1914 Map grievances

[Hunter Jones]

I’m creating a new map for 1914 so what would the community like to see changed?

[A Former User]

#1 priority - reduce Africa in size, and increase size of Europe (specifically the western front territories).

1. Create new SZ31 by splitting SZ17 in half at a point on border between SZ16 and SZ17 below Sicily and extending to point where Albania borders Greece.
2. Add territories; Darfur-1 pt minor-aligned Turkey (separates French Equ. Africa from Anglo-Egy. Sudan), Macedonia-2 pt Neutral, Armenia-1 pt minor-aligned Turkey (separates Sevastopol from Mesopotamia), Khiva Khanate-1 pt minor-aligned Russia (separates Kazakhstan from Persia)
3. Switzerland should be impassable.

[Flashman]

Correct the Bulgaria-Greece border (Greece did not have a border with Turkey in 1914).

Have more tts in Hungry e.g. add Banat & Transylvania so Budapest does not border Russia.

East Prussia should border Livonia; Poland should not have a coastline.

Move SZ18 border south to intersect Albania-Greece.

Extend Rome east to have an Adriatic coastline.

Place a production city in Munich.

Albania should be neutral.

Give Lorraine-Marseille a border and move Paris to the “Burgundy” tt.

Rename tts so that only those containing an actual city are so named; otherwise give them tt names. The map is too obviously based on Diplomacy.

[Hunter Jones]

Thanks to both of you these are definitely going into the map.

[Patchman123]

@Flashman said in 1914 Map grievances:

Correct the Bulgaria-Greece border (Greece did not have a border with Turkey in 1914).

Have more tts in Hungry e.g. add Banat & Transylvania so Budapest does not border Russia.

East Prussia should border Livonia; Poland should not have a coastline.

Move SZ18 border south to intersect Albania-Greece.

Extend Rome east to have an Adriatic coastline.

Place a production city in Munich.

Albania should be neutral.

Give Lorraine-Marseille a border and move Paris to the “Burgundy” tt.

Rename tts so that only those containing an actual city are so named; otherwise give them tt names. The map is too obviously based on Diplomacy.

I have created two new and better versions.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/uxthbc2z97q3w5x/Modified World War I Game.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/view/v4v0way8nr77re0/1914_global_map_whole.jpg/file

I modified Lion in Trenches’ original map to include Mongolian territories and to add territories for Spain to make Spain more playable, a la Global 1939 on HBG.

Original version of Global 1914.

I removed the impassable thing from the Amazon rainforest and I decided to rename the territory “Amazonas” because it’s the largest Brazilian province west of Rio de Janeiro and many antique maps called the territory “Amazonas.” (Selvas das Amazonas in Nat Geo maps). I just thought that it was rather silly to have an impassable Amazon jungle. HBG just makes refuses to fully implement and market this game as a second edition board game, like their Global War 1939 game.

Why can’t they just finish it? I have finished it and I am praying that Historical Board Gaming will finish it by Christmas or something.

God, I feel so impatient! Sorry, guys! :confused: I renamed “Brest” to its correct name of Brittany because Brittany is the actual name of the French province where “Brest” lies in the game. It’s like calling the whole of Pennsylvania as Philadelphia, which I think is rather silly.

I gave a name to the province where Paris is centered in the game and that’s called “Ile de France” like it is in real life.

I made Franz Josef Land a Russian territory, since Russia seized the territory in the 1914 to prevent the Central Powers from having a base to attack Russia from the north.

I renamed “Crimea” to Taurida because Taurida was the name given to it by Russia at that time.

[The Lion of the Trenches]

@Patchman123

I like what you have done with the map like fixing some Europe issues and adding lots of islands I never would have thought of (Rat islands). Dividing Spain is a nice touch. I only have two complaints, as they are actually consequential to the game:

1. Why a port in Singapore? I know it was a very important port for the empire but in this game ports mean mines and also the ability to construct naval units. Singapore did not mine the region nor was it capable of constructing naval vessels.

2. Why is Mexico Pro-USA? In 1914 the Carranza government of Mexico wasn’t even recognized by the United States and tensions were high. At the same time, Mexico would never enter a military alliance supporting the United States. Mexico should be neutral in the game.

