The Cold War (Global Map)

[Teflon Kris]

Here's an idea for another map in the Communist map-pack series:

The Cold War

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

show: Original idea

[Industrial Helix]

What about a Cold War World map? I mean, we don't have a whole lot of world maps.

Maybe something along the lines of the bonus systems found in Napoleonic Europe but which emphasis on the world during the Cold War. Places like Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam could be battle victories which yield a bonus when held with any major power... China, USSR, Britain, USA, France... essentially the UN Security Council. Plus, we can apply for large size map status.

Thoughts?

[Luminous]

cold war map sounds like a really cool idea

[Teflon Kris]

What about a Cold War World map? I mean, we don't have a whole lot of world maps.

Maybe something along the lines of the bonus systems found in Napoleonic Europe but which emphasis on the world during the Cold War. Places like Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam could be battle victories which yield a bonus when held with any major power... China, USSR, Britain, USA, France... essentially the UN Security Council. Plus, we can apply for large size map status.

Thoughts?

Excellent idea - then the whole of 3 decades can fit into one map.

There are a lot of battle victory spots that could be included. They could form neutral dividers between continents in some instances (i.e. taking them could open up further ways of getting around the map, as in Napoleonic Europe).

It would be cool to have some kind of way of getting around the map quickly - all of the global maps currently have pretty much standard gameplay, it would be cool to have a map that played very differently (e.g. commanders / UN security regions can attack around the globe more easily - or ports connect - or USSR / US-supported regions connect back to the US / USSR - or something).

A small problem is that the 5 permanent members of the UN Security council border others (except the US), so, maybe they could be seperated by having their seats in an inset? Also, gameplay would need to be though out so that players have reasonably equal access to the security council regions, which could be tricky.

Did Australia play any part in Cold War politics (excuse my ignorance)? This would be a useful place for an inset

Perhaps the UN Security council itself could also be another region, maybe killer neutral, that can 'eject' members (i.e. a means of attacking the 'commanders')?

Maybe, thinking about this further, a solution to the location of the 5 permanent members problem mentionned above, could be to allow some of the non permanent members (there are shed loads to choose from over the era) to attack the killer neutral security council (although not involve them in the conflict bonus system)?

[Industrial Helix]

UN seat inset... I think that is the ticket for the commanders element. Leave it at 5 and make them low neutrals attacked by their respective countries?

There's one element that I'm thinking might be really interesting to add in, that being Nuclear War. Make it border from the UN security Council and bombard every territory. Think of it as a player able to go from Soviet Union to their council seat to nuke war. BUT, if Nuke war is held then the player loses by losing conditions. It's essentially a suicide button in singles games, reflecting the fears of some sociopathic leader, but its also a tricky tool for team games, see Castro urging the use of Cuba's nukes in 1962.

As for making things more accessible... I think the usual sea/air connections ought to work. I mean, something from USSR to Cuba and something from USA to Vietnam, Korea, Japan. The connections should reflect where each player was active. Cuban's were massive military force in Angola, so a Cuba to Angola connection would be good. Australia fought strongly in Vietnam, so send them there, ect. I fear a Europe inset might be needed though seeing as Britain and France are UN security council seats... maybe a mid east inset given the wars there

[Teflon Kris]

Nuclear War ... essentially a suicide button in singles games, but its also a tricky tool for team games

Very interesting feature.

... sea/air connections ought to work. I mean, something from USSR to Cuba and something from USA to Vietnam, Korea, Japan. The connections should reflect where each player was active. Cuban's were massive military force in Angola, so a Cuba to Angola connection would be good. Australia fought strongly in Vietnam, so send them there, ect.

This would be true to political history but arrows and long lines or extra explanations in the legend may impact on the maps popularity (and a world map with interesting gameplay could be extremely popular)?

Plus, while these connections may be true to history, they might not create the same kind of accessibility around the map balance as the temporary UN members idea (yeah, I'm still stuck on it) - the temporary members could attack permanent members through the council without having the extra seat region? Also, we don't want the permanent members to link directly to conflict regions if we can help it, otherwise that bonus system would be too easy in some cases.

