Venizelos was the legitimate Prime Minister of Greece, so if he invited the Allies in how is that a breach of neutrality?
… and the head of state King Konstantin didn´t allow the Entente to operate in his country
so it doesn´t matter if they were “invited” by previously bribed Prime Minister Venizelos
The French and British troops that marched into Greece for preparing the landing at Gallipoli, specifically on the island of Tenedos and in Salonika in 1915 did according international law the same thing what germans did one year earlier in Belgium. It was blatant violation of Greek neutrality.
Not to mention that the demobilization of the greek army was orderd by the “invited” Entente or that British and French ships blockaded the Greek ports to starve people and to force King Konstantin into abtication.
thats only a question in your game…
In the real world according to international law Greece was one state that included Macedonia so of course a landing of British or French troops has to be seen as what it was, a violation of neutrality even clearer than the case of Belgium that wasn’t that neutral - even on this gameboard it’s French blue instead of neutral white.Actually, Serbia controlled part of Macedonia at the time as well. Although I agree that Belgium should probably have a neutral marker, since it hasn’t been invaded by Germany yet on the board. Belgium wasn’t blatantly pro-Allied at the start of the war, and the German general staff believed that they would do nothing more than make a show of force to display their neutrality before allowing the German armies through.
Belgium had actually contracts with France allowing them to pass through so its ok for me to mark it blue.
But for Flashman`s game I would suggest to part Belgium into Wallonia (pro Allies) and Flanders (neutral or even pro German before the war)
Edit: Romania was all but not alligned to tzaristic Russia. In 1914 they were like Italy a member of the Dreibund and with outbreak of the war King Carol I of Romania wanted to support his cousin, Emperor Willhelm II. However, Romanian upperclass opinion was overwhelmingly Francophile and sided with the Triple Entente so Romania stayed neutral (for a while) and declared like Italy that casus foederis would only occur in case of an unprovoked defense war.
.
OK, think I’ve worked out the “Kiel” enigma.
First of all, Denmark is WAY too big; it includes all of Schleswig-Holstein!
It really highlights the obsolescence of using Diplomacy tt names; Kiel (the city) is in Denmark, or just possibly Berlin, but it definitely isn’t in Kiel (the tt).
Moreover, there is no Kiel canal (its irrelevant anyway because you can sail straight form SZ 10-11 (don’t think Denmark blocks this).
What I`ve seen on the pictures from the 6 sec. clip is that ruhr is bigger and has most parts of your hannover tt.
Berlin is much smaller so that hannover wich was pushed to the east could now fit between Berlin and Bavaria.(!)
Theres a tt called Kiel but the city of Kiel and its whole province is now danish. Parts of Upperbavaria are now austrian and
we´ve already talked about East Prussia. The German Empire looks more fucked up then after the treaty of Versailles. Pardon me but whoever was responsible for this “Germany” is either ignorrant or a total schmuck!
You’re saying that Hanover borders Silesia?
Does Berlin border Ruhr?
Does Ruhr border Lorraine?
It still looks something like Germany.
A bit.
It’s grey, at least.
If Hanover doesn’t border Alsace, that makes it even more difficult to reinforce the western front: it would take FOUR turns for a new unit built in Berlin to reach Lorraine!
You could only reach Paris in 5 turns through one route - Kiel-Ruhr-Belgium-Picardy-Paris
Where’s the frickin’ trains when you need 'em?
Yes Hannover borders Silesia.
No Berlin doesn`t border Ruhr.
Can´t see that Ruhr border Lorraine but don`t think so.
South bavarian border towards tyrol is shorter to make west Tirol bigger.
Yes its grey and not pink praise the lord :lol:
If that’s where Hanover is it should have been called Thuringia.
Ruhr should be Westphalia.
Alsace should be Swabia.
“Kiel” should be Lower Saxony.
One wonders if some people ever look at real maps.
Here’s a thought - since they seem to be using 1939 borders for Germany (1945 for East Prussia) - maybe they’ve also given Alsace-Lorraine back to France 4 years too
early, which would mean that both Ruhr and “Alsace” could border “Lorraine”.
This could be assumed after all but since Gamereports don´t mention it I don`t think so. When you take a close look at the 3D board you can see that German Infantry is west of Upper Rhine so gladfully they made Elsass german.
Would be too silly if they called a region in Germany Alsace and actually let the Rhine be Germanys West Border.
Ok I´m still not 100% sure because they did so with Kiel…
Germany just gets smaller and smaller - Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig-Holstein, East Prussia, the Obersalzburg - all gone.
No wonder they started a war.
Arctic SZ boundary corrected.
I think Finland has an Arctic coastline (but it shouldn’t have).
Flashman is there any chance you could start to produce a profesionell map and selling it to wargamers with real historical interest ? Dont know if I can live with that map scenario. I was pissed after your disclosure of the Eastprussia failure weeks ago but nonetheless such things can happen. Now Im horrified about such dumb geographical errors an average 12year old would`t make. A single view on a map would have been enough to prevent that educational fiasco…
Its just TOO weird.
What you see is about as well as I can do - basic bitmaps. I’d need to collaborate with an experienced graphics artist to make it look commercial.
However it isn’t the exact scheme I would use; one main difference would be that land territories would be plain light green, with perhaps some mountainous areas in grey, deserts in sand colour and so on.
