Slitherine

We have put on our to-do list to have a review at the CeaW map and change the terrain certain places. E. g. both Italy, Morocco and Algeria have too many rough hexes. E. g. most of Italy seems to be either rough or mountain hexes. That doesn't seem right when looking at the map and also other wargames with a similar sized map.

So we decided to have a review at the map and try to correct terrain mistakes. We would post screenshots of suggested map changes here, but would also like to have feedback from you so we get the details right. It would be very nice if you also post messages about which hexes should be changed and to what terrain.

First on the agenda is to change the terrain in areas that saw some warfare during WW2 like Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Algeria. I know that the map contains a lot of mistakes in Sweden and Norway (being a Norwegian), but these areas aren't that important to fix because you will rarely see any combat there.

So please start posting to give us hints about what you would like to have changed on the map. Paul will be in charge for changing the map and collect all your suggestions. Then we will post the new proposed maps for review here so you have the chance to comment on the changes.

Stauffenberg wrote: First on the agenda is to change the terrain in areas that saw some warfare during WW2 like Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Algeria. I know that the map contains a lot of mistakes in Sweden and Norway (being a Norwegian), but these areas aren't that important to fix because you will rarely see any combat there.

I´m from Spain and I can tell you the map contains mistakes too here... I know Spain like Sweden are neutral countries but Spain can be a territory to keep in mind in a strategic view in this game. That´s because I´ve found several mistakes that should be corrected. In the map below I´ve edited the type terrain hexes that should contain the map to fix those errors:

• C: should be a clear hex

• M: should be a mountain hex

• R: should be a rough hex

Notice that Ebro river is all surrounded by mountains in the original map and and I can tell you that zone is a plain in the real map. Also notice that in the original map there´s no rough or even mountain hexes in the southern France which is another geographic mistake (Pyrenees doesn´t exist on map). The other proposed changes are in the central Spain. I´ve tested how easy is for the allies to invade Spain from Portugal. There´s no such a plain between Spain and Portugal like original CEAW map shows. There are many mountains between Spain and Portugal that would make more difficult for the allies to invade Spain. The other changes I propose (these ones are in "war zone") are showed in the map below:

• 1. If you look how is France borders in CEAW map you will find they are different as the real ones.

• 2. There are a lot of forest terrains not included in CEAW map but I´ve choose Black Forest as one of them to add in a new fixed CEAW map

• 3. Switzerland territory seems to be too large in CEAW map.

• The changes you´ve proposed in Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Morocco are a good idea for a modified CEAW map!

Thanks for your input Leridano. I'm sure Paul will have a look at your suggestions for Spain etc. and adopt it. So far we haven't started proposing changes for any territories except Algeria, Morocco and Tunis. So we would welcome if you want to propose changes to italy, Yugoslavia, Greece and any other parts of the map.

I have a few questions about your suggested changes in Spain.

1. Are there no forest hexes at all in Spain or Portugal?

2. In some of the hexes you've proposed R (rough) and M (mountain) in already existing rough and mountain hexes. Is that just for clarification or do you mean something else? It seems you think the light brown hexes are mountain and dark brown hexes are rough. It's actually the opposite. The dark brown hexes are mountain and the light brown hexes are rough. Mountain hexes are harder than rough hexes to move and fight in. So mountain hexes have higher altitudes etc. and should be less frequent than rough hexes.

Keep your suggestions coming. Send Ronnie or me a PM with your email address if you want to contribute more to the map and playtest the changes as we try them out in the playtesting group. Then we can add you to the playtesting email list. I

Stauffenberg wrote:
2. In some of the hexes you've proposed R (rough) and M (mountain) in already existing rough and mountain hexes. Is that just for clarification or do you mean something else?

Sure it´s have been an error... I´ve got confused rough and mountain hexes... I will edit my post above with the correct map...

Stauffenberg wrote: 1. Are there no forest hexes at all in Spain or Portugal?

Yes, there are. But they would be in the same hexes occupied by rough or mountain...I think the Spain map posted above (now showing correct hexes) would be more realistic than the CEAW one.

Thanks for the update to the Spanish map. I'm sure Paul will implement them.

You're right that forests in mountain or rough terrain should use the other terrain instead since it has a bigger impact to movement and combat.

Hi,
Let me say thank you for your ideas. These are the parameters we are working under for the map changes.
1) each hex is approximately 30 miles or 50 km.
2) armored and motorized units have an additional 1MP penalty over the vanilla game.
3) Accuracy is good, but balance and playability will override that.
4) time scale is 20 days.

This is how a map will eventually be implemented.
1) candidates will be submitted and voted on.
2) then we may have a general vote from the player community.
3)Then we have to alter the actual map tiles and then code those changes.
4) playtest, playtest, playtest.
5) If balance is good, works toward a historical outcome, then we will make it a permanent change and if the group decides that.
6) release it for the next mod.

Remember you can designate a hex as a woods hex to act as a valley in a mountain range, or where there is a rail line. That helps or hinders troop movement.

I will be working up your candidate map and get it ready for the submission process. Right now I have 7 areas already done.
This will definitely create lots of discussion. It will be fun!

Regards,

pk867

Hi Everybody,

We have completed our map for the BJR-mod and we will be going into playtest. Go to here- http://gallery.me.com/kirbyptx#100055
to look at the map in its entirety or you can look at the sub areas that were changed. You are welcome to download.
Remember this is for playing the BJR-mod v1.06 when it comes out. We welcome your questions and comments.
Strategies will change and new ones made. Stauffenberg can provide most of the details. We will help answer your questions.
Any new areas that you feel need to looked at, please let us know.

