Europe Map Projection Redux

Only thing I can say for sure is there are not enough SZs between US and UK, larry said it would take 2 turns for US planes to get there and they would have to stop in Greenland or Iceland on there way I believe.  Other than that Russia is huge! lol.

I think its terrific

@idk_iam_swiss:

I think its terrific

My comments for what they’re worth:
I think the land borders are well considered but I’d be surprised if there are that many spaces in West Africa.
I miss Central US.
I truly hope West Germany isn’t actually a single seazone from Britain.  Crazy easy to do an air attack to East Germany, especially with an airbase.
I cannot imagine there will be that many Seazones in the Med.  And I agree there need to be more seazones between East Canada and England if Iceland will matter in the least.
Despite the fact that the Alps are impassible, I’d prefer Switzerland to be a true neutral.
I still think Sweden should be proaxis Neutral (even if they were forced by proximity), although I’d understand if some customers would be put off by that so they’d rather not.

At least one too many seazones off the East US making superfluous spaces that will rarely if ever have a convoy interdiction.  I imagine it will be more like Pacific with one solitary seazone for the entire eastern seaboard.  Which brings me to:

I’m now suddenly aware that on the Atlantic map several strategically important territories border more than one seazone (primarily England, but also Egypt, South Africa and Norway)  whereas in the pacific the major territories are only one seazone.  How the devil will this work with Naval Bases?  Why would a london naval base work for Northern Irland.

My two cents:

• I agree, it lacks CUSA (I would add even another teritory, maybe Texas or even Old South). It would be very odd a divided Canada and a undivided USA

• I think south America is not going to be that way. Territorial frontiers are OK, but Brazil (and all south America saving Argentina) should start as pro-allied neutral, all territories should have income value and Brazil a 2-3 inf garrison. I’d add one Andes territory

• I think is odd you can invade Madrid from Calais by land. Spain should be 4 territories (3 owned + 1 occupied by UK  :-D ), but I guess will be 2+1 and Madrid in the middle one (the southern is UK occupied). Also Spain lacks a garrison, and I guess will be the stronger neutral garrison saving maybe Turkey. Good for nationalist symbol by the way

• Portugal needs garrison, income value and portuguese symbols also on Angola and Mozambique

• French Congo should be French, not UK. I’m not sure if Belgian Congo will be french or UK, or maybe just as Dutch Indies

• I like Urals territory

• All the other stuff is good

Great work! +1

Wish we could see convoy boxes in an Atlantic air gap… although I know this raises the question of what IPC is being sunk… still.

I think you meant Ottawa where you placed Ontario.

I like it; definitely makes a Sealion build plausible for germany with the West germany production and IC; should also be a lot easier to keep a fleet in the Baltic afloat with the added spaces.  Hope they add in some sort of no pass rule for the Danish Straits like it is for the Suez canal; historically the Straits were mined to hell and gone by both sides during the war.  Also, the distance between germany’s capital and Britain’s SZs won’t allow any mad-dash psycho end-the-war in one fell swoop baltic runs by the Brits.  The US also needs 2 turns to come to Britain’s aid as well as Africa, something that will be noticed as well, stop that stupid north africa shuck.

Hope it ends up something like this, I like it.  Russia looks ENDLESS, should be fun to play.

@SgtBlitz:

The US also needs 2 turns to come to Britain’s aid as well as Africa, something that will be noticed as well, stop that stupid north africa shuck.

There will be a Naval Base in West US.  with the bonus movement, the Ireland seazones are both within range, as well as Morocco.  So no, it doesn’t take 2 turns, and no, the North Africa shuck will continue.

If planes from the U.S. must land in Greenland or Iceland to reach the U.K. who will own these territories?

A very good effort.

My suggestions for improvement are:

Agree with others about the width of the Atlantic.  There should not be just one SZ  between England and West Germany; the line west of Denmark should be straightened to run into Low Countries.

IPC values: Finland and Norway each worth more than Belgium/Netherlands combined? Low countries needs to be 3-4, Norway and Finland really not worth more than 1 each.  Kazakh = desert = 0.  Caucasus oil is mainly in the south, i.e. the “Georgia” territory (Baku).

Naval bases: add Sevastopol, Oran (Algeria) for Tunis, Wilhelmshavn (WG), Alexandria (Suez) should be on Med, not Red.

Urals factory maybe better in middle ? area (Chelyabinsk), giving Japan a realistic target in USSR?
I’d also put a factory in East Ukraine (Kharkov?)

