From WSNR, Britain survived in the Pacific with the help of the Japanese.
|
|
| posts: 1920 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:57 am |
You must recall that Germany has two units on the Southern arena, with the possibility to bring in Kamerunian reinforcement, while Britain and France only has one unit each (although, Britain will now probably be able to bring in Indian or Australian reinforcements, but it will be expensive and impractical). The Cape will remain a weak spot for the British, and Madagascar a securer but isolated French outpost. Germany deserves "her" area to be slightly easier than the "French" west African and "British" Indonesian, but if Germany suddenly gets even stronger it's not a weak but a lost case for the other two.
I must say I cannot recall any Japanese-British alliance in either game. I shall have to look upon it.
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:28 am |
Here is the latest map, where Southern Africa is shown as the new alternative. The old borders in the British territories are still as possible.
I also noticed how I chose to again change the border around lake Chad to the 0.1 situation, but with a slightly different layout (that is the internal border of Chad as of 1960 according to wiki. You don't get any better, as there probably where no real subdivisions as such below the colony in 1914. The same goes for Great Namaqualand and Windhoek). I can't remember why I changed it. Probably something about Germany getting into the fight in West Africa if he wants to, but we cut of Britain from moving towards Italy's general direction if he wants that (and vice versa for Italy). For France it actually increases the access to both Kamerun and Nigeria, as an attack on Nigeria could here be disguised as an attack on Kamerun. I've got very unsure now. Which one will be more fun?
(To clarify, the alternative is Lagos (Nigeria) bordering old Chad, current Ubangi-Shari)
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:18 am |
I was just to say that I have drawn the new sea borders of the Indian Ocean and Indonesia. I would have given you a map, but uploading is so tedious, so it'll be when I've done India and China too. Then there's just graphical issues left, and the map will be done! Once there I can launch it, and hope I manage to adapt the RP files before people are ready to play. (I count with a month between launch and first deadline)
To make a short comment on the new Indian Ocean, even though you can't see it. It's essentially fewer provinces, closer across and the Arabian Sea as a hub (sounds odd right? I only noticed as I transferred to the computer map yesterday). India and Australia is close, which together with the Ara hub will make Britain dominant on this Ocean, which makes sense as Britain controls most of it's coastline. Thus it is mostly a defensive gain for Britain, Mogadishu and Madagascar might be worried though.
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
- 0 Registered
- GoogleBot
- 0 Hidden and 5 Guests
Site redesign in progress...
Please excuse the mess!
|
Sazerac