Maybe we can get balance through your idea though, but I think it would require having a balanced number of links from each UN permanent member, such as UK, China and France having some long distance links?

I fear a Europe inset might be needed though seeing as Britain and France are UN security council seats... maybe a mid east inset given the wars there

If the map doesn't have too many regions (e.g. combining areas such as scandinavia, the arabian peninsula rather than world 2.1 style accuracy) then insets might be avoidable? Consider combining Iran and Iraq as one conflict region for example, and the same for Korea? The conflict zones could be indicated by a small symbol and a two-letter abbreviation if need be.

[Industrial Helix]

Well, let's aim for no insets. If we need them, then we have the option.

See, in my mind, the UN is the big 5 and that's it. They've got 3rd world general secretaries and all these nations in there but none of it really matters. The UN condemns Soviet action in Hungary but it doesn't matter because its completely about the balance of power in the big five. You can have Germany as a temp member but they never have the votes to actually impact anything. They just sit there and listen.

As for the UN security council seats, I figure they're all separate and don't border each other, like the commanders in the other maps of the series. Basically, Washington borders the USA seat, Moscow borders the USSR seat, London the UK seat, ect. If we need to add three members, I'm leaning towards the defeated powers of WWII: East Germany, West Germany and Japan. Maybe swap out East or West Germany for Taiwan... which the USA was asserting had the China seat for a while.

So Europe is going to be a problem as it has so many commanders next to each other. I propose this: No UK connection to the continent. Iron Curtain: by agreement of the powers after WWII, these were the limits of each powers sphere of influence and it was never broken during the cold war. So essentially, the USSR player won't be able to easily run straight to France and then the UK to score and easy win. Though, something ought to be done to limit China and USSR from easily sacking each other.

As for the connections... maybe we should skip the traditional connection stylings. I mean, by 1950 the world isn't a series of guided paths like it was in Napoleon's day. Ships from the USSR could make it to Cuba because there wasn't a full war going on and there wasn't a blockade. So during the Cold War, the high seas were remarkably open. So what I'm thinking is larger sea territories with a killer neutral. Yes, it's possible to send supplies to Cuba from the USSR but you gotta be able to make it in one trip and you can't form a blockade (act of war). Obviously we don't want the map to play like a massive land territories, so maybe neutral 10. Perhaps even restrict which countries have access to the open seas. Poland, for example, would not have access and troops would have to be able to access the Soviet Union to move to wherever they're going. Vietnam can't land troops in the USA, so they have no sea access. But USA can invade Vietnam and it acts as a one way border maybe. I dunno, I'm just shooting off thoughts.

But overall, we want this to accurately represent the military situation faced by the powers during this era. I'm completely opposed to make a map in the shape of whatever, Iwo Jima for example, and then labelling it a battle when all it does is act as a free for all.

[Teflon Kris]

(I'm in a rush so quick reply:)



The killer neutral seas will make historical accuracy possible (ouch, I feel old that the world of my infancy is now history). A means of getting about the map without having to use things like the tenporary members (they would be a bit of a gimmick for pure gameplay reasons). With ways of getting around it is then possible to increase the importance of conflicts in the southern hemisphere.

And I like the UK being cut-off from the continent, plus the Iron Curtain being a physical barrier on the map is awesome.

As for the additional UN members, you are right that these are the big players, although for reasons of avoiding insets etc. it may be worth working onb ideas where they can be added later if room allows?

We'll have to see if we can think of a reason for a Russia-China lack of border (some way of mnaking a peace pact look like an impassable) but that's a minor issue.

Thinking further ahead - and regional bonuses - small regional bonuses for the southern hemisphere and larger one for the SOviet-China block and NATO block would be fitting? Plus, removing some of the connections discussed (UK and China-Russia) would make these bigger bonuses very hard to gain. Then again, the Iron Curtain would work the opposite way. However, including Cuba and Australia in the 2 blocks would guarantee difficulty and justify high values.

I agree about the UN seats not attacking one another - that is how I see it too - the UN Council region itself (that can attack them) could be a large neutral, or killer neutral, as the balance of power is almost impossible to break.

