Ps. The Mongolia concept is interesting, historical, and easy enough to do, though I think as COW suggested the USA boost might be enough in and of itself.
I only mentioned Sierra Leone because it always annoyed me how Allies could not build a naval base on sz 87 because of the French ownership. And then every map I’ve seen of WW2 shows that Sierra Leone was under control of the Allies and a belligerent since 1940 at least, but I think as early as 39? So this seems like a map correction that should be encouraged.
Also, not yet mentioned but pretty cool as well… by adjusting starting ownership of Brazil, Venezuela, Chile and Argentina to USA, suddenly South America becomes a much more interesting target area for Axis. The region provides an overland route to the Canal (on account of the OOB geographical inaccuracy that has Venezuela bordering Panama hehe.) But redrawing the OOB map is not a good option for most players, and anyway this will be more fun for the gameplay since Columbia isn’t in the way. This means that the Germans or Italians or even Japanese might be able to land units in Chile or Argentina and make Operation Bolivar pay dividends haha.
Axis troops landed anywhere in South America, could conceivable reach anywhere else in South America by land. Production expansions in this region could provide another way “into the America.” You know for cool invasion USA dreams of the endgame! haha
:-D
I think the inclusion of Brazil as a US territory makes a lot of sense, and is familiar from the older games. The Sierra Leone possibility will activate Brazil for its historical role in the war, with proximity to Africa for support of the British and Americans fighting in that theater.
I didn’t want to bite off more than I could chew, but I’d make a gameplay case for Liberia to be Pro-Allies too! Because it is the only territory on sz 83. This could give the territory some minor significance as a potential Naval Base location. These nations were all Allies before the curtain fell, so it seems weird to have them as true Neutrals. To me true neutral indicates neutrality for the duration of the war. If we’re going to have the Pro-side concept, might as well extend it to all the territories that make sense.
I’m just a fan of giving Sierra Leone to UK outright, because it seems like an error/oversight of the OOB map, and because I like the idea of that sz 101 to sz 87 shuck. E. USA to W. Africa and back, NB to NB!
I think it would really help the USA to get out early and be more involved in Africa. ;)
On the whole I really like this South America idea. I think it looks fun, and feels simple to implement. No rules changes or anything too complicated, just a few roundels, a handful of infantry, and 60 ipcs for USA to start.
I’m partial to these American regions of the G40 map in tripleA, since I’m pretty sure it’s the only area of the map to use my v3 baseline as a guide. Though the borders where redrafted to match the OOB boundaries, the continent of South America itself and the West Indies and the Eastern coastline of North America follow the v3/Domination draft I made originally. It even has Roanoke! lol I had big plans for that one in a 16th century mod. But it disappeared without a trace! All except for a few pixels preserved in the G40 baseline for tripleA hahaha.
Another image, just kicking around some ideas. These routes might not be optimal for USA, but at least they’re on the table now…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aa234/aa234b62af47da02fafbf76b0df90399c045e7d7" alt="Sub Saharan route.png"
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb
Sub Saharan route.png_thumb