Redscape - View topic - There is an entire world out there

There is an entire world out there

Page 3 of 4 | Goto: previous 1, 2, 3, 4 next

Author

Topic

Snake IV
Emissary

Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:03 pm

Because, being a 1914 map, Colombia lost possetion of Panama too early, 1903.

The maps printed around 1914 containing more than India shows Nepal and Bhutan seperate, though not Sikkim, which connects the two. Though, these maps are not 1914 exactly, but slithgly before, and this line is on wikipedia "When Sidkeong came to power, he arranged widened sovereignty for Sikkim from King George's government and endorsed sweeping reforms in his short rule as Chogyal, which ended in 1914.". The maps might show an old status. Nevertheless it's such a silly little detail. If Sikkim would be India, I would make Bhutan impassible and the map would gamewise be exctly the same anyhow, and this looks better. The main thing is that Nepal is not India. The China thing stills others me. If only the gameplay was not so hampered by the 1914 de facto border.

_________________
Having an avatar with a vase as headware.

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Magister Equitum
Ambassador

Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:10 pm

Since the game traditionally begins in 1900, then for the sake of balance (and so that Colombia doesn't feel left out from all the other three-centre powers) perhaps Colombia should possess Panama.

What are the major changes that would be required for the map to be based on 1900 rather than 1914?

_________________
Game History

Standard Russia

Sazerac

SIIN

posts: 1925 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007

Snake IV
Emissary

Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:44 am

The standard map is a 1914 map. 1900 is for easy counting there. I have stated no starting year on my map, people may count as they wish :p

As for the differences between the 1900 situatoina nd the 1914 situation, comapre to a 1900 map. Here's one printed 1901. Now this map isn't the greatest (It see Abbysinia as Italian, even though Italy failed to take it). The Egypt situation isn't clear. Egypt and Sudan was pretty much Brittish, even though officially Ottoman (no difference to the pre-war 1914 situation). Libya was ottoman though, only Italian in 1913. Otherwise note that Korea was not Japanese territory yet, Cuba was territory of USA, Morocco was independent, Norway was in personal union with Sweden, Nejd had yet to take the coas to the Persian gulf, but most importantly the Balkan wars had yet to happen. There might be something else, but I can't recall it now. (Crete was not Greek yet, but whatever)

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Magister Equitum
Ambassador

Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:49 am

Alright, so if we make the changes:
Korean no longer in Japanese possession (neutral), Tropoli and Cyrenaica to Ottoman Rule, and Cuba to USA. How do you think this would affect game play?
[Britain administered Egypt along with local authorities. (Anglo-Egyptian Condominium)]

posts: 1925 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007

Snake IV
Emissary

Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:50 pm

It seems rather odd to have a 1914 map with 1900 starting positions, but if the borders are drawn as in 1900 you have to alter Europe, which the concept doens't allow, and the area around all other changes, which all in all will only be benefitial in Panama with another center for Colombia. And that mihgt not even be very much better, if one also take into account that the Panama canal wasn't opened until 15 August 1914.* The Panama canal should be one of Colombias big bonuses, controling the only connection between the east and west coasts of america north of Cape Horn.

[Indeed Britain administrated Egypt togeather with the local administration, which came to be under British protection because of loans to the west. It was still officially Ottoman, even if Egypt had been ruled pretty much as an independent state before the British, only subject to Constantinople on the paper]

*In fact, that is two weeks after the war begun. I was sure I had checked the canal was open at the war decleration from Austria, but I was wrong. I suppose I went with the date the canal was completed and technically possible to use, which was in January 1914. In case of war here, no one would probably care that the canal was not officially opened.

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Snake IV
Emissary

Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:13 pm

Good news on the China front. Looking on wikipedia (spare info about this) gives me that Sinkiang was not claiming independence 1914 and pledged loyalty to the Republic, which means a unit there isn't any issue at all. Having it as a home center still isn't very neat. Tibet did not pledge any loyalty having declared independence 1913, but wikipediatexts suggest that Tibet did only controll the Tiber province of the Republic, smaller than the Tibet we know.(For example, Chamdo isn't taken until 1917, and within todays Tibet) That would make for a border as Ürümqi and Chengdu has it today (Ürümqi is to be named Dihua, fortunally). It is a change of so low decency that it might be worked out.