This idea is about political power and has power, it must be done

[Industrial Helix]

Well, we want the map to play out in a certain way. We want it to be easy for a player to hold the Soviet Union or the USA and defend it well. So the choke points and territories will have to reflect that. What we don't want is a player coming out of Australia or South America... so those bonus will only be worth anything with a major power or perhaps a very low bonus as a collection.

Give the gameplay of this a quick look and see if it jogs any ideas. I kind of think it might be a good solution for the China/USSR problem or the France/Germany problem. I'm not sure, but the map keeps coming up in my mind for some reason.

viewtopic.php?f=242&t=54318

[Teflon Kris]

Well, we want the map to play out in a certain way. We want it to be easy for a player to hold the Soviet Union or the USA and defend it well. So the choke points and territories will have to reflect that. What we don't want is a player coming out of Australia or South America... so those bonus will only be worth anything with a major power or perhaps a very low bonus as a collection.

I would suggest a low bonus to give some life to half of the globe. In multi-player games there needs to be a small offering to players who are effectively "locked-out" of the original race for the UN seats. Plus, we would have the conflict regions bonuses which are only collectable with a major power. Imagine the scenario where player A has a major power and conflict bonus in Africa - player B, with a small regional bonus, would then have a little firepower to attack player As conflict bonus (but probably not enough to go through the choke point(s) to hit his well-defended super-power.

Give the gameplay of this a quick look and see if it jogs any ideas. I kind of think it might be a good solution for the China/USSR problem or the France/Germany problem. I'm not sure, but the map keeps coming up in my mind for some reason.

viewtopic.php?f=242&t=54318

I see your idea - although we cant lock-out the super-powers completely. I see it as the northern hemisphere will have several impassables to half-lock in the super-powers, while it will be possible to moanoevre around the southern hemisphere fairly easily through the killer neutral seas (a bit like Land and Sea seas but KN).

[Industrial Helix]

Yeah... well essentially we want games to play out where the north is static but the south is in constant flux. I dunno, I'd say we're in need of some sort of rudimentary draft... you want to do it or should I?

[Teflon Kris]

I'm happy to scribble on a blank map and scan - doing it properly would take me weeks - I can have a shot over the next 2 days

[Industrial Helix]

Sounds good, i can translate it to the usual styling I've been giving the maps before I graphics revamp them.

[Teflon Kris]

Sorry , I'm a bit slow off the mark here - usual pre-xmas rush plus various other types of fascvism resulting in me reverti8ng to using a desktop and having to download and install scanner software - so hopefully next couple of days.

I've been sketching away, and this is gonna require insets unless we either get large map status or slightly exaggerate the size of the UK (& Taiwan).

[Industrial Helix]

Yeah, just do it as best you can for now... its only the melting pot

[Teflon Kris]

Click image to enlarge.

Ok. I haven't labelled the regions yet but you will be able to work most out: I am happy to add them tomorrow if you like, plus bonuses and connection explanations?

Dark blue are NATO regions and light blue are other regions with western allegiance. I forgot to colour Mozambique red.

Most of the rest of the map should fit with some of the ideas we have discussed earlier.

The yellow-and-black borders are super-power defences, impassable. There are breaks in these defences such as the USSR nbeing attackable from the arctic.

Some of the defence breaks are next to conflict zones which would ideally start neutral.

Beind the one-way arrow out of France is Benelux.

France and UK one have one way in, which is maybe too easy to hold? China has maybe too many ways in for a superpower? Its probably not clear but the UK is only attackable from Ireland, France from the Med.

These are the conflict zones:

Guatemala / El Salvador
Panama / Nicarague
Peru (military coup)
Chile (military coup)
Argentina (military coup)
Iran-Iraq War
Middle East
Horn of Africa (could be spilt in 3 perhaps)
Angola
Congo
Namibia
Afghanistan
Indochina
Taiwan
Korea
Phillipenes
Malaysia
Indonesia - sorry - 3 symbols by mistake
Greek Civil War
Berlin

Some of the bigger nations could be split perhaps (e.g. USSR / USA / China / Australia)?