“South West Africa” should be French Equatorial Africa; “French Equatorial Africa” should be British West Africa.
Belgian Congo should be impassable, certainly for armoured units.

Brazil, Mexico and Panama neutral; Cuba can be US control, but I’d have the eastern part as British West Indies.

Roundels: (you knew this was coming) Italy should be Fasces symbol, Ireland at this time had only orange and green sections, Yugoslavia had a cross design similar to the one currently used by Serbia

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

(note the inverted orange triangle of the Dutch East Indies air force)

“Vichy” should be Southern France; at this time Vichy was an insignificant little town.

Someone mentioned Calais, of course on this map Calais is in “Low Countries”.

I would make Iran 2 territories north/south, each with at least 2 IPCs (oil output).

You haven’t marked the convoys; shouldn’t there be 2 French convoys in the west Mediterranean?

Won’t all neutrals have IPC values?  If they can be invaded, they should be worth their equivalent economic value.

Is this what you want the map to look like, or how you think it will look?

Larry has confirmed that Iran will be a pro-allied nation and be named Persia. And Bulgaria will not be German controlled it will be pro-axis neutral.

He has also mentioned that Southern Germany, Austria and Czech will all be one territory and be called somthing like Greater Germany

Also, technically, Yugoslavia was pro-axis at this time, except they had a coup in early 1941 which was anti-German. So I would run them as a pure neutral. I would also run Spain as a pure neutral, since Mussolini’s absurd campaigns had and would further cause Franco too doudt the axis alliance.

Great work! +1

The map looks great.  I dont have any complaints and I assume that the final version will end up looking very much like this.

Map is coming along very well (have seen each upgrade). I would like to see some of the islands in the middle of sz’s for scrambling purposes, especially in the Med. Like Crete in the SZ adjacent to Greece, or Cyprus in the sz off the coast of Egypt (minor line change).
I was also wondering if Zealand (island in Danish straight) will be a playable space (separate from Denmark peninsula). If you moved the sz dividing line above the island then you could scramble from Copenhagen to give fleet protection in the Baltic. This would kinda create a close the straight rule for the Baltic. I think that would be good for the game. Just my 2 cents.

Your map looks pretty good, but what does it matter unless you work for WOTC

The Winter War is over when this game starts…

But I think Finland should be NEutral/Axis leaning and get a full ally (GErmany controlled) when Germany attacks Russia  - Same as Romania - Bulgaria should “acivate” when Germany attacks Greece.

Concerning “value” of territories…

I don’t think its “real world production” alone that determines the “worth” of a territory.

Finland had a small GDP (Comparably), but an excellent Army, so in the game a high “production” value is OK

Belgium/The Netherlands had a good industrial base, but the Army was either small or ill equipped, so a low IPC output is OK

Norway is difficult, I assume low IPC is OK based on history, but Germany should get NO-bonus points while occupying as Norway provided Germany with Swedish ore and also was a great base for air/ship based convoy harrassment.

German NO-Controls all of the flowing territories-Norway, Finland and Sweden must be pro-axis or axis.

@Richter:

The Winter War is over when this game starts…

But I think Finland should be NEutral/Axis leaning and get a full ally (GErmany controlled) when Germany attacks Russia  - Same as Romania - Bulgaria should “acivate” when Germany attacks Greece.

Concerning “value” of territories…

I don’t think its “real world production” alone that determines the “worth” of a territory.

Finland had a small GDP (Comparably), but an excellent Army, so in the game a high “production” value is OK

Belgium/The Netherlands had a good industrial base, but the Army was either small or ill equipped, so a low IPC output is OK

Norway is difficult, I assume low IPC is OK based on history, but Germany should get NO-bonus points while occupying as Norway provided Germany with Swedish ore and also was a great base for air/ship based convoy harrassment.

I fail to see the relevance of army strength, surely IPC values should reflect economic value; in any case the NL/B armies are already defeated.  By all means give Finland enough units to reflect it’s army establishment, but economically it was a midget.

@Flashman:

I fail to see the relevance of army strength, surely IPC values should reflect economic value….

Well, IMHO  :wink: once again we get mired by the charming vagueness of the game, IPCs really being Military Production Certificates capturing the ability to field units which involves a myriad of factors outside the scope of the game mechanics that we love despite failing to differeniate between endless horde infantry mills and tech savvy arsenals of democracy.