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Snake IV
Emissary

Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:26 am

Next nation in turmoil. The Mexican revolution was in full progress in 1914. I set the date of the map so I know what I should look at. The map should be the state of the world at the point when the archduke left us at Sunday, 28 June 1914, 1:15 pm. At this time in Mexico the president Victoriano Huerta, a general who had done a coup d'état (disposing president Madero, who had been the front figure to overthrow the long term dictator Porfirio Díaz), had around two weeks left before he was disposed as an effect of the successes of his enemies, with the culmination at the battle of Zacatecas only five days before the death of the archduke. Huerta was also on bad term with USA, which had occupied Veracruz and did so until Novermber. The new presidents would for some time after that only sit for a couple of months and often be puppets of others. The man who took controll after Huerta, Venustiano Carranza, was himself disposed during the winter 1914 by Pancho Villa, who had been allied with Carranza when they disposed Huerta. Early next year forces of Villa was defeated by Álvaro Obregón, pal of Carranza, and so it went on. When the late archduke left, there were four fractions controlling territory (which in the end is the most interesting). One weak federal under president Huerta who kept loosing ground. One stronger but unorganized and divided agaisnt Huerta, but which did not controll any of the big cities used in the variant. Thridly a fraction under Emiliano Zapata, who pretty much was against anyone who rule at any time, making him pal with the other revolutionaries right now. USA which had occupied the big port of Veracruz. The following image shows the situation 28 days prior to the date in questoin.

Something encommon to all these is that no one questioned the territorial exctention of Mexico. The borders of Mexico was the same. If one want to be strictly historical one can argue that Mexico shoudl be too weak to fight, and shoudl be merged into one neutral SC there for USA to grab. This would be very hard to do. One can also see to that the borders reflect the territory controlled by either fraction at 28 June and just pretend that Huerta didn't have much hope of sticking to the territory of the three SCs (Guadalarja was lost 8 days later as seen on the map), which would be used to take over other nations in the game. Otherwise one can just ignore the events that didn't lead to any territoral change of any kind and leave it. The second option would probably not change any borders while still having dealt with the situation in some way, leaving it very pleasent in my eyes.

Edit: Duh, if I change the date to 28 July, the date of decleration, I have a united nation in Mexico, during a short period with full controll from Mexico city. That could be the best solution. I have not found it to chage anything else.

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Magister Equitum
Ambassador

Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:06 pm

I think that the addition of Good Riddance Cards, as used in our current game (Canes Pugnaces) presents the opportunity for revolution.

posts: 1925 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007

Magister Equitum
Ambassador

Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:16 pm

Since the game map is based on 1914, are you planning to make any changes China?

Or should China even be a playable country?

posts: 1925 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007

Snake IV
Emissary

Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:44 am

Thanks for the China maps, especially the first. It'll be usefull, at least on Tibet.

Keeping China out wouldn't be without sence historically. Though, China is such a big country that it will be rather odd to leave it out. If you don't know the poor state of China it will just seem silly that China is not in. Not to mention that all neutral countries are one province short of unconected territories such as colonies. China would be a ridicilously big province.

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Snake IV
Emissary

Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:20 am

I've been looking at South America.

[img]http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/sameric1.htm[/img]
This map shows territorial changes of the 20th century, but it's trustworthyness is douptfull. THe borders of doupt though is the Bolivia-Paraguay border and the area where Peru, Equador, Colombia and Brazil meet. The Bolovia-Paraguay border seems not to be regulated at all before the war that resulted in the current border in the 1930ies and is shown on all maps I found as a strait line, but not at the same place all the time. The other area is harder, as the treaties that regulated it isn't on the english wiki but only the spanish if at all and who controleld the areas are even harder to find out. Thus I go by the 1914 maps. I have some from the time and they're not all agreeing. Some are putting Equador and Brazil as neighbouring, which affects the game and thus is a very relevant point. I do belive that Eduador and Brazil must be concidred not bordering. My guess from the maps is that Peru controlled territory bordering territory controlled by Colombia, but that the territory normally was concidered Equadorian elsewere. The gameplay would be hampered if Peru and Colombia does not border so I aim on keeping it that way.

