Moderator: Cartographers
Industrial Helix wrote: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?
Nuclear War ... essentially a suicide button in singles games, but its also a tricky tool for team games
... 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
Industrial Helix wrote: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
Industrial Helix wrote:European inset looks like a must I think.
This might be a good chance to try out some other world projections
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.
DJ Teflon wrote:Industrial Helix wrote: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.
Industrial Helix wrote: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.
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users