BluU wrote:Some other flags you need to change so they will meet the history timeframe:
Persia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_ ... 910%29.svg
I think : Arginitina should be Argentina
I think Russia should be listed as USSR. If you keep Russia, you should change the flag.
koontz1973 wrote:In fact we are both wrong on the flag Oneyed. Your one is for 1918-1925. That is to late in the time line as the League was around 1916.
koontz1973 wrote:This should be the correct one. The dates are 1883-1918.
koontz1973 wrote:The connections where mainly done for European powers, blocs of influence, trading partners at the time. Some others where added to balance game play. But more than will for you to suggest adding or taking away of any if it helps.
Oneyed wrote:sorry me, but many states did not exist in 1916... maybe move the date after World War I or add there relevant states?
I thought that date is after WWI when I look at states. then this is valid flag from 1914 - 1917, I think.
I do not understand why for example UK has not connection to India (its colony)? will look more into this when will be more clear date or states.
koontz1973 wrote:I know a lot did not exist at some point in the time frame. But all of the ones on the board belonged to the League of Nations and did exist within the time frame of 1916-1919 when the League of Nations came about.
koontz1973 wrote:Uk has no connection to India as the two sides do not connect. Do not think of the connections as India belonged to the UK and therefore must have a connection. If you look at the League of Nations or the UN, the seating of diplomats is done in alphabetical order of country. Not who has alliances with who, this is why I did the countries like this. As for the time frame, the League was a body that was set up in 1916 but never really came about. It was the initial idea though that brought about the league of nations. So USA is on the map as it started the League, but it never joined the League of Nations.
While the First World War was still underway, a number of governments and groups had already started developing plans to change the way international relations were carried out to try to prevent another such conflict. United States President Woodrow Wilson and his adviser Colonel Edward M. House enthusiastically promoted the idea of the League as a means of avoiding any repetition of the bloodshed of the First World War, and the creation of the League was a centrepiece of Wilson's Fourteen Points for Peace. Specifically the final point stated: "A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.
it not would be better to do map about UN? you have the core of idea (very good btw) and you can also use Security Council with veto power, you can "divide" UN by blocks during cold war and so on.
koontz1973 wrote:I would of loved to do this but copyright of a lot of the material stopped me.
koontz1973 wrote:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics joined the league of nations on the 18 September 1934; expelled 14 December 1939. Germany joined the league of nations on the 8 September 1926; withdrew 19 October 1933. But this is not the League of Nations.
koontz1973 wrote:The map is fictional.
this solve everything. and allows you to be totaly free
now about gameplay: could be number of held countries (5) which allows player to attack Military action or Diplomats higher? lets say 7? I assume that all countries will be divided between players as starting positions, yes?
koontz1973 wrote:Think of the map like Arms Race, the two sides are the same as the two maps on that map.
koontz1973 wrote:I need to make sure both sides have he same total bonus so that still needs to be looked at.
koontz1973 wrote:What I mean is if you hold all of the left side, you get (x)bonus, the right side should be the same.
koontz1973 wrote:The neutrals for both routes to win are equal so should the left side only attack Military action and the right diplomats? This would mean the the middle map would come into play a lot more.
koontz1973 wrote:this solve everything. and allows you to be totaly free
Correct, whilst the map has a grain of truth to it, started as an idea, followed by the LofN, followed by the UN, it is purely fictional. That is why the country in the middle has no name to it. But I used African capital names that are no longer capitals. Abidjan was the former capital to the Ivory coast.now about gameplay: could be number of held countries (5) which allows player to attack Military action or Diplomats higher? lets say 7? I assume that all countries will be divided between players as starting positions, yes?
No problem raising it.
And yes, all countries will be divided. Only the centre will start as all neutral.
Think of the map like Arms Race, the two sides are the same as the two maps on that map. The middle are the rockets. I need to make sure both sides have he same total bonus so that still needs to be looked at. What I mean is if you hold all of the left side, you get (x)bonus, the right side should be the same.
The neutrals for both routes to win are equal so should the left side only attack Military action and the right diplomats? This would mean the the middle map would come into play a lot more.
DJ Teflon wrote:Shame - I like it
Users browsing this forum: Eddygp