I have combined a lot of european areas:
Iberia
Benelux
Scandinavia (excl. Norway)
Central Europe
Balkans
Eastern Block

[Industrial Helix]

European inset looks like a must I think.

This might be a good chance to try out some other world projections, such as those which stress the importance of Africa and Central America. Europe is the only small bits on the map and the other major countries are huge, if Europe is an inset then we could do that and have more playable area in the world.

I think a light red option might be good too for India, Egypt and other non communist but Soviet aligned countries.

Pakistan would have been an US light blue.

Caribbean would be a good conflict area to add... Well, I'm just thinking of Grenada.

What is the UN thing that all seats attack which leads to nuke war? If you can hit your opponent's seat from there... why bother with Nuke War? I think the ideal would be for Nuclear War to always be an option, but with heavy consequences.

[Teflon Kris]

European inset looks like a must I think.

I agree. Even if we tried to progress without Berlin, the UK would be too small, and probably all of Europe really.

This might be a good chance to try out some other world projections

Something from a slightly south of the equator perspective, an oval shape where the north bends in towards the arctic would be cool. That would create corners for legends and insets.

I think a light red option might be good too for India, Egypt and other non communist but Soviet aligned countries.

That would be good for gameplay (bonus) balance too. I was wondering if graphically it would be cool to use symbols (e.g. Red Star and NATO flags, both with light and dark versions)? It might just be a bit more graphically appealing and therefore increase the possibllity of large map status.

Pakistan would have been an US light blue.

Caribbean would be a good conflict area to add... Well, I'm just thinking of Grenada.

I'll post an update with these changes.

What is the UN thing that all seats attack which leads to nuke war? If you can hit your opponent's seat from there... why bother with Nuke War? I think the ideal would be for Nuclear War to always be an option, but with heavy consequences.

I initially had it as one way then read something from above and changed to two-way. Something to do with ways of moving around the map but the killer neural seas will see to that so I'll swap back to one-way. As you say, it would otherwise negate the point of the nuclear option.

For the nuclear option, do we really want to have it as a condition (i.e. game over either way)? Whilst I love this idea, I was also thinking about the nuclear option being able to take out everywhere except the UN seats. Then having a condition that players must hold any region anywhere not including the seats. This would mean that you could eliminate an opponent that left everywhere weak and simply stacked on his auto deploy UN seat. Failing to eliminate would mean that the opponent(s) could then themselves use their UN seat stacks for a nuclear counter attack before the killer neutral resets. Or maybe something else. Either way the extra UN council region isn't necessary, although might be some kind of feature we think of later on.

As for the killer neutral seas. Do we want them to be attackable only from the superpowers (and able to attack any coast except the superpower defence coasts)? A question we can address later. Possibly this would be good for the continuity with the historical context although may make it tricky for players to get access to the superpowers at the start of the game if they get an awkward drop (assuming the superpowers start neutral). This could be fixed with coded starts though so that players get a mix of red, blue and neutral spots and a mix of regions close to, and far from the superpowers.

One last thought, for now, how about region bonus fixed at 3? Another element to ensure the gameplay power of the superpowers.

[tokle]

European inset looks like a must I think.

I agree. Even if we tried to progress without Berlin, the UK would be too small, and probably all of Europe really.

How about splitting Europe only into a couple of regions? Say, east, west and north? To avoid having too much of a focus on Europe.

And should Southern Europe not be coloured dark blue? (Iberia, Italy and Turkey)

[Industrial Helix]

So let me get this straight regarding the nuclear option... if you decide to go to war and blow up player 2, by not being able to nuke his seat he has the option to nuke you right back, thus creating nuclear war. OR, he could not attack the nukes and just let player 1 eliminate himself by losing condition but at the same time, lose the opportunity to nuke the map. I dunno... protecting the SC seat... it seems to make sense.

But you mention someone just stacking on their seat, what if we made it a condition, either big bonus or losing condition, for holding the seat and the country.

As for splitting Europe into generic areas... I'm not in favor as two of the Security Council powers are Britain and France. Europe was one of the most important fronts of the Cold War, imo.

And Turkey was a key piece to NATO. Italy was in early on as well I think.

