Images of the Map?

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.

@Flashman:

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.

@Flashman:

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…

@wove100:

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).

@wove100:

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.

Yes but from the strategic aspect of the game the invasion of neutrals makes everything suddenly much more interesting. Suddenly Switzerland can become a gateway, for who it’s up to the players to decide. A British invasion of Perisa and suddenly the whole strategy on the Eastern Front has to change for the Centrals. An invasion of Greece either creates more trouble for the Centrals in the Balkans or assures their hegenomy. I support it 100%

I guess it was just a daylight savings-induced fever dream. After all, I’d just lost an hour of my life. :wink:

I personally think there should be more negative repercussions for invading a strict neutral, although 1940 rules didn’t make a whole lot of sense historically. I just feel like there would be more international outcry than, ‘Oh well, they have to defend themselves now.’

That’s partly why I’d ban the Allies from invading neutrals, or at least make them think very carefully. It’d be largely keyed to American intervention; every time either side invades a neutral the American DOW gets moved up or down against their interest.

Since the CP will be looking for a quick victory before America gets mobilized they’re much less likely to be worried about what Woodrow thinks.

Otherwise, I think the number of units you mobilize against you is about the right disincentive to attack.

Well considering the only theater of the game already involves most of the “international community” and they happen to be killing each other, I’m not sure there’s much of an international outcry to be had. If you wanted to fix that maybe each alliance is allowed to invade two neutral countries, and after that their “infamy” is too much and all already neutral powers mobilize for the opposing alliance if another one is invaded. Like say the Allies invade Persia and Greece but then the British player feels like invading say Denmark is a good way to open up a new front against the Germans, because that would be the third country then the remaining non-invaded neutrals mobilize for the Centrals, like Spain, Afghanistan, the Scandanavian countries, ect.