Images of the Map?

I like the sound of that IL. I still don’t believe how having a little bigger map would cost that much money. Like I said earlier they MSRP is 100 bucks. Wizards of the Cheap does it again. BTW Imperious who is publishing your game a new independent company or someone else. I don’t know if you can say this info just curious.

Cant disclose that at this point. Sorry.

@GoSanchez6:

I like the sound of that IL. I still don’t believe how having a little bigger map would cost that much money. Like I said earlier they MSRP is 100 bucks. Wizards of the Cheap does it again. BTW Imperious who is publishing your game a new independent company or someone else. I don’t know if you can say this info just curious.

To answer your question Sanchez.

It’s not coming out.

You came out….of the closet. Does that count?

Gar and IL we can all feel the love right now on this forum.

The Dutch flag is upside down. But great job!

Ooops!

Corrected.

I do hope I’m wrong about Poland, but it seems this is the way they’ve done it.

Also “Western Turkey”; the projection on the game map makes this look less distorted, but Armenia should not have a coastline on the Persian Gulf. Hopefully I’m just not seeing it correctly.

I suspect that western Germany may be slightly different, with Alsace further west and bordering Belgium. The Germany report is unclear on this.

Not at all certain about the arrangement of the Turksih straits area.

Doing the mines reminded me of one of my rules that would really work on a map like this: ship refueling. Even if we don’t have true “ships in port”, the mines give some sense of it. But ships can still stay at sea indefinitely, which is absurd.

The rule is very simple: on each and every turn every ship that a player owns must refuel. To do this it needs to visit the coastline of a friendly or neutral land tt. It can do this at any time on its turn.

If a ship is unable to refuel (for example an intended fueling station has been captured by an enemy power) then it is lost. Assume the crew scuttle the boat rather than let it be captured by the enemy. Also a player cannot deliberately leave a ship in a SZ from which it will be unable to refuel next turn - no suicide missions.

This is now probably 2nd only to strategic rail movement in my house rule priority list for this game.

Would probably mostly effect German subs, but then again SRM benefits the CPs.

Pretty odd that UK vessels on their way to Egypt are subject to Ottoman mines.

Like I said, I’m not certain of the borders in that area, or if the “Aegean” SZ has a naval base and mines, though it does represent the mining of the Dardanelles that sunk several Allied ships.

By not (it seems) having Gibraltar or Malta featured, the game is reflecting that France was given the task of patrolling the western Med, Italy the centre.

It must have been tempting to add a Straits SZ with Gibraltar as NB; this would be a British NB in Spain - UK gets the benefit of the minefield, and the base is in effect protected by Spanish neutrality. The CP would have to invade Spain to neutralize it. I’ve long argued for this arrangement, rather than the silly bloated “Gibraltar” land tt.

This might give us something like this:

Note that if the CPs captured Greece, they’d be able to move ships directly from the Adriatic to the Aegean via the Corinthian canal.

I’d also think about adding a German cruiser in the Tyrrhenian sea. Since Italy starts neutral, the Goeben would be able to sail into the Aegean on G1 without encountering enemy mines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Goeben_and_Breslau

Is there a historical reason for labeling the eastern most province of the Ottoman Empire “Western Turkey” or are you trying to catch us out there Flashman?

Maybe the ottomans plan to expand Turkey to the east a little bit.

Why is Bulgaria part of the Ottoman Empire?

In global 1940 terms its pro turkey neutral

@FieldMarshalGames:

Why is Bulgaria part of the Ottoman Empire?

Bulgaria in A&A1914 is a Central Powers-Aligned Minor Power. I believe Flashman’s taking a lead from the promo flyer where Bulgaria seems very close in color to the Ottoman territories, but there’s a chance it might be German gray instead of Ottoman turkoise [misspelling intentional]. It’s my understanding that the color of the territory, along with a major power icon inside the territory, determine which major power can activate minor aligned powers/which major power’s pieces are used when the minor is attacked by the opposing alliance.

Has it been said how Bulgaria will be handled as one of the Central Powers? Will it be controlled by the Ottomans like Serbia for the Russians? If it was up to me I think it would be cooler if was controlled by the German player. Give a more of a feeling of a separate player since it isn’t controlled by the other 2 powers involved in the Balkan Wars. It will give another theater for the German player to play in and maybe build in? I think limited builds in Bulgaria would be cool.

Agree with you Thrawn not to mention your scenario for Bulgaria was probably more historically accurate. I also don’t like the fact they can only put units out once. Maybe if you don’t take it that country can reinforce with half of what it started with. Example Austria invades Romania. Romania starts with 3 inf and 1 art. If they survive they reinforce it with 2 inf. If it still holds 1 inf. If every other country continues to reinforce why can’t these smaller ones. They should be able to just on a smaller scale. Bulgaria when it joins the Central should act in a similar fashion.

When I started this map I used Diplomacy tt names, as that seemed to be the way they’ve done it - Austrian and Russian tts are virtually identical.

Turkey seems to be somewhat different, with this weird long tt stretching from Georgia to the Persian Gulf. Can’t really call it “Armenia”, so Western Turkey it is. Again, its one of those I hope I’ve got wrong and the real map is more logical.

Yes, Bulgaria might be German controlled, but I think that the proximity to Turkey is the decisive factor; just as Russia can support Romania and Serbia, and France Belgium. Presumably Portugal is French to create a balance in Southern Africa.

Regarding placement, I’ve posted on another thread the suggestion that infantry can be placed away from the capital. In this case, such countries as Bulgaria and Belgium would in effect become part of the controlling power, so you can place infantry there subject to certain limits.

Albania is a strange case; I’ve been unable to find evidence of Italian control there before 1917. I think I’m correct in assuming they’ve simply absorbed Montenegro into it to make it a reasonably sized tt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_albania#Internal_revolts_and_foreign_occupation_during_World_War_I

The weird kink in SZ boundaries to place Corsica in the French zone is unexplained.

Switzerland being active does make me wish certain tts were designated “difficult” terrain for attackers.

But above all, the unhistorical Poland spoils the map. We have to assume that there is a vital game play reason for it; stop Germany blitzing up the Baltic coast?

Anyway, map update: German borders adjusted after re-reading the Imperial Germany report. Munich and Silesia may be connected as per Diplomacy.

Q: Are American and Italian minefields active before they go to war? If so, do they “attack” shipping from both sides?

@Flashman:

Turkey seems to be somewhat different, with this weird long tt stretching from Georgia to the Persian Gulf. Can’t really call it “Armenia”, so Western Turkey it is. Again, its one of those I hope I’ve got wrong and the real map is more logical.

But shouldn’t it be Eastern Turkey or is it designed to drive fans of cardinal directions up the wall?

I apologize if I come off as some sort of AAO Mary Whitehouse, posting a response everytime I think someone has gone too far in pushing the boundaries of the cardinal directions.

Ahhhh, I see: East is West.

I think this came about because I originally had a “Western Armenia” tt there.

That’s my story and I’m stuck with it.