@Nuclear:
I think Flashman’s point is that since the game is starting out at 1939, Germany is already father away from Moscow. And the whole game is going to be different. The map that was play tested was based off 1942 not 1939. It may actually be a more balanced game if Moscow is moved one space closer to Germany. As it is, Germany is the same distance away as Japan is from Moscow in terms of spaces.
Perhaps play testing needs to be done on this map to determine if Moscow is in the right spot. I would hate to see the game turn into a battle of Japan vs Russia. Because if there are less units in the East, the axis may have a much better chance of winning the game if Japan dukes it out with Russia and Germany just fights off France and UK.
Either way the game is going to be a lot different from starting in 1939 to 1942.
Thanks, that was exactly my point. I assumed that the map was intended specifically for a 1939 scenario, but a “one map fits all” version is a different ballgame.
However for all sorts of reasons I still think Moscow should be where it really is:
1. I hate the boring and predictable German/Japanese “race to Moscow” playout that dominates standard games.
2. It places the Soviet player in a totally unhistorical position strategically. Moscow WAS this close to Germany; it’s up to the designer to solve this problem by looking at what happened in the real war; altering geography is cheating in my book.
They actually solved the problem by moving a huge amount of industry to the Urals, Kuzbas and Kazakhstan, out of range of German attacks. This meant that even if the principle line of Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad had fallen, the USSR could still have fought on from their eastern provinces and still produce huge quantities of tanks and aircraft.
I think the solution of moving MOSCOW hundreds of miles east which “Larry’s Gang” came up with is based on the assumption that you absolutely HAVE to have the “capture the capitol with the capital” rule which to me seems so outdated for WWII.
Remove the c-t-c rule (which most people seem to want modifying at least) and the loss of Moscow becomes less decisive and so the city can be safely placed in it’s correct location without breaking the game.
My map has 5 Soviet ICs: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kharkov and Chelyabinsk. The later is the Urals centre which replaces the unhistorical Moscow, Kharkov (or Kiev if you prefer) represents the huge industry of Ukraine; in a 1939 scenario the Urals centre can be deleted but give the Russians the option of transporting this complex east. In 1942 it is of course German occupied, however I never allow players to use enemy complexes.
3. On a more historical map, Japan just isn’t going to get to Moscow that easily; mountainous and forested terrain, and numerous small Chinese territories would likely wear them down. That means that Moscow really has to be attainable for the European Axis, and placing it in the Urals just about destroys this, especially for a pre-1942 game.
Latest map:
Rio de O looks much better where it is, but my suggestion was that it should border Algeria/Morocco to allow units to move down the west African coast (it was known as Western Sahara for a time). Depends on how you interpret “passable”; does being a coastal territory (even though mainly desert) make it passable to land units because they’d get support from navy off-shore?
If it doesn’t link Alg-FWA RdO would still be a redundant area.
You’ve called Gold coast Nigeria; the latter would be in the south-west of the FEA territory.
Where to place other oil fields?
Burma, East Indies, Borneo, Caucasus, Trans-Jordan (Iraq) would be the obvious ones, I don’t think there was significant extraction in north Africa at this time. Saudi? Mexico?
Am I correct in assuming that the two Central USA parts are actually one territory?
Couple of reminders:
Libya (spelling)
French Roundel (red and blue need reversing)
