League [17/1] [V5] [P1/2]

[Oneyed]

koontz, I am afraid that we again will fall into neverending disputation
the first time was League mentioned in 1919. it was established in 1920. the Russia was never member and also USA. 58 countries was the highest number of members.

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.

as I wrote, not USA, Russia. I think also Germany was not member, maybe later.

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.

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.

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

You are thinking of the league of nations. This was the forerunner and only an idea.

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.[15] 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.[18] 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.

The League as Woodrow Wilson envisioned it never came about, but it is the starting means of the map. The map is fictional.

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.

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.

I would of loved to do this but copyright of a lot of the material stopped me. That was my first plan. I then looked at the League of Nations, again hit copyright issues (Name, logos, flags are all copyrighted). But when looking at LofN, I found the above passage about the idea for Woodrow Wilson. This never was, so no copyright issues and has allowed me to do a League of Nations/UN map without mentioning them. I have all of the elements of a that map without ever saying LofN/UN or security council. I went historic for this reason. This is why the map is based around the idea (1916-1918). It allows me to be liberal with countries like the United States as it was only an idea. It may not of been in the LofN, but to balance the sides it was the most logical inclusion as the idea was from a US president.
The League of Nations members. 63 countries where members at one time or another. All of these members are on the map with the inclusion of the USA.

[Oneyed]

I would of loved to do this but copyright of a lot of the material stopped me.

this would be great. what about fictional map about UN

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.

This is why the map is based around the idea (1916-1918). It allows me to be liberal with countries like the United States as it was only an idea.
63 countries where members at one time or another. All of these members are on the map with the inclusion of the USA.[/quote]

wait, the map is from 1916 - 1918 or map is based on idea from 1916 - 1918 but covers also later years (1926, 1934...)?

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?

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

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?

Oneyed

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.

[Oneyed]

Think of the map like Arms Race, the two sides are the same as the two maps on that map.

I understand you, but this is not exactly the same situation. but I think that non connection between right-left side is fine.

I need to make sure both sides have he same total bonus so that still needs to be looked at.

at the first try to find good balanced system of crosses betwen red/blue/white. I found that some countries have acess to two coloured routes. maybe add one red/white, one red/blue, one blue/white to both sides. and these countries could start as n3.

What I mean is if you hold all of the left side, you get (x)bonus, the right side should be the same.

the problem could be +1 for every adjacent countries. is this the same as in Cairo map? so +1 for 3, +2 for 4...?

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.

no. I think allow both sides to attack Military and also Diplomats. it is on player which way he use for intervetion.

Oneyed

[elonpuckhog]

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?

Oneyed

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.

I disagree with the bolded part. I don't think both sides necessarily have to be equal. There can be an advantage to one side over the other. I know we'll hear complaints about drops and so forth, but thats part of the game.
This map looks good. Looking forward to being able to play it relatively soonish.

[elonpuckhog]

Any updates to this one lately?

[koontz1973]

Any updates to this one lately?

It is dead as no support.

Out of all my maps, this is the one that I wanted to make a play over the last year, but not enough players wanted it.

[Teflon Kris]

Shame - I like it

[sempaispellcheck]

Shame - I like it

Me too, but I haven't yet found the time I'll probably need to get my head all the way around it.

sempai