Regards,

pk867

Paul, Great Job!! I got my first look last night at the v1.06 (beta) with these and others changes. Very impressive!!

And Borger and Timothy have been very busy too adding mechanized corps including Panzergrenadiers, refining the Middle East (e.g., Syria is now Vichy and the fighter and BB now appear in Egypt, Kuwait City is now Basra), moving all production in ports to their controlling cities, and a lot of other goodies.

pk867 wrote:Hi Everybody,

We have completed our map for the BJR-mod and we will be going into playtest. Go to here- http://gallery.me.com/kirbyptx#100055
to look at the map in its entirety or you can look at the sub areas that were changed. You are welcome to download.
Remember this is for playing the BJR-mod v1.06 when it comes out. We welcome your questions and comments.
Strategies will change and new ones made. Stauffenberg can provide most of the details. We will help answer your questions.
Any new areas that you feel need to looked at, please let us know.

Regards,

pk867

I´ve seen very good changes in the maps and all of them improve significantly the CEAW original map. But I would add one more thing: the same way in BJR mod has been added a city in Belgium (Antwerp) I think it would be good to add a city in Holland (Groningen in the northeast would be good). This would increase Axis westwall strength and the allies would have their way to the heart of Germany closer in this area after liberating The Hague...

Adding a city in Holland was a very good idea. Groningen is so far to the north so it won't help the Germans a lot when the Allies cross the Rhine in force.

Instead I added the strategic city of Arnhem. It's located 2xSE of Hague or 2xNW of Essen. It's on the north bank of the Rhine and forms a choke point the Allies must get through unless they want to get through the Siegfried line. The Axis can rail to Arnhem and adjacent hexes making it harder to get across the Rhine here.

We all remember the Allied Operation Market Garden with Arnhem being a bridge too far for Monty. The Allies believed that they could rush to Berlin if they got across the Rhine at Arnhem.

So adding it to the CeaW map as a city is a good idea in my opinion. What do you think?

Stauffenberg wrote:Adding a city in Holland was a very good idea. Groningen is so far to the north so it won't help the Germans a lot when the Allies cross the Rhine in force.

Instead I added the strategic city of Arnhem. It's located 2xSE of Hague or 2xNW of Essen. It's on the north bank of the Rhine and forms a choke point the Allies must get through unless they want to get through the Siegfried line. The Axis can rail to Arnhem and adjacent hexes making it harder to get across the Rhine here.

We all remember the Allied Operation Market Garden with Arnhem being a bridge too far for Monty. The Allies believed that they could rush to Berlin if they got across the Rhine at Arnhem.

So adding it to the CeaW map as a city is a good idea in my opinion. What do you think?

Yeah, a bridge too far! Totally! Do it up, that's a great idea.

Stauffenberg wrote:Adding a city in Holland was a very good idea. Groningen is so far to the north so it won't help the Germans a lot when the Allies cross the Rhine in force.

Instead I added the strategic city of Arnhem. It's located 2xSE of Hague or 2xNW of Essen. It's on the north bank of the Rhine and forms a choke point the Allies must get through unless they want to get through the Siegfried line. The Axis can rail to Arnhem and adjacent hexes making it harder to get across the Rhine here.

We all remember the Allied Operation Market Garden with Arnhem being a bridge too far for Monty. The Allies believed that they could rush to Berlin if they got across the Rhine at Arnhem.

So adding it to the CeaW map as a city is a good idea in my opinion. What do you think?

Arnhem would be good but may be you have problems adding this city 2xSE of Hague because this way you could overwrite Scholven synth oil resource. Then, you could add Arnhem 2xE of Hague separate from synth oil name (this wouldn´t be any geographical mistake because Hague and Arnhem are almost in the same latitude). One more thing: when I posted above the changes should be made in Spain CEAW map I forgot to include changing the city of Bilbao, moving it 2 hexes to the east. Certainly, adding Arnhem (and other historical names like Mareth in Tunisia) is another way to improve this game.

leridano wrote:

Stauffenberg wrote:Adding a city in Holland was a very good idea. Groningen is so far to the north so it won't help the Germans a lot when the Allies cross the Rhine in force.

Instead I added the strategic city of Arnhem. It's located 2xSE of Hague or 2xNW of Essen. It's on the north bank of the Rhine and forms a choke point the Allies must get through unless they want to get through the Siegfried line. The Axis can rail to Arnhem and adjacent hexes making it harder to get across the Rhine here.

We all remember the Allied Operation Market Garden with Arnhem being a bridge too far for Monty. The Allies believed that they could rush to Berlin if they got across the Rhine at Arnhem.

So adding it to the CeaW map as a city is a good idea in my opinion. What do you think?

Arnhem would be good but may be you have problems adding this city 2xSE of Hague because this way you could overwrite Scholven synth oil resource. Then, you could add Arnhem 2xE of Hague separate from synth oil name (this wouldn´t be any geographical mistake because Hague and Arnhem are almost in the same latitude). One more thing: when I posted above the changes should be made in Spain CEAW map I forgot to include changing the city of Bilbao, moving it 2 hexes to the east. Certainly, adding Arnhem (and other historical names like Mareth in Tunisia) is another way to improve this game.

Hi I moved the Scholven synth oil hex to the north so it won't overwrite Arnhem. I will move Bilbao 2 hexes to the east as well. Any other changes to the map you suggest?

Stauffenberg wrote: Hi I moved the Scholven synth oil hex to the north so it won't overwrite Arnhem. I will move Bilbao 2 hexes to the east as well. Any other changes to the map you suggest?

That´s right.