Help With Development...2194 Gigamap Version 2

[curtsibling]

I would band Italy in with the 3rd Reich...

I would strongly recommend making Australia or even Canada a civ in their own right.

Both made huge contributions in WW2...

And no-one has done Canada as a civ in a WW2 scen...

[Arthedain]

It will be as much hard for Canada. If they decide to send troops to Europe they can't land in britain cause then they'll occupy their squares etc. You will have the same problem with all the countries but I would gone for Italy and maybe Canada.

[tanelorn]

Of course you can have allied troops in your cities in civ: use sleeper units. If you put a sleeping German unit in Italian cities, you can move german units in them/through them. If you put American sleepers in UK cities, you can use British cities during the US turn and so on...
If the last foreign unit in the city is killed, you can't replace it, but as long as there is at least one you can, say, pile US troops in any UK city.
Hope this helps.

In the current version, the Axis is too strong (because of the number of cities, superior units/production/numbers & strategic position- they have all their apples in one basket), and the British too weak (they are overextended).

If you include Italy & Minor alies (as in ZWK) you remedy that. If you take Canada/Australia from the Commonwealth the British will be beaten even sooner. Where's the fun in that.
As for Canada/Australia, yes they would be more viable, but during the war they operated as commonwealth troops, not alone.

[Arthedain]

So if you put German troops in Italy (at least in North Africa), can you disband them as the italian player if you break up the alliance? I think that this is a very good idea Tanelorn, and you're right about don't making the British too weak.

[tanelorn]

Sure you can. You can activate them and withdraw them as the German player by placing the cursor box over the city and hitting ctrl A. So that you can sneak attack the Italians, as in 1943, if you suspect they get any funny ideas

[Cifer Almasy]

I am for Italy, too! So There also would be more perspectives for Germany- e.g. not supporting Italy anymore and vasting Power in North Africa instead of pushing into the east.

More free space for decisions- more fun!
I would include a "Third Reichs Allies" Civ!

[MeckPomm]

Hi,

if you are looking for a balanced and correct world map, juste take a view on this map. I created it afew months ago.

[jim panse]

I second the Italy proposal as it would be more difficult for Germany to advance in Northern Africa. I have played in both PBEMs so far (one as the German, one as the British player) and in both games Egypt was captured by the Germans. Also reinforcing would be harder for the Axis.

[Cifer Almasy]

Originally posted by MeckPomm
Hi,

if you are looking for a balanced and correct world map, juste take a view on this map. I created it afew months ago.

Sorry but yours is the one from Imperialism- which is extremely distorted! The map Pap uses is the best I have ever seen- the most realistic one.
It definitely is NOT balanced or correct- in this map Europe is given more space than it has in reality.
Why do you propose a in every case inferior map to the original one???

[MeckPomm]

Hallo,

da du aus Detmold kommst, glaube ich das du es verstehen wirst, wenn ich jetzt auf Deutsch schreibe.

1. Diese Karte ist nicht irgendwie geklaut oder verändert von einer bereits bestehenden Karte. Deswegen meine ich, dass es unfähr ist, zumal ich an dieser Karte zwei Wochen gearbeitet habe, zu behaupt, dass diese Karte nicht von mir erstellt wurde.

2. Ich habe zuerst mit Mapedit eine leere Gigamap erstellt. Dann im Civ2-Karteneditor das Gradnetz mittels Eisterrain eingezeichnet und dann alle Umrisse nach original Gradnetzkoordinaten eingezeichnet. Das gleiche gilt für Gebirgszüge und Flüsse. Deswegen kann ich behaupten, dass diese Weltkarte so originalgetreu wie möglich umgesetzt wurde.

3. War das bloß ein Vorschlag. Ich will hier niemanden meine Karte aufzwingen.

So, ich hoffe, dass ist jetzt klargestellt. Sollte nicht böse gemeint sein. Ich finde es halt nur schade, wenn man meine Karte als stark abgewandelte Version der Imperialismus-Weltkarte sieht.

[Cifer Almasy]

Hmm... na wenn das so ist, will ich mich höflichst entschuldigen!
Sie sieht der Imp Karte nur extremst ähnlich- und auf dieser und der Imp Karte wird man das Gefühl nicht los, dass Afrika viel zu schmal daherkommt. Ebenso Südamerika.
Wie gesagt, ich halte Paps Map für die realistischste Karte, die ich bis jetzt gesehen habe.
Vielleicht gibt es bei einer exakten Gradnetzübereisntimmung zwischen Atlas und Mapedit ein "Verziehen" des Gesamtwerkes- anders kann ich mir das nicht erklären.
Also, ich sage noch einmal Entschuldigung und wünsche dir alles Gute hier!

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Darius871
Considering how very very hard it is to find committed PBEM'ers these days, I'd recommend against a Minor Allies civ.

Anyway, I can only think of a few minor changes.

- Why are some bunker units fortified and some not?

- Lose the Fairey Swordfish in Minsk of course.

- You have to do more to prevent an Axis invasion of Britain in the second turn. Sure, most of the time this is due to incompetence on the British players' part, but it was still too easy for sas and I. Something as simple as removing one of London's 2 bunkers and putting one in a Channel port or two would be more than enough.

- More offensive units available to the Soviets at the start.

- Slightly weaker industry for Germany.

- An industrial square by Delhi.

Dito everything Darius says. It is still TOO EASY to invade the UK. Especially early in the game before the Brits can "do something about it."

Where the he!! you been BTW, we missed you! You dumb pollock!

[Pablostuka]

MeckPomm and Cifer Almasy...could you post in English, please? There is a thing called private message (PM), if you wanna talk in German

About the scen: I suggest several map changes, specially in the Pacific Ocean. It's too small, and the isles are wrong placed (specially Midway and Hawaii)

And if it's going to be designed for PBEMs, I would allow diplomacy between players

[MeckPomm]

Well, then I try to say it in English, too.

The map is my own creation, It's not a copy or anything else of something that has already existed.

Sorry, but nothing is too small and nothing is wrong placed. For this map I used the radiation net (Gradnetz?), so every little river and every little island and every small coastline is as real as possible.

[Pap1723]

Thanks for all of the ideas guys, this is great stuff!

My next question is probably the most important because it has to do with gameplay. In all of the PBEM's that have been played so far, regardless of who has won the PBEM's, they were won very quickly. The main reason this has happened is because advances are easy to make in the scenario. Conquests are easy to come by.

In order to slow the game down, do you think I should do which of the following, or something completely different altogether...

1) - Keep a similar number of units, but increase the number of defensive units

2) - Keep a similar number of untis, but lower the attacking values, or raise the defensive values of units

3) - Lower the number of units altogether in the scenario

I'm actually leaning the furthest from number 3 right now just because I think that the sheer number of units is perfect for the scale of the scenario. Please let me know what you all think.

Pap