A shaded border around the outer tt is enough to denote starting national control, indeed on the official 1914 map the presence of flags and control markers makes the coded tt colours redundant as well as gaudy and distracting.
Naturally the African borders would follow contours rather than the quick straight lines I’ve used.
Actually, I’m quite happy with the diamond layout for this game, as long as the western front areas are big enough, and there’s room for Mexico in the eastern corner.
I also dislike the stippling effect on most maps; if it doesn’t have any effect its just a distraction.
However it isn’t the exact scheme I would use; one main difference would be that land territories would be plain light green, with perhaps some mountainous areas in grey, deserts in sand colour and so on.
A shaded border around the outer tt is enough to denote starting national control, indeed on the official 1914 map the presence of flags and control markers makes the coded tt colours redundant as well as gaudy and distracting.
I like this. Sort of a ‘Total War’ feel, if you’ve ever played the recent iterations of that series.
Actually, I’m quite happy with the diamond layout for this game, as long as the western front areas are big enough, and there’s room for Mexico in the eastern corner.
Yeah, that’s the one suggestion I would make, when I printed the map (even bigger than the actual map), the European tt’s were a little too small. I would probably suggest using the OOB map for a guide on sizing and proportion between the continents, and redraw the borders as you see fit.
I’m no graphic artist (mechanical engineer/CAD designer by trade), but I’ve done some custom map work in AutoCAD for one of my variants, here’s the link: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?56l1qpmzktotrio
Take a look and see if it’s in the vein of what you’re interested in.
So, Chacmool, are you somewhat statisfied by the way Greece is handled in A&A1914? As a minor neutral, it resists whoever invades it first, joining the opposing alliance.
I know it’s hard to tell, but blowing up the image of the eastern mapboard, it strikes me that Poland may not have a coastline. When I look at it, it seems that Belarus might border the Baltic (it wouldn’t be much stranger than Tuscany bordering Naples).
Like I said, I’m blowing up the image and resolution drops quickly. It’s also late and just possible I’m having a fever dream.
Well, we’ll know soon enough. One last throw for an extant, but distorted East Prussia.
Edit:
The more I stare at it, the more it looks like Belarus might include Lithuania or that Livonia meets Prussia at one point, blocking Poland’s access to the Baltic (similar to how Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona all meet at one point, with Prussia and Livonia being “adjacent” in the same way Utah and New Mexico are - they touch, but movement directly between them is impossible in the A&A sense).
Like I said, I’m tired and desperate, so I’m swinging wild. I just can’t shake the feeling that something’s going on with Belarus. Look at Poland’s eastern border - it doesn’t swoop up toward the Baltic, it seems to be angled so that it meets the line separating sea zones 11 and 12 (although the fold in the board isn’t helping clarity).
It’s been confirmed that Poland does indeed have a coast line. It’s by no means a game breaker for me simply because I’m just desperate to get WW1 themed Axis&Allies :-D.
You mean something like this? djensen says Poland does have a small coastline.
The things Larry will do to keep the Germans out of Petrograd…
I know it’s hard to tell, but blowing up the image of the eastern mapboard, it strikes me that Poland may not have a coastline. When I look at it, it seems that Belarus might border the Baltic (it wouldn’t be much stranger than Tuscany bordering Naples).
Like I said, I’m blowing up the image and resolution drops quickly. It’s also late and just possible I’m having a fever dream.
Well, we’ll know soon enough. One last throw for an extant, but distorted East Prussia.
Edit:
The more I stare at it, the more it looks like Belarus might include Lithuania or that Livonia meets Prussia at one point, blocking Poland’s access to the Baltic (similar to how Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona all meet at one point, with Prussia and Livonia being “adjacent” in the same way Utah and New Mexico are - they touch, but movement directly between them is impossible in the A&A sense).
Like I said, I’m tired and desperate, so I’m swinging wild. I just can’t shake the feeling that something’s going on with Belarus. Look at Poland’s eastern border - it doesn’t swoop up toward the Baltic, it seems to be angled so that it meets the line separating sea zones 11 and 12 (although the fold in the board isn’t helping clarity).
So, Chacmool, are you somewhat statisfied by the way Greece is handled in A&A1914? As a minor neutral, it resists whoever invades it first, joining the opposing alliance.
Yes, in AA1914 Greece is handled the way it should be
Yeah Greece should be a strict neautral. That’s why I was confused when Flashman said that Allies shouldn’t be able to invade neutrals…they didn’t seem to have a problem doing it to the Greeks :-P
I agree with Flashman that in this game the neutrals (white painted) should not be invaded. By both sides.
Belgium is a special case as you can see even in this game its painted blue (france aligned)
What Larry Harris did in his Germany Game Report as he invaded the Netherlands would have been never happened in WW1 because of the Emperors affinity with Holland.
In spring 1918 the German Army High Command asked to allow the transport of troops via Roermond and the stationing of German gun batteries in the Netherlands. The national government with support of Kaiser Wilhelm II (“Holland is to leave alone”) resist this notion successfully.
If the Allies want to keep their “good guy” image, AA1914 gives them with Albania a solution for the Greek-problem.
Larry Harris has pointed out that Albania stands also for Montenegro so if the Allies want to intervene at Balkanfront they can use this door to enter.