[Patchman123]

@The-Lion-of-the-Trenches said in 1914 Map grievances:

@Patchman123

I like what you have done with the map like fixing some Europe issues and adding lots of islands I never would have thought of (Rat islands). Dividing Spain is a nice touch. I only have two complaints, as they are actually consequential to the game:

1. Why a port in Singapore? I know it was a very important port for the empire but in this game ports mean mines and also the ability to construct naval units. Singapore did not mine the region nor was it capable of constructing naval vessels.

2. Why is Mexico Pro-USA? In 1914 the Carranza government of Mexico wasn’t even recognized by the United States and tensions were high. At the same time, Mexico would never enter a military alliance supporting the United States. Mexico should be neutral in the game.

Mexico was mad at us for supporting a faction in that whole revolution, but Mexico knew that they could not just turn their backs on the United States because they needed to do business with their main trading partner, the USA. We’ve always had rather turbulent moments with Mexico and Trump’s whole wall plan is just the tip of the iceberg. The United States and Mexico have not always been the best of friends and Mexico refused to ally with Germany because they knew the consequences if they were to do so and the US had invaded Mexico many times before. Parts of Mexico were under American occupation, such as Veracruz. In Axis & Allies, even if 1 infantry occupies a space, they occupy the whole territory. Mexico sold oil to the Allied powers. If you look at Latin American in the Trenches, you will see for yourself how turbulent our relationship was with Mexico 100 years ago.

100 years later, Trump wants to build a wall.

“Carranza was not so much pro-German as he was an anti-U.S. Mexican nationalist.”

The whole relationship with Mexico is just a whole new can of worms. Carranza knew that if outright supported Germany that the US would fall upon him like a ton of bricks!

“With the Revolution still being fought across the country, Mexico never declared war during the First World War. In addition to the internal conflict of the Revolution, it also experienced external pressures during the war, the most notable incidents being the Tampico Affair, the Pancho Villa Expedition, and the Zimmermann Telegram.”

“[Tensions with the United States resulted in direct military conflict in several instances of varying severity. In addition, while Mexico rejected Germany’s overtures to join in war on the United States, a telegram intercepted by the United Kingdom in 1917 hastened U.S. entry into World War I.”

These facts marked the participation of Mexico in the Great War.[3][4]

The Carranza government was de jure recognized by Germany at the beginning of 1917 and by the U.S. on August 31, 1917, the latter as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram in an effort to ensure Mexican Neutrality in the Great War.[8][9] After the United States occupation of Veracruz(This is precisely why I have Mexico under US occupation on the map. Mexico is not so much as pro-US, as it’s under US occupation.) in 1914, Mexico would not participate with the U.S. in its military participation in the Great War, so ensuring Mexican neutrality was the best deal the U.S. could hope for.[5]
Carranza granted guarantees to German companies for keeping their operations open, specifically in Mexico City,[10] but he was at the same time selling oil to the British fleet. In fact, 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico.[4][11]
Carranza rejected the proposal of a military alliance with Germany, made via the Zimmermann Telegram, and he was at the same time able to prevent a permanent military invasion from the U.S., which wanted to take control of Tehuantepec Isthmus and Tampico oil fields.[2][3][12] Mexico was producing 55 million barrels of petroleum by 1917.[13] Because 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico, Carranza gave the order to destroy and set fire to the oil fields in case of a U.S. invasion.[12][14]
Carranza’s troops confronted and defeated the John J. Pershing Punitive Expedition in the Battle of Carrizal. General Pershing was furious at this result and asked for permission to attack the Carrancista garrison at Chihuahua. President Wilson, fearing that such an attack would provoke a full-scale war with Mexico, refused. The Battle of Carrizal marked the effective end of the Punitive Expedition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_in_World_War_I#Extent_of_involvement_in_the_war).

75% percent (3/4) of all British oil for their ships came from Mexico. Mexico was in a tough spot at the time. It was incorrectly believed that Mexico wanted to outright ally with Germany. I’m sorry, but I think that having Mexico as pro-German flies in the face of the facts.

Mexico did not want to join either side and thus Mexico would be a strict neutral or even a pro-Allies neutral in basic A&A parlance. Franco was sympathetic to Hitler and Mussolini, but Franco did not outright enter WWII because he knew that the Allies would not have hesitated to invade Spain and its territories. Mexico was in an unfavorable position in World War I.