[Teflon Kris]

So let me get this straight regarding the nuclear option... if you decide to go to war and blow up player 2, by not being able to nuke his seat he has the option to nuke you right back, thus creating nuclear war. OR, he could not attack the nukes and just let player 1 eliminate himself by losing condition but at the same time, lose the opportunity to nuke the map. I dunno... protecting the SC seat... it seems to make sense.

But you mention someone just stacking on their seat, what if we made it a condition, either big bonus or losing condition, for holding the seat and the country.

I'm not too sure how sophisticated we can get with the xml but this is a possibility, or at least for a player to hold any non-seat region, then if he is nuked to the point of only having a seat left he is dead (leaders in a bunker would be no good on their own). Not sure about the option for the following player to let the first guy going for nuclear war to get eliminated though? It would make more sense that the nuclear war continues, although that negates your original idea.

As for splitting Europe into generic areas... I'm not in favor as two of the Security Council powers are Britain and France. Europe was one of the most important fronts of the Cold War, imo.

Agreed. Europe is already combined-up a lot in my diagram, about as far as I think we should go? Iberiia, Scandinavia, Baltics, Central Europe (Austria and Switzerland), Benelux and The Eastern Block (which we should split into at least two). We have to combine-up a certain extent with the size of some european countries but I think this is as far as we can go and we are resigned to an inset with the UK being small but having a prominent role.

Tokle's point does remind us that Europe may be an area of compromise. As it stands currently, can we limit the inset to UK, France and Benelux? That would leave Berlin on the main map somehow, and I also wonder if Greece would be big enough to squeeze in army circles and a conflict symbol?

And Turkey was a key piece to NATO. Italy was in early on as well I think.

I have Turkey coloured dark as a NATO member and can change Italy if you like. I went for light blue for Iberia as Spain wasn't in, although Portugal was.

[theBastard]

I like the idea. a little suggestions from me (perhaps any was mentioned here, but I did not read every post entirely):

1, not all Communist countries was in Warsaw pact (WP later). so what about to do Communist countries and other sort - members of WP? more if there is NATO added to map... so do they light red?
2, than you can have there countries with "unbalanced" reign - so sometimes there were stronger Communists sometimes Capitalsts. (Egypt, India, Nepal, Syria in your map)
3, divide Communist East Europe to two parts - Bulgaria + Romania + Hungary and Czechoslovakia + Poland + German Democratic Republic
4, Austria was not member of NATO. hm, but there is a few area in Europe to show everything (Portugal as foundation member, Ireland is not member...) - look at notice 5
5, do not divide NATO countries to Foundation members and others - do all countries as NATO members, because WP was founded in 1955 and to this date were mostly all members in NATO (except Spain...)
6, do Italy as member of NATO

members of Warsaw Pact (founded in 1955 - this date could be as "start" of map). colour red:
- Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, GDR, Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland
other communist countries (maybe some could be as Conflict countries?). coloured light red:
- Yugoslavia, South Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Congo, Benin, Mongolia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, Cuba (many of them was members or supported by Comecon)

[Victor Sullivan]

Kinda skimmed, so forgive me if I suggest things that have already been mentioned:

1. 2 objectives for each set of countries (blue and red - maybe something along the lines of - control all neutral territory)
2. Receive a negative bonus for holding both a red and blue territory.

Looking good, DJ, keep it up!

-Sully

[Teflon Kris]

Here's a few changes incorporated:

Click image to enlarge.

Carribean conflict added, Pakistan made light blue, Eastern Block split in two (not sure what they should be called though) etc.

I have used a wikipedia map I found of 1980 African allegiances, not sure how accurate it is. Should some regions be two-colour, although I prefer Sully's idea that hlding blues and reds cancels the alliance bonuses? Maybe we can make use of African nations with changing allegiance to colour them as we need for alliance-bonus balance?

show: African Allegiance Map

I'm figuring the next job is to post a bonus system, then fiddle around with a curved map and distort so that the top quarter / third bends away to reduce the relative size of the US and USSR (& Europe) and give more focus to Latin America, Africa and Southern Asia.

[24Keyser]

i like this one!