In any case, here's several maps from about that time:
Map 1 Notice the green coloured areas within "Equador".
1914 Map
Claimed 1905, but shows 1903 or before
Map as late as 1926, but with full mapping of the extend of different nations claims.
Soime might also recall the Peru-Equador map I found eralier. It is not longer avaible and it showed a map which doesn't fit with any other map.

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Snake IV
Emissary

Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:21 pm

Within a close future I might pulish my reworked western hemisphear. I shall look upon the Carribean again and then draw what I have in mind for the Pacific first. Meanwhile, for all you out there (with some luck, Magister Equitum), I have yet another possibility to add to the list of builds outside home centers. It's still the one year delay, but without specifying the build location until the unit acctually arise. Instead, you save one colonial unit that you then can build in any center next year. You merely order "Colonial Build" (or better yet, merely waive the build), and are then able to put it up in any empty colony the coming year. It makes it much easier to build colonially than before, but never as easy as in a home center. Comments on that one?

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

airborne
Adjutant

Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:35 pm

After playing couple huge world maps and making a 7 player one. I believe you hit the right spot with this map! Huge maps are too akward to play and needs many good players which always seems to be in shortage.
Ahem...my thoughts why is Austria unchanged and Italy and Ottoman Empire is stronger? Austria is already on the lower end of the stats in standard. I would think adding Cluj or Sarajevo would be a good idea.
Have you thought of Milan-ing Italy? That is Ven is a non-SC region and Milan, the new home SC is put between Pie and Ven and Rome absorbs Tuscany.
Alaska being a home SC? Shouldn't the Washington Territories be a home SC instead?
Columbia only has 2 SCs. I assume that you changed that and I just didn't notice.

posts: 16 | joined: 04 Oct 2009

airborne
Adjutant

Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:35 pm

posts: 16 | joined: 04 Oct 2009

Snake IV
Emissary

Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:21 pm

Thanks! Pleasant to see someone new find his way here Smile

Does it say anywhere that Alaska is a home center? If so I should change it, Alaska is no home center. Did I understand you correctly if you thought there should be a new supply center in the Pacific North West; between Los Angeles and Vancouver?

Colombia does indeed only have 2 centers; there is no indications that Colombia suffers from that though. I gave them a lot of free centers to compensate for the small start, and from what I've seen from the two games that has run so far, it seems to have worked.

Austria is admittlingly a fuzz. The edits you suggest would most likely improve on Austria. However, I would be more happy if I manage something decent without changing the parts I took from standard. It has come much in between, but when I begun on this map it was me doodeling on how one could expand the standard so it didn't end with the edges. Thus plan A is to strengthen Austria without more supply center; if Austria's neighbours could be directed in such a way that they do not use their colonial armies in Europe, Austria would face the same opposition as in standard, where Austria preforms fair. Though, failing plan A one can have a plan B, and there Sarajevo would probably be good, as well as a modification of the Austria-Italian border. A four center Austria could give Austria a greater chance of taking over all of the Balkan (it seems that in this variant, Russia isn't more interested in Rumania than Italy in Greece, so in a fair share of the games it will be Turkey vs Austria in the Balkan). Though, Austria must have choices to be fun, so Italy should also be possible; and to some extend Russia. It requires the armies and fleets to be well positioned. Russia's position with respect to Austria is then rather important; how strong Russia is once I've improved China I can't say though.

Anyhow, I've sat and drawn the Pacific; I only have to know what i want with Cuba, but that can take a while I think. I feel I'm doing progress at any rate.

posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007

Page 3 of 4 | Goto: previous 1, 2, 3, 4 next

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

Jump to: