Europe Map Projection Redux

@oztea:

so far ive managed to squeeze in a few typos in every incarnation of my map

maybe WOTC would like to see my resume

Don’t forget to wear your best monkey suit to the interview.

@oztea:

sadly, I dont think any land territores will prevent sea movement (other than suez and istanbul) just because thats how larry does things, he likes to let combat happen, so you have to think defensively, rather than rest on your laurells behind an invisable wall

If I had my way….I rationalize straights this way…the straight doesnt actualy stop movement, there isnt a big net they put up or something. What it is, is that straights are conjested enough that if a side controls a territory with a vantage point over the ONLY entrance/exit to the negboring sea zone, then they can give advance warning to their comrades if ships are steaming through (Italians into the atlantic, UK into the baltic) This advance warning would allow the defender to pick off ship, by ship (or task force by task force) as it steams through the narrow gap. WITH advance warning for their air cover.

The reason why you wont charge a straight is because your sailors would mutiny! they dont know whats in the baltic sea, and they sure as hell arent going to charge through it into the lions den of german air power.

I favor rules like this…but larry favors hard evidence that you wont attack…like if germany wants to hold the baltic they should build boats…what that creates however is an arms race…germany keeps building boats, so UK has to build more boats, after a few turns, you cant raid eachoters fleets, its either go big or stay home. send all your boats and airpower, or none.

Yeah, its completely retarded, the suez and panama are the only territories with capture necessary to use (exception: dardanelles optional some games), when of course gibraltar and the baltic sea should be the same as well.  The fact that they can be blithely crossed at will leads to a lot of ahistorical games, where 1) Germany is forced to hold a large part of its army back to defend its capital from British raids (the UK didn’t have any ships in the baltic until the very end of the war, as the straits were mined too well; and the Allies didn’t even have a real port in Europe until 1945); and 2) Italy can throw its fleet at the Brits and Yanks in the SZ off Algeria (SZ12) without the British base in Gibraltar giving off any warning that the fleet was passing through (Straits of Gibraltar are what, like 9 miles wide?  Good luck sneaking a battleship through that.)

Totally unrealistic, but I guess we need game balance first.  I guess making the Baltic impassable for the Allies makes Germany a bit TOO strong at the beginning of the game, but it would make seizure of Norway and Northwestern Europe (for use of the Baltic Straits) a priority for both sides and make them more than just dead-zones, as you would need them to try Sea Lion or a naval invasion of Germany.  Italy needing to seize Gibraltar in order to open up passage to the Atlantic would make a lot of sense as well.

Sgt, no argument here.
Larry did set up a post on the straights to get some feed back from us a while back on his sight . Maybe there is a new straight rule in the Euro game similar to the canal rules. I don’t think they have ruled it out at this point as far as I remember anyway.

Here’s a few ideas:

1.) Let Gibraltar scramble, and let Denmark scramble, or at least make Sjaelland, the island with Copenhagen, a seperate territory which can scramble.

2.) Make it so that if one side controls both entrances to a straight, it blocks sea movement to the other.  For example, if Germany controls both Norway and Denmark, the allies can’t pass into the Baltic.  However, if the allies take either Norway or Denmark, both sides can pass through, and if the allies take both Norway and Denmark, only the allies can pass through.  Same would go for Morocco and Gibraltar.  This idea would create a new importance for the Germans to defend Norway rather than the axis just abandoning it except for a few infantry as happens often in the other games.

The Panama Canal, Suez Canal, and Dardanelles would only be bordered by one territory each so only the side controlling that territory can pass through.

Also, since Japan can scramble, should the UK be able to scramble?  Even if it is divided into two or more territories?

@dakgoalie38:

Also, since Japan can scramble, should the UK be able to scramble?  Even if it is divided into two or more territories?

i agree the brits should get to scramble off thier home land i think its similar size to japan.

@dakgoalie38:

Also, since Japan can scramble, should the UK be able to scramble?  Even if it is divided into two or more territories?

I’d say yes. It maintains the tactical primacy of sweeping the RAF out of the Channel.

Take a thing into account about Gibraltar: in this game, Spain will be neutral but can be invaded. Since southern edge of Spain is nearer to Africa than Gibraltar, the territories closing the strait should be Southern Spain and Morocco. You may add Gibraltar to the ecuation and make a trio if feel better, specially if Spain is not at war yet. But a Spain at war should close the strait for the other side

@Funcioneta:

Take a thing into account about Gibraltar: in this game, Spain will be neutral but can be invaded. Since southern edge of Spain is nearer to Africa than Gibraltar, the territories closing the strait should be Southern Spain and Morocco. You may add Gibraltar to the ecuation and make a trio if feel better, specially if Spain is not at war yet. But a Spain at war should close the strait for the other side

While this would be geographically accurate, it would be better for gameplay purposes for Gibraltar to be the territory that closes the channel.  Also, it would be historically accurate since Gibraltar was used in the war to watch ships moving in and out of the Mediteranean.  It would be historically inaccurate for Spain to block ships from moving into the Mediteranean, since it never did this while it was neutral.

Same goes for Sweden and Norway.  Sweden is much closer to Denmark than Norway is.  However, for gameplay and historical purposes, Norway and Denmark should control the entrance to the Baltic.

Geographic distance did not matter in the war, and should not matter in the game.

@dakgoalie38:

@Funcioneta:

But a Spain at war should close the strait for the other side

It would be historically inaccurate for Spain to block ships from moving into the Mediteranean, since it never did this while it was neutral.

But - as Funcky points out - in AAE40 Spanish Neutrality cannot be taken for granted… and then geography should assert herself.

Geography has nothing to do with war except for its impact on tactical and strategical influences in war. The straits of Gibraltar were controlled by Great Britain. Any attempt, either real or virtual, from the Spanish to close the straits based on their own land and armies would have failed disastrously based on Britain’s reactions.

The guns of Gibraltar were the reason the straits were under British control. Those heavies ensured any ship forced between the two landmasses came in range. The geography wasn’t what gave the British control, but the guns.

Any attempt from the Spanish would have been blown out by the British heavies on both fortress and battleship.

Remember that directly opposite was Spanish Morocco, not French/Vichy territory.

AS I’ve mentioned I think Gib should be a British naval base in Spanish territory.

Perhaps enemy subs can attempt to pass through the straits?

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

@cts17:

Geography has nothing to do with war except for its impact on tactical and strategical influences in war. The straits of Gibraltar were controlled by Great Britain. Any attempt, either real or virtual, from the Spanish to close the straits based on their own land and armies would have failed disastrously based on Britain’s reactions.

The guns of Gibraltar were the reason the straits were under British control. Those heavies ensured any ship forced between the two landmasses came in range. The geography wasn’t what gave the British control, but the guns.

Any attempt from the Spanish would have been blown out by the British heavies on both fortress and battleship.

OK I’m going to keep my reply to simply: Obviously it was both firepower and geography.

But Ok, short of invasion which the game permits you to play out - how exactly would the British have prevented pro-Axis Spain from emplacing heavies of their own into their own coastal defences to bring the straits under their sights?

@oztea:

Flashman it would simply go against Axis and Allies conventional wisdom to have Gibraltar be a UK port in a greater spanish territory.

I came across a conundrum during a previous statement you made about hong kong being a treaty port for the UK.

Technicly, if that was the case in Pacific 40, the territory would be, according to current set up, co-occupied by Japan and the UK.

Opposing sides co-occuping a territory doesnt fit well into the rules, it would require exceptions to the rules and more and more exceptions to those….its best to just be a historicly inaccurately sized territory.

besides you need physical board space to stick a French infantry or something without having blow-up boxes.

Treaty ports aren’t treated as separate land territories, so there’s no need to have blow-up boxes, or an absurdly enlarged Gibraltar territory covering half of southern Spain.

If the greater territory is occupied by enemy forces you lose the port.

So, if Spain joins the Axis, Gibraltar is automatically absorbed into Spain.  Even without German help they’d have easily taken over the rock.  The only thing that stopped Franco doing this was that his country was bankrupted by the civil war, and simply couldn’t afford to get involved in another conflict.  He also realised that Spain would become a prime target for American intervention, and was in any case heavily dependent on American imports.  He managed to stall Hitler by demanding the same French North African territory that Hitler had already promised to Mussolini (while secretly promising Petain it wouldn’t be transferred…)
If and when Spain joins the Axis then Spanish and Allied forces in the territory are treated as though a battle has been initiated.  If using ships-in-port rules the UK would have the option of retreating it’s ships to sea.

Similarly, if Japan captures Kwantgtung it’s assumed that it gains the Hong Kong naval base in the process. All UK and Chinese forces in the territory defend together.

We might also have French Pondichery in Coromandel, and Portuguese Goa in Malabar.  Even if not significant militarily, they can become important if using certain Convoy routes, and if using ship re-fueling rules.

@oztea:

The size and shape of territories is only enlarged for unit placement.

:-D

Is there an echo in here?

Mmmm, according to this the Japanese controlled the coastal zone surrounding Hong Kong, but can scarcely be said to be in occupation of the Province, most of which was still in Chinese hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Occupation_-_Map.jpg

Japan had the policy of taking over coastal towns, but leaving the interior to the Chinese, so it’s debatable as to who was “in control” at this time.  For me, it’s still China, so Japan still has to capture the whole province of Kwangtung, not just a tiny bit.

If Japan and UK are not at war, then there’s no problem with the units coexisting; the Brits just sit out any Sino-Japanese battle.

Japan gains control of the territory and get it’s income (I wouldn’t have this as a VC in any case), but wouldn’t be able to build a naval base - that privilege has been signed over to the UK.  In effect Japan takes over China’s side of the treaty.