“The United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution was varied and seemingly contradictory, first supporting and then repudiating Mexican regimes during the period 1910-1920.[1] For both economic and political reasons, the U.S. government generally supported those who occupied the seats of power, whether they held that power legitimately or not. A clear exception was the French Intervention in Mexico, when the U.S. supported the beleaguered liberal government of Benito Juárez at the time of the American Civil War (1861-1865). Prior to Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration on March 4, 1913, the U.S. Government focused on just warning the Mexican military that decisive action from the U.S. military would take place if lives and property of U.S. nationals living in the country were endangered.[2] President William Howard Taft sent more troops to the US-Mexico border but did not allow them to intervene in the conflict,[3][4] a move which Congress opposed.[4] Twice during the Revolution, the U.S. sent troops into Mexico.”

Mexican territory was being occupied by the United States of America. In basic A&A mechanics, the United States would control Mexico. Mexico is under US occupation.

And Singapore did not have the ability to build ships, but I believe that the British had mined that area because they were at war with Germany and German ships were attacking their Asian ports in their British colonies.

The military expenditure (the colony paid on this account 20 percent of its gross revenue to the British government by way of military contribution) amounted in 1906 to $1,762,438; $578,025 was expended on upkeep and maintenance of existing public works, and $1,209,291 on new roads, streets, bridges, and buildings.[10]:981

“Many deemed that "Mexico…was the doorway to all of Latin America’s riches, but only if the neighbor remained under U.S economic tutelage.”

Mexico is indirectly controlled by the United States and it’s just foolish to give Germany the option of being able to station troops in Mexico to threaten the United States because Mexico was rather wary of Germany’s intentions.

Well, Mexico was already invaded by the United States a few times and I am simulating the intervention to capture Pancho Villa after he attacks American towns along the US-Mexican border. Parts of Mexico were under occupation by the USA.

“From the end of World War I onwards, Britain had begun to build up its defences in Singapore in light of the growing military threat from Japan. A naval base was constructed in Sembawang and huge guns were emplaced in strategic locations along Singapore’s coastline to fend off possible naval attacks.”

“The Battle of Penang occurred on 28 October 1914, during World War I. It was a naval action in the Strait of Malacca, in which the German cruiser SMS Emden sank two Allied warships.”

Of course we all know just how unreliable Wikipedia and Quora can be.

“The 1915 Singapore Mutiny, also known as the 1915 Sepoy Mutiny or the Mutiny of the 5th Light Infantry, was a mutiny involving up to half of a regiment of 850 sepoys (Indian soldiers) against the British in Singapore during the First World War, linked with the 1915 Ghadar Conspiracy.”

Might I recommend this book?

[A Former User]

This map has a few dozen changes - any of these are welcome.

[Patchman123]

@Carolina said in 1914 Map grievances:

This map has a few dozen changes - any of these are welcome.

I will be sure and add Hejaz to the map and make Portugal controlled by Britain, instead of France. Montenegro and Serbia were largely under the tutelage of France after 1917, when Russia collapsed, due to the October Revolution.

[JustLuthor]

I just got into playing 1914, and one thing that I noticed about the map is that Greece is neutral, when historically they entered the war on the side of the Entente in 1916. My friend, who I was playing with, suggested that they’re left neutral because the game is already biased in favor of the Allies, and they don’t need an additional 2 IPCs, and a handful of units.

[CEDDIN DEDEN]

@Patchman123 Your map allows the russians in black sea to launch easy naval invasions on ottomans unless they want to try an naval attack into a minefield, so i think thats one thing the OOB version does better. Besides that, amazing.

[Patchman123]

@CEDDIN-DEDEN said in 1914 Map grievances:

@Patchman123 Your map allows the russians in black sea to launch easy naval invasions on ottomans unless they want to try an naval attack into a minefield, so i think thats one thing the OOB version does better. Besides that, amazing.

So, what would you like to see done? I am willing to accept any criticisms for the purpose of improving my work.

[CEDDIN DEDEN]

@Patchman123 I think that the szs should be either
ankara, sevastopol+rum and constantinople+bulg

Constantinople+Ankara+bulgaria, Sevastopol+romania (this way i think it is in oob)

The one for bulgaria+romania is unnecessary. Ottoman fleet, while exposed should be able to protect either Constantinople and Ankara at the same time or separately.