WWI Ottoman Empire [Quenched]

[Qwert]

i must say that Name Constantinople is correct,and that these whas capital of Ottoman empire from 1453-1922.

It was officially renamed to its modern Turkish name Istanbul in 1930[

[cairnswk]

i must say that Name Constantinople is correct,and that these whas capital of Ottoman empire from 1453-1922.

It was officially renamed to its modern Turkish name Istanbul in 1930[

Yes that's the story i get also qwert.

[edbeard]

for the most part, everything is better.

I think you know some borders are still weird. armenia mostly.


the colours still are a problem for me. not the actual colours themselves but how you've spread them in the territories. If you compare Gallipoli and Andrianople, you'll see the contrast I'm talking about. this occurs throughout the map and I don't think it looks good.

another problem is that armenia on the legend on the map don't appear to have the same colour. I think the problem I talked about above contributes to this.



gameplay:

syria is worth more than +3. 5 territories and each are a border territory. it touches 5 continents and is attackable from 7 territories. +5 is probably more apt.

I might consider giving hussein of mecca +1 instead of +2

[whitestazn88]

i really like the color changes in the legend, and like i said earlier, like the bonus changes. keep up the good work

[Cdkutusu]

Thanks greatly Cdkutusu
Please realize that the reference maps i used...there were several versions of some names and Kars was shown in most of them as being in Russian hands -> it also makes for good gameplay to have it this way.
I will adjust the map to include the Turkish names, but should i use Turkey or Anatolia.

In Turkish, Turkey (Turkiye) is the whole country, European side and Asian side together, Anatolia (Anadolu) is the Peninsula only. So in this version it looks correct, since you use it for the Asian side only

Yes expect the colours to undergo a change in some way, i am just waiting on oaktown to visit to give his color-blind slant on these before making the changes.

That would be good

i had said in previous comments that the Vilayet statement would probably be removed, but i could leave it there with your suggestion.

I guess you can remove them, since they don't mean anything significant (almost every location you put had Vilayet status back in time ) and it would just complicate the map

Thanks again.

Not at all

Oh and about Constantinople, it was not used inside Ottoman Empire. We were calling it Istanbul as far as I remember.

Keep up the good work

[gimil]

[adv. idea]

lovely looking map cairns

[cairnswk]

[adv. idea]

lovely looking map cairns

Thanks Gimil

Current Version 4

[foregone]

May just be me but the seas are kinda looking like territories at the moment. They seem raised and the colour/texture/something gives it a feel of conquerability rather than water.

[Juan_Bottom]

Think they should be dark?

[cairnswk]

May just be me but the seas are kinda looking like territories at the moment. They seem raised and the colour/texture/something gives it a feel of conquerability rather than water.

Think they should be dark?

Version 5 Changes.
1. Sea made darker as per request above.
2. V. removed as is Vilayet.
3. Borders asjusted
4. Some territory colours adjusted

[foregone]

Seas much better in my opinion.

[cairnswk]

Seas much better in my opinion.

Kewl!

[Juan_Bottom]

I like the colors a lot better now too! Especially the water.

O SYRIA and H. of MECCA are a little too similer for my personal tastes, but you can tell them apart, so I can live with it.
But I still hate the bonuses.

I can't quit be certain though.... GELIBOLU isn't connected to BURSA is it? They don't look like it, I think...

Anyway nice job with the colors!

[whitestazn88]

seas look good. but i was wondering... why are italy and france neutral starts, but ottoman europe isnt?

[Incandenza]

seas look good. but i was wondering... why are italy and france neutral starts, but ottoman europe isnt?

'cause the former are 1-terit continents, whereas the latter is a 2-terit continent.

[Cdkutusu]

Things look better now, but maybe you should move Beirut a little right, now it looks like its a territory in Cyprus

And Kenia (Konya) is still left out ))

Keep up the good work

[cairnswk]

Current version 5

[Juan_Bottom]

seas look good. but i was wondering... why are italy and france neutral starts, but ottoman europe isnt?

'cause the former are 1-terit continents, whereas the latter is a 2-terit continent.

What if Italy and France together counted as a +1?

[cairnswk]

seas look good. but i was wondering... why are italy and france neutral starts, but ottoman europe isnt?

'cause the former are 1-terit continents, whereas the latter is a 2-terit continent.

What if Italy and France together counted as a +1?

That could be a possibility...i'll have a think about that because ottoman europe is also a challenge with those two terts over there.

one of those terts: Gallipoli or Adrianople should start neutral also.

to get around that, we could have o.europe a a bonus if it is held in conjunction with Constantinople.
That would give them something to fight for and alleviate the two terts issue, although there is still a probability that someone will get an easy drop there and hold that after one attack.

[Juan_Bottom]

Adding a port there(was there one? a makshift one?) might also take care of the problem. But I would prefer to keep the map as accurate historically as you can...

[Cdkutusu]

maybe if you add a path to attack from egypt to Gelibolu, it would make sense. In that case if somebody takes over those 2 and moves inside anadolu he must leave some armies to guard Gelibolu too (there was a huge battle there back in time)

[Cdkutusu]

Adding a port there(was there one? a makshift one?) might also take care of the problem. But I would prefer to keep the map as accurate historically as you can...

In Gelibolu? Maybe, not sure though... But there was a huge battle there, Allies tried to push through the Straits towards Black See.

So that would be accurate

[Juan_Bottom]

Adding a port there(was there one? a makshift one?) might also take care of the problem. But I would prefer to keep the map as accurate historically as you can...

In Gelibolu? Maybe, not sure though... But there was a huge battle there, Allies tried to push through the Straits towards Black See.

So that would be accurate

No on the Italian-French border. Each of those are worth +1, and start nuetral. But with a port, or by combining them into a single "continent" for a +1 you would have to start them as nuetral.

I'd bet Gelibolu turns into a huge battle as is....

[Cdkutusu]

I'd suggest connecting them into one as well, otherwise it can be unfair for those who gets a lucky drop

[cairnswk]

Adding a port there(was there one? a makshift one?) might also take care of the problem. But I would prefer to keep the map as accurate historically as you can...

In Gelibolu? Maybe, not sure though... But there was a huge battle there, Allies tried to push through the Straits towards Black See.

So that would be accurate

No on the Italian-French border. Each of those are worth +1, and start nuetral. But with a port, or by combining them into a single "continent" for a +1 you would have to start them as nuetral.

I'd bet Gelibolu turns into a huge battle as is....

I'm reading everything guys.....i was thinking of having the british being able to attack in Gelibolu from Egypt....this would replicate the Gallipoli Campaign that the Allies lost in 1915, but i'm not sure if the attack was launched from Egypt or somewhere else.

Version 6...the Gallipoli Campaign added as a one-way attack.




OK, just did a search and there is a link here
http://www.nashos.org.au/21_hist_II.htm
that states the embarkation point for this battalion was Alexandria...so that would fit in perfectly. I'll have to add a port to alexAndria, and hope the hell that it doesn't confuse everyone.

That might also alleviate the need to have neutrals in O. Europe.